According to the Buddha, what is samsara made of? 1. Karma? 2. All the Buddhist realms of existence? 3. Your moment by moment mind and body experiential arisings as they happen? 4. Isn't samsara what arises when you meditate satipatthana?

As per title. To be more specific: The rule, or the working way of Karma - is it part of the world and thus uniquely determined within the formation of our world? Or is the working way of Karma some superior rule higher than the formation of our world, that all worlds (we know Buddhism believe there are many parallel worlds in time and space) follow a same set of Karma rule? Take as an example, SA 527 , which says: > a novice monk stole monk's 7 fruits, so he was punished by Karma, that he fell into hell for many lives, and even if he reincarnate into a human after these sufferings, hot iron bullets will penetrate his body from time to time Is such karmaphala penalty for stealing monk's fruits (i.e. falling into hell and later becoming a human penetrated by bullets), - (a) the same or similar across all worlds, or - (b) unique of our world, or - (c) unique only to Sakyamuni Buddha's era in our world? There is a similar question but not well-answered either. ------------------- Note this question is not "is Karma part of materialistic world". Karma itself is obviously bound with sentients in this world, but I want to know whether the rule of Karma also bound to us.

This question was inspired by [an earlier one](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/51807/do-any-sub-sects-of-buddhism-have-the-concept-of-eternal-hell) . In [DN27](https://suttacentral.net/dn27/en/sujato#10.2) , it was mentioned: > As the cosmos contracts, sentient beings are mostly headed for the realm of streaming radiance. I recalled hearing a Dharma talk ages ago that as a great aeon ends, all the lower realms are emptied (perhaps, destroyed?) and beings are reborn into the higher realms. This appeared to be what the above sutra is alluding to. Correct me if I am wrong. Does this mean that all the hell beings (even those in the lowest hell) will also be promoted to the higher realm? What happens to their bad karma, is it suspended? Or is the contraction of the universe halted until these beings had expired their bad karma?

Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me: As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed. Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma. This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana. Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

This question came to me from over thinking the "Angulimala" story. He had to "repent" to some extent for the murders he committed, by being scolded an hit by stones. However, the effect of the karma seems to be quite mild for 999 murders and even the intention to kill the Buddha. So my question is this: Does your karma have to be neutral or positive to become enlightened? And if not, what happens to the negative karma after attaining enlightenment?

Buddhist ethics centrally upholds the precept against taking life, But in modern society there are many professions such as soldiers, military commanders, police officers, and judges whose duties may involve lethal force whether directly (combat, armed enforcement) or indirectly (authorizing executions, issuing orders with foreseeable deadly outcomes). From a Buddhist perspective, how should we understand the karmic implications for individuals in such roles? According to canonical or commentarial sources, how is killing performed under state mandate classified in terms of akusala-kamma? Is it treated identically to private intentional killing, or do texts differentiate between personal motive and institutional role? How does the primacy of cetanā (intention) apply when one participates in lethal actions not out of personal malice but as part of an institutional duty? Furthermore Is there doctrinal room for someone to maintain sincere Buddhist practice while performing duties like the above that may involve lethal force?

As per title. I read the English translation of the heart sutra recently.If Karma is part of the Dharma, or is the Dharma, does this mean that Karma is not created or destroyed, and it neither decreases or increase, according to the heart sutra?

If, according to Buddhist doctrine, it is not the ego-consciousness but merely karmic continuity that transmigrates across rebirths, then on what grounds should one be motivated to seek liberation from saṃsāra? Since there is no enduring self that experiences the cumulative burden or existential drudgery of suffering across lives, and since the sufferings of past or future existences are not personally felt by the present individual, what compelling basis remains for the soteriological urgency central to Buddhist thought?

A friend wanted to know the Buddhist position on rebirth/reincarnation since we don’t believe in a permanent soul. Specifically, what is it that pass from this life to the next? “Karma” was my reply then. There was a look of disappointment; the answer was obviously unsatisfying. I have seen this question asked in this forum in some form or another; here (1) , here (2) , here (3) , here (4) , here (5) , here (6) and there (7) . Looking at the number of times this topic appears, I am not trying to get a definitive answer. Instead, how would you answer this question so that it can enlighten/delight/pacify someone from a non-Buddhist tradition (with some inclinations towards an eternal soul). Note that the target audience do not have a deep understanding in Buddhist concepts e.g. the 5 clinging aggregates. Hopefully, the next time another non-Buddhist friend ask a similar question, I won't turn them off but to **entice** them to investigate further. (Interestingly, looking at the tag info on rebirth in this forum, it says: “The consciousness in the new person is neither identical nor entirely different from that in the deceased but the two form a causal continuum or stream”, I wonder who wrote this.)

