KAMMA

Kamma

Karma is a Sanskrit word that has entered the everyday western lexicon. The Pāli equivalent is Kamma. Kamma is often used to mean consequence but its buddistic meaning is rarely appreciated. The Buddha defines kamma as follows.

It is volition, I declare, that is kamma. By willing it, one performs kamma (an action) by deed, words or thought.
AN 6:3
Nyanaponika
BPS Sri Lanka

Kamma is intention, and intention is expressed through body, speech and mind.
There was an occasion when Dīgha Tapassi, a disciple in the Nigaṇṭha sect (the Jains), went to see the Buddha. The Buddha asked him how many kinds of mental actions the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta taught existed for the performance of evil actions. He replied there were three kinds of distinct rods . There is the bodily rod, verbal rod, and mental rod. The Buddha then asked which of these three the Nigaṇṭha taught was the most reprehensible.

Dīgha Tapassi
Of these three kinds of rod, friend Gotama, thus analysed and distinguished, the Nigaṇṭha Nātaputta describes the bodily rod as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much the verbal rod and the mental rod.
The Buddha
Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassi?
Dīgha Tapassi
I say bodily rod, friend Gotama.
The Buddha
Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassi?
Dīgha Tapassi
I say bodily rod, friend Gotama.
The Buddha
Do you say the bodily rod, Tapassi?
Dīgha Tapassi
I say bodily rod, friend Gotama.

Dīgha Tapassi then asked the Buddha the same question.

Buddha
I describe mental action as the most reprehensible for the performance of evil action, for the perpetration of evil action, and not so much bodily action and verbal action.
Dīgha Tapassi
Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?
The Buddha
I say mental action Tapassi.
Dīgha Tapassi
Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?
Buddha
I say mental action Tapassi.
Dīgha Tapassi
Do you say mental action, friend Gotama?
Buddha
I say mental action Tapassi.
MN56:4

The point of repeating something three times is for dispelling any ambiguity over what a key premise in a debate might be. In the Buddha’s case, mental action (intention/volition) is primary.

Dark and Bright Kamma

The Buddha gave an introductory lesson in kamma to two sectarian ascetics, Punna and Seniya, who although not practicing the Buddha’s discipline, nevertheless sort his opinion regarding their practice. Punna was doing the Ox-Duty, which involved emulating the behaviours of an Ox. His companion Seniya was doing Naked Dog-Duty, which involved emulating the behaviours of a dog, including eating food thrown on the ground (MN57:2). They wanted to know their potential rebirth destinations, resulting from their respective practices. But the Buddha had a practice of not giving information he thought might be too difficult for an enquirer to accept (MN58), although he could sometimes be persuaded to answer if asked a third time. On this occasion, despite being warned not to pursue their line of questioning, the two ascetics asked a third time, and got their answers. They were told that if their practice was diligent enough, and uninterrupted enough, they may be reborn amid the company of oxen or dogs, respectively. But, if they thought it would get them in to the godly realms, then they harboured a wrong view, and wrong views always lead to Hell, or the animal realm. Both were reduced to tears, but not from disappointment, but because they had found a new teaching they could have confidence in.
On behalf of Seniya and himself, Punna asked for a further teaching. The Buddha then taught them about dark and bright kamma. He explains there are four kinds of actions, which he has seen directly.

1) There is dark action with dark result generated by afflictive bodily formations (physical action), afflictive verbal formations or afflictive mental formations. Such actions lead to reappearance in an afflictive world, where contact is by nature afflictive. In the case of Hell, all contact is painful (MN57:8).

2) There is bright action with a bright result generated from non-afflictive bodily formations, non-afflictive verbal formations, and non-afflictive mental formations. Such actions lead to the reappearance in a non-afflictive world, where contact is by nature non-afflictive, such as amongst the Gods Of Refulgent Glory, where all contact is pleasant (9).

3) There is a mix of dark and bright action, with dark and bright results. Such actions lead to reappearance in a world that is both afflictive and non-afflictive, and where contact is both afflictive and non-afflictive. In this case, the world of humans and lower gods (10).

4) There is neither dark nor bright action with neither dark nor bright result. This condition is generated by the volition for abandoning the kind of action that generates dark action with dark result, and bright action with bright result, and dark and bright action, with dark and bright result (11).

