Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Hello everyone,
I am a pretty new practitioner of Buddhism from the west. One of the things which I am doing my best to internalize and understand is Karma and Rebirth, and how it relates to non-self (and by extension, sunyata, since, as I understand it, sunyata is like non-self applied to everything. Everything is devoid of inherent self-nature).
As I understand it, karmic fruit forms the experiences we undergo in our lifetimes. So, I do something here and now, and this karma plants a seed. That seed will fruit in the future when conditions are ripe. It may fruit in this lifetime, which then forms the basis of a new experience in the current lifetime. Or, alternatively, it may come to fruit long after this body has conked out, forming part of the basis for what we call a future lifetime. I say that we call it that, keeping in mind that in the absolute sense, birth and death aren't a thing, which is admittedly also a stumbling block for me. But from what I understand, the "self" we identify with is just a smokescreen. There is really only the experiences that are experienced, which are the fruition of karma. There is no inherent self to be found in the process of experience and sensory contact, craving and aversion in reaction to that contact, and then further volitional action which plants further karmic seeds in the ground.
Here is where it gets tricky though. One of my causes is my parents having sex, and sperm fertilizing an egg. I.E., they took an action, and this provisional existence resulted from that. Furthermore, the context of the sex, the actions taken during pregnancy by my parents, and the way they raised me all are conditions upon which my current experience rests. And these are all deeply tied with moral actions, and thus fall within the sway of Karma. The way they raised me is a significant moral question, as there are clearly right and wrong ways to raise a child. And this had an effect on their life as well as mine. In the ways they raised me well, they derived joy and happiness from that, and vice versa for the ways they didn't.
So am I the fruit of not only "my" karmic stream, but also that of my parents as well? This would fit well with the idea of non-self because it means my identity is profoundly external to anything I could define as me or mine. After all, if I am the fruit of my parents karma, then I am also the fruit of the karma of every person I've interacted with, and many that I haven't because of indirect butterfly effects.
And if not, then what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
Admittedly this topic occupies my mindspace perhaps more than it should, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
I am a pretty new practitioner of Buddhism from the west. One of the things which I am doing my best to internalize and understand is Karma and Rebirth, and how it relates to non-self (and by extension, sunyata, since, as I understand it, sunyata is like non-self applied to everything. Everything is devoid of inherent self-nature).
As I understand it, karmic fruit forms the experiences we undergo in our lifetimes. So, I do something here and now, and this karma plants a seed. That seed will fruit in the future when conditions are ripe. It may fruit in this lifetime, which then forms the basis of a new experience in the current lifetime. Or, alternatively, it may come to fruit long after this body has conked out, forming part of the basis for what we call a future lifetime. I say that we call it that, keeping in mind that in the absolute sense, birth and death aren't a thing, which is admittedly also a stumbling block for me. But from what I understand, the "self" we identify with is just a smokescreen. There is really only the experiences that are experienced, which are the fruition of karma. There is no inherent self to be found in the process of experience and sensory contact, craving and aversion in reaction to that contact, and then further volitional action which plants further karmic seeds in the ground.
Here is where it gets tricky though. One of my causes is my parents having sex, and sperm fertilizing an egg. I.E., they took an action, and this provisional existence resulted from that. Furthermore, the context of the sex, the actions taken during pregnancy by my parents, and the way they raised me all are conditions upon which my current experience rests. And these are all deeply tied with moral actions, and thus fall within the sway of Karma. The way they raised me is a significant moral question, as there are clearly right and wrong ways to raise a child. And this had an effect on their life as well as mine. In the ways they raised me well, they derived joy and happiness from that, and vice versa for the ways they didn't.
So am I the fruit of not only "my" karmic stream, but also that of my parents as well? This would fit well with the idea of non-self because it means my identity is profoundly external to anything I could define as me or mine. After all, if I am the fruit of my parents karma, then I am also the fruit of the karma of every person I've interacted with, and many that I haven't because of indirect butterfly effects.
And if not, then what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
Admittedly this topic occupies my mindspace perhaps more than it should, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9397
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Regarding the butterfly effect, it’s regarded as true, in Buddhism, that all phenomena including living beings arise from and infinite web of causes and conditions. It’s known as co-dependent arising, or more recently, “interbeing” (a term used by Thich Nhat Hahn).Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:49 am So am I the fruit of not only "my" karmic stream, but also that of my parents as well? This would fit well with the idea of non-self because it means my identity is profoundly external to anything I could define as me or mine. After all, if I am the fruit of my parents karma, then I am also the fruit of the karma of every person I've interacted with, and many that I haven't because of indirect butterfly effects.