The sutta below states that eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma. Why are these called old kamma (*purāṇakammā*)? Is it because of rebirth? Or could there be other reasons? If rebirth is the only reason, then I feel that this explanation seems too simple. From SN 35.146 : > And what is old kamma? > > The eye is old kamma. It should be seen as produced by choices and > intentions, as something to be felt. > > The ear … nose … tongue … body … mind is old kamma. It should be seen > as produced by choices and intentions, as something to be felt. > > This is called old kamma. > > And what is new kamma? > > The deeds you currently perform by way of body, speech, and mind. > > This is called new kamma. (I replaced "action" with "kamma")

What is the source of the Buddha telling his disciples about why Maha Moggallan had died. Moggallan died in the laps of the Buddha? Is it so?

What are the kammas resulting in missing opportunities or seizing opportunities ?

If there's no specific purpose in life, If we have to give meaning to life by ourselves, then why doing good and bad matters ?

As i was told pinpotha is a traditional book used by sri lankan lay people. It is used to keep a track of all the good things they do. I made a digital version of pinpotha (epinpotha.lk ). Can someone explain me the real concept behind this.

By that I mean, an oak tree that doesn't have a sudden death from fire or being cut down or whatever, will for all intents and purposes live many years. Everyone who comes and visits the tree will see generally the same tree. Of course, the tree is never the "same" moment to moment, every atom is being swapped out and moving around, radiation is coming and going, branches and leaves fall off and regrow, etc.. But still, if I visit the tree today, and you visit it 1 year from now (in the middle of the tree's life), the tree is still "there" (even though it might be slightly different). Everyone who walks by will point "there is a tree over there". It's persistent across time and space, for some period. I understand that everything is technically an "illusion". We are all one unified flow of stuff, and the idea of a self or independence is an illusion in the grand scheme of things. But still, within the illusion, there are basically "natural physical laws of the universe" you could say. It's not like all of a sudden, "zap", the tree is an elephant when you visit. Then boom (magic wand), it is a car, then later it is a piece of cotton, or a sun, etc.. Or it magically jumps around in space. That is, there is some sort of structure somewhat independent of me that obeys some sort of rules to stay somewhat consistent in time and space. Even if my "mind" is projecting this experience or interpretation of such a tree illusion.... Everyone's mind is basically projecting a roughly similar illusion. I saw an example of a "river" from somewhere: > - A deva sees a river as a stream of gems. > - A human sees it as water. > - A hungry ghost sees it as a river of pus and blood. Sure, fine. But it's still at least perceived as a general "flow" by all. A continuous stream. It's not like it's a rock to some and an animal to others, and a river to everyone else. Or an explosion of rippling radiation or some other dispersed and hard to imagine network/system of many things.... It's still a flow, in time and space. Maybe to a fast-moving light-being, it is like a slow moving game of tetris, etc.. But it is still moving! If you account for the change in perspective, you have the same overall "flow" in the place. So my question is, at least in Yogācāra Buddhism (or other schools deeply analyzing consciousness to that degree), how do they account for this? My understanding so far is that, in Yogācāra, everything is mind. Everything is consciousness, from the base consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). So then my question becomes "how do you account for physical form then"? To which they respond (it seems) with, "it's a mental projection". Okay, sure, MY experience of a form is a mental projection in my own mind, but that doesn't change the fact that the form is persistent in time and space (like the tree!). How does Yogācāra account for that? But then my reading/understanding of Yogācāra perspective is basically that: > All appearances, including persistent physical forms like trees, are manifestations of consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) arising from causal seeds (bīja) stored in the storehouse consciousness (ālaya-vijñāna). Basically, the tree is a co-constructed, stable illusion due to ongoing karmic resonance, not an independent material substance. Its form is projected within consciousness, but projected in accordance with karmic law, which behaves much like physical law. Something like that is very hard for me to comprehend, and feels circular in reasoning somehow. Is there a way to explain how physical forms seem to persist in time and space, from this sort of mind-only perspective here? _Looking further, it seems they would say "all sentient beings who perceive the tree are doing so because they have karmic seeds that generate similar experiences." But that doesn't make any sense to me, that the tree's reality is based on everyone else's reality. Or something like that. That everything is based on everything else, and if one thing changes all of a sudden, the entire universe could change it's fundamental laws. Doesn't seem to jive with me yet. Maybe I'm also reading it wrong._