Kamma Past, Present and Future

The following is a bullet-pointed presentation of the Ambalaṭṭhikarāhulovāda Suttaṃ (MN61:9-11) in which the Buddha teaches his ordained son Rahula, the need for repeated reflection upon actions of body, speech and mind. He first fixes Rahula’s attention with a simile of a mirror. He asks, “what is the purpose of a mirror?” “For the purpose of reflection, Venerable Sir.” “So too, Rahula an action of body/speech/mind should be done after repeated reflection.” He then teaches Rahula how to question his volition regarding body, speech and mind, in respect of the future, the present and the past.

Future Action

1. Would this action by body/speech/mind that I wish to do lead to my own affliction?
2. Would this action by body/speech/mind that I wish to do lead to the affliction of others?
3. Would this action by body/speech/mind that I wish to do lead to the affliction of myself and others?

If the answer to just one of these nine scenarios is yes, even if the other scenarios are wholesome, then a bhikkhu should definitely not perform the action, otherwise “you may do such an action with the body/speech/mind.”
The same set of questions is applied to the here and now.

Present Action

1. Does this action by body/speech/mind that I am doing lead to my own affliction?
2. Does this action by body/speech/mind that I am doing lead to the affliction of others?
3. Does this action by body/speech/mind that I am doing lead to the affliction of myself and others?

As above, if the answer to any of these nine questions is yes, then the bhikkhu should definitely stop. Otherwise, “you may continue.”
The same set of questions is applied to the past.

Past Action

1. Did this action by body/speech/mind that I did lead to my own affliction?
2. Did this action by body/speech/mind that I did lead to the affliction of others?
3. Did this action by body/speech/mind that I did lead to the affliction of myself and others?

If a bhikkhu knows that an action led to his affliction, the affliction of others, or the affiliation of both, then it should be confessed to a bhikkhu. But if the answer to these questions is positive then, “you can abide happy and glad, training day and night in wholesome states.”

Societal Law And Kammic Law

An ideal of personal relationships, and even democracy, is the ethic of treating others with the same respect one wants for oneself. In Buddhism, this universal ethic is found in the Ambalaṭṭhikarāhulovāda Suttaṃ (MN61:9-11. Whilst the finer details of fairness and democracy will always be arguable, the truth is, we know when we are being offensive. There’s nothing esoteric about ethics, even if they do look complicated when written down. Similarly, there’s nothing esoteric about keeping the right side of universal kammic law.

In a court of law, the above 27 questions commended to Rahula, are exactly what a modern judge asks himself of a defendant. They are consistent with the legal doctrines of actus reus and mens rea (L. Actus + reus = acting + reason. Mens + Rea = mind + reason, intention/volition).

These simple pieces of Latin are used to help distinguish a defendant’s actions from his intentions. For example, if someone dropped a heavy object on someone else’s foot causing suffering, it would be thought of differently depending on whether it was intentional or not.
Table 19 compares kammic law (MN61:9-11) with modern societal law. The happy face J symbolises innocent or no volition, behind actions of mind, body or speech. The unhappy face L symbolises unwholesome volition, behind actions of mind, body or speech. N/A means non applicable.

Table 19 presents various permutations of volition. For example, scenario one presents wholesome intention and a wholesome outcome. We see that under universal kammic law the consequence is bright, and under societal law, there is no culpability.
In Scenario two, there is wholesome mental intention, but the consequence is unwholesome (causes loss at some level). Under universal kammic law there is no dark comeuppance. But in societal law, a defendant stands to make good any damage caused, whether the action was ill-intentioned or not. For example, a motorist may loose control of his car due to icy road conditions, and cause damage to another. Even though there is no unwholesome intention, under highway law, he is still reprehensible, and liable to pay damages (He should of course be insured).

Scenario three is the converse of two. There is unwholesome intention but the outcome is wholesome. For example, the tiller in a supermarket mischievously checks in a customer’s lottery ticket for next week’s lottery, when it should have been for this week, only for the ticket to win next week’s lottery. Under societal law, there is no infringement, as no loss is incurred, such as wellbeing, opportunity, or possessions. But, under universal kammic law, when the volition is dark, then the kammic return will be dark too.

In Scenario four, there is unwholesome intention, and there is an unwholesome outcome. Kammic law and modern societal law are consistent in that there is a consequence to pay.