And if not, then what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
Admittedly this topic occupies my mindspace perhaps more than it should, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Relatively speaking, you can say “self” referring to characteristics that differentiate you from someone else. It’s like calling your left hand your left hand and your right hand your right hand. Your left is not your right and Vice versa.
But that’s “relatively speaking”, meaning relative to each other. But if you examine either hand, you’ll find skin and fingernails and wrinkles and muscles but you won’t find any “self” essence or “hand-ness anywhere.
The karmic seeds and fruition of actions of the body, speech, and mind are unique for each person, but they don’t add up a “self”, or what Buddhism refers to as “atman”, sometimes translated as the “soul”). Such atman would have to be self-arisen, and not the product of other factors.
There’s nothing to prevent you from calling your individual stream of consciousness “self” and clinging to it. That’s what 99.99% of beings do.
Doing that is also exactly what the Buddha identified as, ultimately, being the cause of suffering. The reason why it is the cause of suffering is because the idea of “self” is unchanging, and the world is constantly changing.
So, yeah, nothing is preventing you from doing that, or from hitting yourself with a hammer. But neither one will lead to a state of satisfaction and peace of mind.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Thank you for this! Your statement that the uniqueness of karmic fruits do not imply a self gets to the core of my question and answers it well. I actually have a follow-up question. You said that the self would need to be self-arisen, and therefore permanent and not a product of other factors. I recently listened to a dharma talk from Ven. Guo Goang of Dharma Drum Mountain however, where she said that dharma-nature (which I think is a synonym for Buddha nature in this context) is not empty, because it is unchanging. This makes sense, as the underlying dharma-nature of reality is described as emptiness, but emptiness itself does not change, things are, have always been and will always be empty. But at the same time I was under the impression that EVERYTHING is empty. When this is said, is it meant to mean that all phenomena are empty or that EVERYTHING including things like Buddha nature and emptiness as well as phenomena are empty? If Buddha nature is not empty, does this fit the characteristics of a self, and if so, why would clinging to Buddha nature cause suffering?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 4:21 amRegarding the butterfly effect, it’s regarded as true, in Buddhism, that all phenomena including living beings arise from and infinite web of causes and conditions. It’s known as co-dependent arising, or more recently, “interbeing” (a term used by Thich Nhat Hahn).Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:49 am So am I the fruit of not only "my" karmic stream, but also that of my parents as well? This would fit well with the idea of non-self because it means my identity is profoundly external to anything I could define as me or mine. After all, if I am the fruit of my parents karma, then I am also the fruit of the karma of every person I've interacted with, and many that I haven't because of indirect butterfly effects.
And if not, then what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
Admittedly this topic occupies my mindspace perhaps more than it should, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Relatively speaking, you can say “self” referring to characteristics that differentiate you from someone else. It’s like calling your left hand your left hand and your right hand your right hand. Your left is not your right and Vice versa.
But that’s “relatively speaking”, meaning relative to each other. But if you examine either hand, you’ll find skin and fingernails and wrinkles and muscles but you won’t find any “self” essence or “hand-ness anywhere.
The karmic seeds and fruition of actions of the body, speech, and mind are unique for each person, but they don’t add up a “self”, or what Buddhism refers to as “atman”, sometimes translated as the “soul”). Such atman would have to be self-arisen, and not the product of other factors.
There’s nothing to prevent you from calling your individual stream of consciousness “self” and clinging to it. That’s what 99.99% of beings do.
Doing that is also exactly what the Buddha identified as, ultimately, being the cause of suffering. The reason why it is the cause of suffering is because the idea of “self” is unchanging, and the world is constantly changing.
So, yeah, nothing is preventing you from doing that, or from hitting yourself with a hammer. But neither one will lead to a state of satisfaction and peace of mind.
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9397
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Although Buddha-nature (tathagatagharba) is a noun, it should be thought of more like an adjective. It refers to the mind’s originally unobscured state, and also the potential of the mind to return to that original state. It’s like saying that the original nature of muddy water is clear.Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:51 pm
Thank you for this! Your statement that the uniqueness of karmic fruits do not imply a self gets to the core of my question and answers it well. I actually have a follow-up question. You said that the self would need to be self-arisen, and therefore permanent and not a product of other factors. I recently listened to a dharma talk from Ven. Guo Goang of Dharma Drum Mountain however, where she said that dharma-nature (which I think is a synonym for Buddha nature in this context) is not empty, because it is unchanging. This makes sense, as the underlying dharma-nature of reality is described as emptiness, but emptiness itself does not change, things are, have always been and will always be empty. But at the same time I was under the impression that EVERYTHING is empty. When this is said, is it meant to mean that all phenomena are empty or that EVERYTHING including things like Buddha nature and emptiness as well as phenomena are empty? If Buddha nature is not empty, does this fit the characteristics of a self, and if so, why would clinging to Buddha nature cause suffering?
