Talk:Anantarika-karma

Untitled

Self suicide dose not included in Anantarika-karma . the first one is killing one father, the second one is killing one mother. all references also not mention about suicide. 117.47.132.144 (talk) 23:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

some sources

• [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.18.251 (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

Austerlitz -- 88.72.18.251 (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the grammar in this article awful? tilde tilde tilde tilde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.25.2 (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is king Suppabuddha listed as an example? His blocking the path of the Buddha was not an anantarika-karma by definition. 87.177.118.51 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anantarika-karma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061228033221/http://www.triplegem.plus.com/glossary.htm to http://www.triplegem.plus.com/glossary.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100303233633/http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Hell/hell.html to http://aimwell.org/Books/Pesala/Hell/hell.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122152230/http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T24/1450_010.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/normal/T24/1450_010.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723144126/http://www.cbeta.org/result/T14/T14n0508.htm to http://www.cbeta.org/result/T14/T14n0508.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:36, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

To remove King Suppabuddha and To add Ajatashatru to the list

Hello!! I am a Wikipedian from Burma (Myanmar). I saw about the King Suppabuddha in this artile. I don't understand this. According to the Buddhist texts, He had never do "Anantarika-karma". Therefore, Should remove about him form this artile. And, Ajatashatru, He killed his father. So, This article should include about him. Thanks......ခင်မောင်မောင်လွင် (talk) 09:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Something fishy with this article

If you go to the actual Pali canon (here), Buddha refers to "the six great wrongs", one of which according to the page is "choosing anyone other than a Buddha as one's foremost teacher". This article lists five and ignores that one. Is that last one ignored by the Westernized Buddhist sources this page cites so far in order to make the religion align with the New Age-y Western misunderstanding of it? 96.59.49.49 (talk) 00:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The Pali word for the "great wrongs" mentioned in the Ratana Sutta is "cābhiṭhānāni". I am not versed in Pali, but this is a very different word from the here discussed "anantarika-kamma" (= actions with immediate result, referring to immediate rebirth in hell). The sixth one does not fit into the category of "anantarika-kamma". To think that "choosing anyone other than a Buddha as one's foremost teacher" would be an act that leads to hell is absurd. Buddhism is not Christianity. Buddhas only appear in rare periods. It is rare to even know about a Buddha. But during such times with no Buddha in sight beings fare according to their kamma as in every other period. 46.114.144.184 (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

But acknowledging another teacher is not therefore Anantarika Karma, because Buddhist monastics who leave the Buddhist training and join other sects are apparently allowed to re-ordain as Buddhists, except under the following conditions:

1) If a monk leaves for another sect having rudely refuted his preceptor in an argument (Vin i 060).

2) If a nun joins another sects while still wearing her Buddhist robes (Vin ii 279).

If monastics are allowed to return to Buddhism after leaving to join another sect, they cannot therefore have fallen into Anantarika Karma. Sukusala (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The Buddha said that in his day, he alone was teaching the Eightfold Path: "In whatever Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, no ascetic is found of the first, second, third or fourth grade. But such ascetics can be found in a Dhamma and discipline where the Noble Eightfold Path is found. Now, Subhadda, in this Dhamma and discipline the Noble Eightfold Path is found, and in it are to be found ascetics of the four grades. [Those groups following] teachings contrary to mine are void of [highest] ascetics [because the Noble Eightfold Path is not found in them] (suññā parappavādā samaṇehi aññe)."

Suttanipata (v.231) refers to the six great offences (cha cābhithānāni). The Tatiya Abhabbatthāna Sutta (A.3.439) lists six states of incapability (cha abhabbatthānāni), five of which we know about. The sixth is the incapability of following another teacher (aññam� satthāram� uddisitum�). Does this coincidence mean that following a teacher who does not proclaim the Eightfold Path is a great offence? Other suttas show that 'following' (uddisitum) means breaking the five precepts including celibacy. It is this that takes one to hell.

The Buddha said that all those following spiritual paths contrary to his own, including those of all the major teachers of his day, and including all misguided followers of his own teachings, all go to hell. For example, the Ājīvaka Sutta (A.3.274-5): Pañcahi bhikkhave dhammehi samannāgato ājivako1yathābhataṃ nikkhitto evaṃ niraye. Katamehi pañcahi: Pāṇātipātī hoti adinnādāyī hoti abrahmacārī hoti musāvādī hoti surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhāyī hoti (A.3.274-5). Ajivakas go to hell because they break basic precepts. His own disciples, ordained or not, go to hell for the same reason. The same applies to all religious followers, ordained or not.