Under societal law, the perpetrator has to be apprehended to complete the law, while under kammic law, the mechanism of the universe will ensure there is kammic comeuppance when conditions allow.

Past scenarios follow the same logic as the present.

The future is simpler than the past and present because the future hasn’t happened, and so there is only intention, mens rea, to consider. Under societal law, there is no infringement for mens rea alone. We are legally free to contemplate as we wish. For example, it is not illegal to want to be a terrorist, and so there is no culpability in law. But under universal kammic law, such thinking is consequential, as it plants a seed of dark comeuppance.

Table 22 Comparison of Kammic Law and Mens Rea and Actus Reus

Life and Law

The vicissitudes of life and law are complex. Each of the above 12 scenarios are applicable to oneself, others, and both oneself and others. This produces 36 scenarios. Discerning the extent to which each party might be responsible, is often impossible.
This is a particularly important point to note for those living in a vihāra (spiritual community). A law that is easily misrepresented, or is difficult to implement, will lack efficacy. So too, the renunciant’s ethical code is compromised in a complex living environment (see Chapter 21 subtitle Community life – A Warning).
The urban life is full of particularly complex, kammic scenarios, and a layman can never maintain a bhikkhu’s level of commitment for long. A layperson is frequently called upon to perform what are, Buddhistically speaking, unethical actions for the benefit of himself or others. For example, a man joins the military, or becomes a gamekeeper , or enters the usury business for the sake of supporting his family and community. Or, a dying man takes his own life for the sake of not suffering anymore (MN144:12), or a parent knowingly punishes a child excessively, for a lesson that has to be learned. Perhaps someone tells a white lie, to prevent a painful argument. Or, someone insidiously draws an unwitting person into a scenario where there is a seriously increased likelihood of harm, or loss, or bullies tease a person until their victim is so tormented by his own mind, he self-harms.
In all these examples, culpability can be difficult if not impossible to establish, because the parties involved can argue mitigating circumstances. They may say their actions minimised suffering over all, or they cannot be expected to foresee the actions of another. These responses have some foundation in reality. So, does the mechanism of kamma recognise mitigating circumstances?
To help answer this, we can turn to a complex scenario that Mahānāma, chief amongst laymen, got himself into. King Pasenadi of Kosala had once asked the Sakyan tribe for a wellborn bride. It fell to Mahānāma to deal with the request . But, the Sakyans were a proud people, and Mahānāma treated king Pasenadi with contempt. Unbeknown to King Pasenadi, Mahānama sent him a slave-born girl, even though it was taboo in ancient India for different castes to intermarry. The King accepted her as one of his wives, and she produced a son called Vitatubha. Some decades later, the now king Vitatubha discovered his origins and became enraged. He attacked the Sakayan people, slaying many of them (KN IV: 47). Mahānama was worried about his kammic returns for his part in the incident, and so he sort the Buddha’s counsel.

Don’t be afraid, Mahānama! Don’t be afraid, Mahānama! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be a bad one. When a person’s mind has been fortified over a long time by faith, virtue, learning, generosity, and wisdom, [even if*] right here crows, vultures, hawks, dogs, jackals, or various creatures eat his body, consisting of form, composed of the four great elements, originating from mother and father, built up out of rice and gruel, subject to impermanence, to being worn and rubbed away, to breaking apart and dispersal. But his mind, which has been fortified over a long time by faith, virtue, learning, generosity, and wisdom – that goes upwards to a destination [heavenwards*].
SN V 55.21 Mahānama Sutta

Mahānama knew he was practicing deceit and was seriously infringing the principle of samma vaca (Perfect speech). His communications with Pasenadi were not truthful, and they did not unite. Mahānama knew a slave-born girl would be an insult to King Pasenadi, and knew there could have been serious repercussions . And yet, the Buddha tells Mahānama his demise will not be a bad one.
Even though Mahānama got a welcomed response, this does not mean he got away kammically scot free, and nor did the Buddha say he would. Yet, how is it Angulimāla was a mass murderer, and attempted to take the life of the Buddha, and attained permanent liberation, while bhikkhu Devadatta attempted to take the life of the Buddha and ended up going Hell-wards (MN58:3)? Why do some people apparently get away with it, and some don’t? In the Lonaphala Sutta (AN3.99) the Buddha explains whilst a trifling deed may send an undeveloped person to hell the same trifling deed has little to no such consequence on a trained person. He explains this with a simile of a salt crystal. If a salt crystal were dropped in a cup of water, it may render the water undrinkable but the same salt crystal dropped in the Ganges has no discernible effect.