So, the question of whether it is empty, or permanent doesn’t really apply.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
I think I understand this reasoning (at an intellectual level anyway). Thank you!PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:09 amAlthough Buddha-nature (tathagatagharba) is a noun, it should be thought of more like an adjective. It refers to the mind’s originally unobscured state, and also the potential of the mind to return to that original state. It’s like saying that the original nature of muddy water is clear.Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 7:51 pm
Thank you for this! Your statement that the uniqueness of karmic fruits do not imply a self gets to the core of my question and answers it well. I actually have a follow-up question. You said that the self would need to be self-arisen, and therefore permanent and not a product of other factors. I recently listened to a dharma talk from Ven. Guo Goang of Dharma Drum Mountain however, where she said that dharma-nature (which I think is a synonym for Buddha nature in this context) is not empty, because it is unchanging. This makes sense, as the underlying dharma-nature of reality is described as emptiness, but emptiness itself does not change, things are, have always been and will always be empty. But at the same time I was under the impression that EVERYTHING is empty. When this is said, is it meant to mean that all phenomena are empty or that EVERYTHING including things like Buddha nature and emptiness as well as phenomena are empty? If Buddha nature is not empty, does this fit the characteristics of a self, and if so, why would clinging to Buddha nature cause suffering?
So, the question of whether it is empty, or permanent doesn’t really apply.
-
- Posts: 1114
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 11:39 am
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
The emptiness of the pot is empty since it depends upon the pot. Emptiness is not a separate thing outside or inside the pot. So just like a separate potness that doesn't rely on anything else can't be found, so too the emptiness of the pot when looked for can't be found.
The antidote—to be free from the suffering of samsara—you need to be free from delusion and karma; you need to be free from ignorance, the root of samsara. So you need to meditate on emptiness. That is what you need. Lama Zopa Rinpoche
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
According to Nagarjuna you do not exist without a vast number of causes, that have preceded your present moment of existence. These previous causes or factors are you, because you would not exist without them. You only have the erroneous idea that you posses a separate individual existence, which you do not posses. What are these causes? They are the material elements that you have consumed as food and drink during your lifetime, and the oxygen that you are breathing. They are the genes that you have inhereted. They are you parents and their parents and all the preceding species of animals... until we come to the strange creatures of the Cambrian explosion some 450 000 000 years ago. In Buddhism these causes are also not only your past karmic formations during innumerable lifetimes during numberless kalpas, but they are also the karmic formations of your parents and their parents, etc... ad infinitum. You would not exist without them, thus they are part of you.Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:49 am Hello everyone,
I am a pretty new practitioner of Buddhism from the west. One of the things which I am doing my best to internalize and understand is Karma and Rebirth, and how it relates to non-self (and by extension, sunyata, since, as I understand it, sunyata is like non-self applied to everything. Everything is devoid of inherent self-nature).
As I understand it, karmic fruit forms the experiences we undergo in our lifetimes. So, I do something here and now, and this karma plants a seed. That seed will fruit in the future when conditions are ripe. It may fruit in this lifetime, which then forms the basis of a new experience in the current lifetime. Or, alternatively, it may come to fruit long after this body has conked out, forming part of the basis for what we call a future lifetime. I say that we call it that, keeping in mind that in the absolute sense, birth and death aren't a thing, which is admittedly also a stumbling block for me. But from what I understand, the "self" we identify with is just a smokescreen. There is really only the experiences that are experienced, which are the fruition of karma. There is no inherent self to be found in the process of experience and sensory contact, craving and aversion in reaction to that contact, and then further volitional action which plants further karmic seeds in the ground.
Here is where it gets tricky though. One of my causes is my parents having sex, and sperm fertilizing an egg. I.E., they took an action, and this provisional existence resulted from that. Furthermore, the context of the sex, the actions taken during pregnancy by my parents, and the way they raised me all are conditions upon which my current experience rests. And these are all deeply tied with moral actions, and thus fall within the sway of Karma. The way they raised me is a significant moral question, as there are clearly right and wrong ways to raise a child. And this had an effect on their life as well as mine. In the ways they raised me well, they derived joy and happiness from that, and vice versa for the ways they didn't.
So am I the fruit of not only "my" karmic stream, but also that of my parents as well? This would fit well with the idea of non-self because it means my identity is profoundly external to anything I could define as me or mine. After all, if I am the fruit of my parents karma, then I am also the fruit of the karma of every person I've interacted with, and many that I haven't because of indirect butterfly effects.