Was trying to help an undergrad with his assignment with another friend. This friend started advising the undergrad to use [ChatGPT](https://chat.openai.com) to do his assignments while the undergrad was complaining that it wasn’t very helpful for his programming module. I felt uneasy but the way the conversation went, this seems like a common thing. So, I am not sure. I wondered what is the correct Buddhist view on this. Is it breaking any precepts like lying (this is cheating, right?). Will it lead to long lasting harm and suffering from a karmic point of view? What would be the Buddha’s advice?

Meditation is powerful karma. But if someone practices meditation daily and wishes for **physical pleasure in future lives,** will it bring that kind of pleasure? Or does meditation only lead to a purified mind and higher realms, but not physical results like those gained through physical dāna?

I always have this question in My mind. in Buddhism, when we share the merit of our good deeds with devas or deceased relatives, does it reduce the strength of our own karma? In other words, does sharing or transferring our merit mean that we lose or lessen the karmic fruits we would otherwise receive?

I have often seen the [Anguttara Nikaya 4.77](https://accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html) being quoted as in [this post](https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/49150/causes-of-specific-illnesses-death) against pondering on the precise workings of karma. **My question:** is there a misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words thus misconstruing his intentions. My understanding on the Buddha’s caution on karma (in AN 4.77) is that we should not try to figure out its exact/precise/detailed workings if 1) we don’t have the tools (i.e. divine eye faculty or recollection of past lives) and 2) we don’t have the discernment or wisdom to see anicca and anatta in the process. The danger is that we may draw the wrong conclusion as was the case with [certain mentioned recluse](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html#fnt-5) in Brahmajala sutta. But the Buddha did not prevent anyone from having a deep understanding of paticca-samuppada (dependent-arising or conditionality) which is the basis of karma. And through the insights on conditionality, have a deeper understanding of karma; why it works in general. I believe a deeper understanding of karma is within our abilities as ordinary humans as we have the ability to observe, recall and analyse conditions and events in our lives. For example, if I am staring at the ceiling at 2 a.m. in the morning, unable to sleep and I tried to recall what I did to cause this, I may then remember giving in to temptation and drinking a nice cup of coffee after dinner. So, there was an unskillful craving involving certain pleasure and a bad consequence. This is observing karma-in-action and anyone can do it. Incidentally, I have friends who claimed to be able to drink coffee or tea just before hitting the bed and still sleep like a log. One common theme is that they don’t experience the caffeine-high like I do. Although I always find it strange why people drink coffee if they don’t get any pleasures from it. Whether we talk about karma or the other four niyamas, conditionality is their foundation. Millions of scientists, researchers and engineers all over the world are working hard daily, trying to tease out the conditioned causes that govern the phenomena of the world we lived in, from climate change to superconductivity. They are trying to harness their understanding to improve the lot of humanity. We should also deepen our understanding of karma for our own long-lasting well-being and happiness. If one is not in samsara, they need not bother with the rule of the game i.e. karma. But what choice do we have? Surely, the Buddha understand this and would want us to have a better grasp of karma to improve our own lives. ### Addendum: ### *Suppose we assume the Buddha intended for us to investigate the workings of karma through proper verification by keen observation, analysis and even experimenting on ourselves and not by mere speculation. Furthermore, if we assume this is possible because not all karmic fruits are from our or others’ past lives, many are the results of this life. Would we be doing an injustice to the Buddha by quoting him out-of-context with AN 4.77? Also, wouldn’t discouraging investigations into the workings of karma be totally inconsistent with the entire teachings of the Buddha?* *If we postulate the above is correct, how can we quote AN 4.77 in the right context without giving the wrong impression that the Buddha discouraged investigating and understanding the workings of karma?*

In Buddhism, bad Kamma begins with a bad intention. What can we say about animals, let's say a tiger or a lion that kills other living beings by instinct? They don't have the same understanding as we do as human beings and they simply cannot become vegetarians: so are they creating bad Kamma that might ripen in a next life? For instance, if I used to be a lion will I suffer bad Kamma consequences in this human life because I killed and ate living beings?