Discussion

The simile of the salt crystal is telling us the effects of renunciative training go a long way to mitigating the effects of dark kamma. Whilst the teaching refers to trifling deeds, in principle it is true for even serious deeds; Angulimāla being a case in point. If this seems unfair, we should remind ourselves that the Buddha Dhamma does not ascribe hell and heaven to the dictates of a judgemental god. Nibbāna is not a reward but the end of suffering due to extinction, realised by one’s own efforts. Those who can realise the renunciant’s wisdom can ultimately free themselves of any kamma they have accrued. Those unable to hear the renunciant’s wisdom obviously cannot, regardless of how small their kamma.
Prince Ajātasattu murdered his father king Bimbisara. He later became so disturbed by what he had done, he went to the Buddha to confess his regret. The Buddha accepted his contrition as sincere, and the king left satisfied. The Buddha then told his monks, “But if the King had not deprived his father, that good man and just king, of his life, then as he sat here the pure and spotless Dhamma eye would have arisen in him (DN2:100-102).” The arising of the Dhamma eye is a euphemism for attaining stream entry (wisdom hearing).
Ajātasattu’s remorse went a way to mitigating his evil kamma, as remorse always does. However, in this instance, his selfishness, his attachment to life, his wish to usurp his father’s throne, was greater than his selflessness. Whilst Ajātasattu’s intellect no doubt could have understood the Dhamma, his heart’s desires were stronger for the contrary.
However, some Buddhist traditions teach there is a tariff of six offences (the Abhithanani) that all bodhisatta are incapable of perpetrating. These offenses are patricide , matricide, killing an arahant, injuring a Buddha, and creating schism in the saṅgha. Any Bodhisatta who commits any offence from the above tariff is assured rebirth in a world of woe.
Traditional as this teaching may be, it is too simplistic. The problem with the tariff is that it offers no mechanism of mitigation. It is saying, no matter how bright the kamma one has, any material infringement leads to a world of woe. This black and white law has a ring of dogma about it. What if one accidently kills one’s parents, does the tariff still apply? If volition is first and foremost, as the Buddha taught, then it cannot. Angulimāla harboured intentions to kill the Buddha and his mother; two people on the tariff, and yet he still attained Full Enlightenment in the same life.
A better insight comes if we investigate the word ‘reprehensible’, used in the Upāli discourse (MN56:4). The Buddha taught that thought is more ‘reprehensible’ than actions of body and speech (MN56:4). Thus, if Angulimāla had never thought of murdering his mother, or the Buddha, or King Ajātasattu his father, they would never have tried. This is a practical expanation why volition can be considered more ‘reprehensible’ than speech and action. It is a mistake to think the Buddha equated wanting to commit a crime, with committing a crime .
So volition (kamma), not the killing per se, precludes wisdom hearing/stream entry. Clearly, Angulimala had the merit to hear wisdom and so his volition (his mens rea not actus rea) to kill the Buddha and his mother could be mitigated through insightful renunciation practice.
So we see the Abhithanani tariff is not absolute. My personal view is that the ethic behind the tariff has been overstated for the same reason the first noble truth has. A teaching couched in complex details risks being lost, while over simplifications can still be largely accurate. Tariff or no tariff; the strategy of not killing those who are dear to one is obviously reasonable. Better to respect those who respect you (MN61:9-11).
We should bear in mind that all is not attributable to kamma. Fortune also plays a part (see below Kamma Does Not Determine Everything). Nor is it possible to know the full extent of one’s kammic causes and effects. Kamma is listed as one of four ‘imponderables’ (AN II:79). What we do know is that liberated or not, no one gets away totally kamma-free. Even Buddhas are vulnerable to dark kammic returns . After all, the origin of our kamma can go back a very long way (MN101:21. MN136:18) and don’t originate only from this life.Only Parinibbāna ends suffering permanently.
It is not the case that positive and negative kamma cancel each other out, like positive and negative numbers. Were this so, we would be able to become liberated by performing kindly deeds alone. Even so, the Buddha teaches kindly deeds have a kindly kammic comeuppance. Short of arahantship, it is never unwise to hedge one’s kamma with wholesome actions. The Buddha taught, ‘Monks, do not be afraid of deeds of merit! They are equivalent to happiness, these deeds of merit (AN VII 58b).’
But the best form of merit earning is the dilution of kamma through meditation. The Buddha exhorted bhikkhus following his discipline to meditate, “or you will regret it later (MN8:18 MN19:27, MN106:15 MN152:18).” “So by annihilating with asceticism past actions, and by doing no fresh actions, there will be no consequence in the future (MN14:17).”