And if not, then what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
Admittedly this topic occupies my mindspace perhaps more than it should, but I really want to wrap my head around this. Any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Last edited by Aemilius on Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
svaha
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Sarvē mānavāḥ svatantrāḥ samutpannāḥ vartantē api ca, gauravadr̥śā adhikāradr̥śā ca samānāḥ ēva vartantē. Ētē sarvē cētanā-tarka-śaktibhyāṁ susampannāḥ santi. Api ca, sarvē’pi bandhutva-bhāvanayā parasparaṁ vyavaharantu."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 1. (in english and sanskrit)
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:46 pm
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
The way I understand anatta (non-self) is from a whole-part point of view. Look at the letter A. A is A, but break it down into /, -, \ and now where is A? This is what Buudhists are talking about by interdependence or interbeing in me humble opinion, truth seeker!
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9397
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
Yes. The Buddha used the example of an ox cart. If you take it apart, you have wheels, axle, bed, but is there some cart-essence (like a soul or self ) to which all of those parts belong? No.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:58 am The way I understand anatta (non-self) is from a whole-part point of view. Look at the letter A. A is A, but break it down into /, -, \ and now where is A? This is what Buudhists are talking about by interdependence or interbeing in me humble opinion, truth seeker!
Applying this to the topic question, “whose karmic fruit am I?” There’s no “A-essence” that exists when ‘A’ is broken down into its parts. Yet, the construction we call ‘A’ is a specific construction. It’s pointy.
If it were a circle, would we call it O or perhaps Q?
But that’s the point. We can’t say “if you write A as O” because there is no “A” beyond the construction of its parts. Either you are writing A or you are writing O.
But there is a slight difference that the analogy of alphabet letters doesn’t cover. In terms of what Buddhists regard as rebirth, we would have to say that the letter A arises and falls away, while creating the causes for a new letter A to occur. In other words, there is no constant being, no ‘self’ that hops from one lifetime to the next, taking one physical body off and putting another one on.
It’s the imprints in the mind stream during this life which create what will arise after this life is over and a new life begins. That’s the karma.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17070
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
You are your own karmic fruit.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- PadmaVonSamba
- Posts: 9397
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
There’s nothing preventing you from calling an individual consciousness a ‘Self’ and clinging to it. In fact, that’s what most people do, which the Buddha pointed out is the root cause of ‘suffering’.Mdg137 wrote: ↑Wed Aug 17, 2022 2:49 am what prevents me from calling an individual consciousness stream a "self" and clinging to it? Even if I change day-to-day, minute-to-minute as the results of fruiting karma, all these fruits are purely my own, allowing me to claim ownership of them. This would seem to violate the non-self characteristic.
The thing is, you are approaching the entire question with the premise of a truly existent “me”, meaning a sort of owner of the experience.
As long as that’s the premise, any reasoning to the contrary simply won’t make sense. You can’t say “here I am but I’m not here”.
But you can say “nothing can be found in my experience which can be called a continuous ‘me’. “ in other words, where is this owner?
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
- Agent Smith
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2022 4:46 pm
Re: Karma and non-self question: Whose karmic fruit am I?
There's, it seems, a twist in the tale that's our collective karmic journey, oui mon ami?PadmaVonSamba wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 2:32 pmYes. The Buddha used the example of an ox cart. If you take it apart, you have wheels, axle, bed, but is there some cart-essence (like a soul or self ) to which all of those parts belong? No.Agent Smith wrote: ↑Sat Dec 03, 2022 7:58 am The way I understand anatta (non-self) is from a whole-part point of view. Look at the letter A. A is A, but break it down into /, -, \ and now where is A? This is what Buudhists are talking about by interdependence or interbeing in me humble opinion, truth seeker!
Applying this to the topic question, “whose karmic fruit am I?” There’s no “A-essence” that exists when ‘A’ is broken down into its parts. Yet, the construction we call ‘A’ is a specific construction. It’s pointy.
If it were a circle, would we call it O or perhaps Q?
But that’s the point. We can’t say “if you write A as O” because there is no “A” beyond the construction of its parts. Either you are writing A or you are writing O.
But there is a slight difference that the analogy of alphabet letters doesn’t cover. In terms of what Buddhists regard as rebirth, we would have to say that the letter A arises and falls away, while creating the causes for a new letter A to occur. In other words, there is no constant being, no ‘self’ that hops from one lifetime to the next, taking one physical body off and putting another one on.
It’s the imprints in the mind stream during this life which create what will arise after this life is over and a new life begins. That’s the karma.