Pañcahi bhikkhave dhammehi samannāgato bhikkhu yathābhataṃ nikkhitto evaṃ niraye ... bhikkhunī yathābhataṃ nikkhittā evaṃ niraye ... upāsako ... upāsikā ... nigaṇṭho ... jaṭilako ... paribbājako etc

Religious followers, ordained or not, are expected to follow a higher standard. The fate of non-religious people who do not follow precepts have a less certain fate: "Bhikkhus, killing, repeatedly pursued, developed, and cultivated, is conducive to hell, to the animal realm, and to the sphere of ghosts (A.4.248). For non-religious people, immoral acts are not anantarika kamma: for religious people, they are. Sukusala (talk) 11:11, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation Style

This article has been criticised for the citation style. I refer the reader to Ven Thanissaro's reflections on this: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/abbrev.html#suttaref.

Thanissaro says: "Over the years, Pali and Buddhist scholars have used a bewildering array of numbering schemes to refer to suttas and other passages in the Tipitaka."

He introduces his own system, and then says: "Readers who are accustomed to other numbering systems or who wish to compare Access to Insight's translations against the original Pali texts may refer to the alternative reference numbers that appear in braces {} ... These alternate references consist either of the corresponding volume and starting page number in the PTS printed Pali edition (in the case of DN, MN, SN, and AN), the verse numbers (in Ud, Sn, Thag, and Thig), the nipata and sutta number (in Iti), or some combination thereof.'

The PTS printed Pali edition is the oldest Romanised canon, and its page numbers were the first citation system in the Western world. It was unsurprisingly the system adopted by the Vipassana Research Institute. It has become the method of last resort, because everybody knows about its simple and infuriatingly unscientific system. Many editors have tried to break away from it, but it is difficult to do. It is so long established, and user friendly.

Sometimes reference systems are made, referring not to page numbers, but to sections within the canon. But different countries have canons which slightly vary, which is mind-boggling, so back we retreat to the PTS. It must be infuriating for proud countries like Thailand who wish to publish Romanised versions of their canons, to be unable to get their reference system accepted. And what is the use of a text to scholars if it cannot be easily referenced?

To their credit, the electronic version of Sri Lanka's Jayanta Pitaka Version includes the PTS page numbers, and is all the more useful because of it.

Wiki might well criticise us for using PTS numbers, and say they have never come across it, but even Thanissaro uses it. He uses a double notation system because he knows the PTS system is difficult to ignore. And Bhikkhu Bodhi, the primary translator of Pali texts in the West, uses it. Even he has been unwilling to abandon it.

One of the best advantages of the PTS system is that it can be easily accessed in an electronic version. No other system works for this so well.

In one regard I have not followed Venerable Thanissaro, and that in Vinaya texts, where I persist in referencing text to volumae and page number of the PTS volumes. For example (Vin ii 230), means Vinaya PTS Pali volume 2, page 230. This is because IB Horner, the primary translator of Pali texts uses it. The only people who don't use, who wouldn't use it, are the editors of canons in foreign scripts. But these are almost unheard of on the web, and also unusable by most Westerners, so whatever they think of our notation system is of no great significance to us.

I appreciate the problems, but a couple things could be done to address them

• Add a footnote to briefly explain the above. Start with an explanation what is being cited. Right now it's just a cryptic set of abbreviations without even an explanation to what they are acting as a key to. The reader is left completely in the dark as to how they can find or verify this content. Is there a Wikipedia article that the reader could be directed to that explains any of the above?
• Citing primary sources is never ideal, especially when the article goes on to perform what looks like an analysis of their content. secondary or tertiary would be preferred and not present the same problem in citing.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I have rewritten the references, using the Pali Canon Volume Name, Volume Number, Page Number. I link these references to the Wiki Page on Pali Canon. Is this sufficient for a footnote?

The system I use is disparaged by many, but used by the best of them, including Margaret Cone in the world class PTS Dictionary. She uses slightly different symbols, for example 'A II 215' versus my 'AN ii 215', i.e. 'Anguttara Nikaya, Vol.2, p.215'. Sukusala (talk) 22:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I have linked the notes to the appropriate Wiki page, and also to the SuttaCentral reference page. Pali Text Society page numbers are used for example here: Sutta Central (look for the phrase 'PTS 1.1-1.100'), and here Bhikkhu Bodhi (PTS page number is on the top right of every page). Finally, I have put a footnote to explain this. Sukusala (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've added a rewrite template to the article, for these reasons:

• The article is very difficult to understand (it lists five wrongs, then goes on to talk about wrongs not included in that list)
• It also seems to be more of an analysis rather than an encyclopedic summary of the topic
• There are barely any references to secondary sources that analyse the religious texts cited
• The citation style is also very difficult to follow - I don't think the addition of a footnote fixes that; the citations should be in a standard style that allows more people to understand what the article is referencing.

Overall, I think someone familiar with the topic and a good grasp of citing needs to give this article a good rewrite. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 13:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have turned the article into a stub to address these concerns. This was a bold edit, and I won't revert if someone undoes it. PhilKnight (talk) 05:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

PhilKnight, Suntooooth, thank you. JimRenge (talk) 06:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the topic, I can't help here. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)