Bhikkhu Samiddhi

The Buddha was very keen that bhikkhus training in his discipline got the teaching right at all times, even in difficult circumstances. There was an occasion when bhikkhu Samiddhi was residing in a forest hut and the wanderer Potaliputta approached him (MN136). Potaliputta claimed he had personally heard the Buddha say, “Bodily action is vain, verbal action is vain only mental action is real” (This sounds very similar to the mistake of equating wanting to commit a crime with committing the crime). However, Samiddhi denied this. Potaliputta also claimed he had heard the Buddha say, “There is that attainment upon which entering one does not feel anything at all.” Samiddhi agreed (This could refer to fourth jhaṅaṃ, the absorptions and voidness). Potaliputta then asked, “Having done an intentional action by way of body, speech or mind, what does one feel?” Samiddhi replied, somewhat oddly, “One feels suffering” (Perhaps he was citing the often, oversimplified first Noble Truth). Then, without assent or descent, the wanderer Potaliputta left.
Samiddhi felt unnerved enough to recount the event to Ānanda, and together they went and told the Buddha, whose response was as trenchant as ever. The Buddha had no recollection of ever speaking to Potaliputta, and he called Samiddhi a “misguided man”, for not thinking about the question properly before answering. The Buddha tells Samiddhi his answer to wanderer Potaliputta was “one-sided” (wrong by omission). The venerable Udāyin tried to speak up in defence of Samiddhi, suggesting Samiddhi wasn’t entirely wrong. The Buddha turned to Ānanda saying Udāyin was also a misguided man, who he expected to interfere. This was not an expression of sarcasm from the Buddha, but a measure of how important it is to get the Dhamma right.
Ānanda then interposed, fortunately for him with a helpful contribution. “This is the time to teach the Great Exposition Of Action (6).” The Buddha then gave a discourse on Four Kinds Of Persons, classifiable according to their kamma and comeuppance. It is a more considered and fulsome response Samiddhi ideally would have given.

1. Some people kill and misconduct themselves and go to an unhappy destination.
2. Some people kill and misconduct themselves and go to a happy destination.
3. Some people abstain from killing and misconduct and go to a happy destination.
4. Some people abstain from killing and misconduct and go to an unhappy destination.

The Buddha then adds a cautionary note. A recluse or brahmin may be able to see the passing away of beings and their rebirth location, but at the same time misconstrue the situation. It is possible that:

1. A recluse/brahmin seeing with the divine eye may see (1) and think only (1) is true.
2. A recluse/brahmin seeing with the divine eye may see (2) and think only (2) is true.
3. A recluse/brahmin seeing with the divine eye may see (3) and think only (3) is true.
4. A recluse/brahmin seeing with the divine eye may see (4) and think only (4) is true.

The Buddha says that while he would grant recluses and Brahmins points 1, 2, 3, and 4, he would not grant them points 5, 6, 7, and 8.
So just because someone has transcendental vision and can see metaphysical scenarios unfolding, it does not mean their thinking is correct (see Chapter 14, subtitle, The Miracle of Telepathy).

Classification Of Kamma By Cause And Effect

In the Culakammavibhaṅga Suttaṃ (Shorter Exposition Of Action MN135:5-16) venerable Subha asks the Buddha for specific answers on kammic action and consequence. He wanted to know the causes and conditions behind why beings are born inferior or superior, short-lived or longed-lived, sickly and healthy, ugly and beautiful, uninfluential and influential, poor and wealthy, low-born and high born, and stupid and wise. Notwithstanding the above qualifications, the Buddha teaches the following. If a person:

1. Kills living beings, is murderous, bloody-handed, violent, and merciless, upon rebirth he appears in an unhappy destination, perdition and hell. If born human again, he is short-lived.
2. Abandons killing with rod and weapon and gently and kindly abides compassionate to all, upon rebirth he appears in a happy destination, heaven … and if born human again, is long-lived.
3. Is given to injuring with sticks, clod and knife, upon rebirth he appears in a state of deprivation ... and if born human again, is sickly.
4. Is not given to injuring with objects and weapons … appears in a happy destination … if born human again, is healthy.
5. Is angry and an irritable character, and even when criticised a little is offended, who is hostile, resentful, hateful, bitter, displays anger … appears in a state of deprivation ... if born human again, is ugly.
6. Is not of an angry and irritable of character, even when criticised a little is not offended, is not hostile resentful hateful, bitter … appears in happy destination ... and if born human again, is beautiful.
7. Is envious, resents, begrudges the gains, honours, reverence, salutation, veneration of others… appears in a state of deprivation … and if born human again, is uninfluential.
8. Is not envious, does not resent, begrudge the gains, honours, reverence, salutations, veneration of others … appears in happy destination… and if born human again, is influential.
9. Does not give (food, drink, clothing, carriages, garlands, scents, unguents, beds dwellings and lamps) support to recluses and brahmins … appears in a state of deprivation … and if born human again, is poor.
10. Gives (food, drink, clothing, carriages, garlands, scents, unguents, beds dwellings and lamps) support to recluses and brahmins … appears in happy destination … and if born human again, is wealthy.
11. Is obstinate, arrogant, does not homage those he should, does not rise from his seat for one who deserves…makes way for one he should … appears in a state of deprivation … and if born human again, is low born.
12. Is not obstinate, arrogant, and does homage those he should, does rise from his seat for one who deserves…makes way for one he should … appears in happy destination… and if born human again, is high born.
13. Does not visit a recluse, or a Brahmin, or ask “what is wholesome, blameable, blameless, should be cultivated, not cultivated, will lead to my harm and suffering for a long time/welfare and happiness for a long time?” … appears in a state of deprivation … and if born human again, is reborn stupid.
14. Visits a recluse/Brahmin asks “what is wholesome, blameable, blameless, should be cultivated, not cultivated, will lead to my harm and suffering for a long time/welfare and happiness for a long time?” … appears in happy destination … and if born human again, is reborn wise.

Table 20 below is a tabulation of the above for quick reference.

Table 23 Classification Of Kamma By Cause And Effect

Nature of action

Destination

If born human

1. Kills living beings

Murderous, bloody-handed, violent, merciless

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Short-lived

1. Abandons killing

Rod and weapon and gently and kindly abides compassionate to all,

Happy destination, heavenly world

Long-lived

1. Injuring

Uses sticks cod and knife

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Sickly

1. Not given to injuring

Does not use sticks cod and knife

Happy destination, heavenly world

Healthy

1. Angry and irritable character

Even when criticised a little is offended, hostile resentful hateful, bitter angry.

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Ugly

1. Not of an angry and irritable

Even when criticised a little is not offended, hostile resentful hateful, bitter angry.

Happy destination, heavenly world

Beautiful

1. Envious, resents, begrudges

Envies, resents, begrudges the gains, honour, respect, reverence, salutation, veneration received by others

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Uninfluential

1. Not envious, resents, begrudges

Does not envy, resent, begrudge the gain, honour, respect, reverence, salutation, veneration received by others

Happy destination, heavenly world

Influential

1. Does not give

Food, drink, clothing, carriages, garlands, scents, unguents, support to recluses

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Poor

1. Gives

Food, drink, clothing, carriages, garlands, scents, unguents, support to recluses

Happy destination, heavenly world

Wealthy

1. Obstinate, arrogant

Does not homage ... Does not rise from his seat … make way for one he should

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Low-born

1. Is not obstinate, arrogant

Does homage ... Does not rise from his seat … make way for one he should

Happy destination, heavenly world

High-born

1. Does not visit a recluse or a brahmin

Does not ask “what is wholesome, blameable, blameless, what should be cultivated, not cultivated, what leads to my harm and suffering for a long time/welfare and happiness for a long time?”

State of deprivation, unhappy destination, perdition, hell

Stupid

1. Visits a recluse/brahmin

Does ask “what is wholesome, blameable, blameless, what should be cultivated, not cultivated, what leads to my harm and suffering for a long time/welfare and happiness for a long time?”

Happy destination, heavenly world

Wise

Kamma Does Not Determine Everything

It can sometimes be heard said that all is attributable to kamma, and therefore we are all helpless and hopeless, as we have no control over what happens to us. This is not true according to the Buddha. One of the first experiences he had upon becoming enlightened was to observe with his divine eye the passing away and rebirth of beings.
… thus with the divine eye, which is purified and surpasses the human, he sees beings passing away and reappearing, inferior and superior, fair and ugly, fortunate and unfortunate, and he understands how beings pass on according to their actions.
MN39:20. MN119:41
Of particular note here is that he saw beings who were fortunate and unfortunate. Fortune (luck) is not the same as kammic consequence. This means that when the going gets difficult, it’s not necessarily because we deserve it. Thus, it is not reasonable to feel negative at every unpleasant thing that happens.
We are also self-determined. This is not only true for this life, as we will study in the next chapter.

Discussion

The fact that the Buddha spoke of being reborn means there is something worth mentioning that passes from life to life. This would appear to contradict the lesson given to Sati son of a fisherman who thought consciousness survived death. If we believe what is written in the discourses then memories can survive death. However, the important point to remember is that nothing is permanent. The Dhammapada teaches the only thing we own is our kamma. It may be true to say, that without the skill of self-transcendence, we are essentially kammic energy (volition).
The Buddhist law of thermodynamics says energy must flow. Energy can never be still forever. Even a sentient being that can remember a previous life is in no part permanent. Whatever it is that rebirths, it is energy in no part permanent. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus (c. 500 BC) pointed out that it is impossible to step into the same river twice. Even the ground it flows over is not permanent.
We must observe a warning about extending any logic inherent in similes, as it usually leads to absurdity. Emanuel Kant’s Critique Of Pure Reason (1781) explores how rationalism and empiricism, when used to establish metaphysical truths, often produce contradictions. The Buddha also warned against using pure reason, although in his case, he said he actually saw metaphysical events and realms, and how entities are reborn due to their kamma (MN130:2, DN2:95-96).
But the Buddha’s divine eye vision was called into question when it was observed that he recalled memories of his previous lives but never spoke about the future .

Or such wanderers might say: ‘as regards past times, the ascetic [The Buddha*] displays boundless knowledge and insight, but not about the future, as to what it will be and how it will be.’ That would be to suppose that knowledge and insight about one thing are to be produced by knowledge and insight about something else, as fools imagine.
DN29:27

The Buddha is warning against using logic and only logic, extrapolating the future from the past. gave warnings over becoming attached to unwise speculative views about the past, present and future and the self . “Fettered by the fetter of views, the untaught ordinary person is not freed from birth, ageing, and death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair; he is not freed from suffering, I say (MN2:7-8).”
The Buddha was emphatic that implementing the cure was more important than speculation. He underlined this with the simile of a man struck by a poisoned arrow on a battlefield. Before allowing the field surgeon to operate, the wounded man wanted to know who shot the arrow. Was he brahmin, merchant, or worker? What was the name of the man who shot the arrow, was he short, middling, or tall. Was he dark, brown or golden skinned, of a village, town or city. Was the weapon a long-bow, or cross bow. Was the bowstring fibre, reed, sinew, or bark (MN63.5)? The message in this simile is that it is better to implement the cure before concerning oneself with lesser information.
The simile of the siṃsapā leaves is an apposite teaching. There was an occasion while addressing a group of bhikkhus, when the Buddha picked up a handful of fallen leaves and asked:

“What do you think, bhikhhus, which is more numerous: these few siṃsapā leaves that I have in my hand or those in the siṃsapā grove overhead?”
“Venerable Sir, the siṃsapā leaves that the blessed one has taken up in his hand are few, but those in the siṃsapā grove overhead are numerous.”
“So too, bhikkhu, the things I have directly known but have not taught you are numerous, while the things I have taught you are few. And why, bhikkhus, have I not taught these many things? Because they are unbeneficial, irrelevant to the fundamentals of the holy life, and do not lead to revulsion, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbāna. Therefore I have not taught them.”
SN V56:31

This is a significant teaching as it tells us we should question any canonical teaching that does not have a practical or reasonable basis to it.