<p>The answer comes in <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">DN 15</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes
  name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
  contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
  feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
  requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
  condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
  birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow,
  lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the
  origination of this entire mass of stress.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It's not because of kamma that we're born.</p>

<p>The cyclic link between name-and-form and consciousness, may be the clue to why a beginning is not evident, just like the chicken and egg.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-01T19:35:13.543Z
Thanks but i read nothing you are alluding to in this answer. All this quote appears to say is consciousness of the mind-body (nama-rupa) occurs due to mind-body.
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-01T11:06:28.510Z
2018-12-01T11:06:28.510Z
ruben2020
<p>In case you're interested the way I see it is that something is born -- something physical, biological -- e.g. starting at conception with sperm and ovum etc.</p>

<p>That causes a blastocyst and so on -- which I doubt is a "sentient" being yet, though what do I know?</p>

<p>After (physical) birth the infant develops (psychologically), maybe acquires a sense of "Mum" and "Me" and "Dad" and "Food" and "Cold" and "wet" and so on and so on.</p>

<p>I suspect that ability to distinguish "self" results of acting semi-autonomously (e.g. "if 'I' start to cry, then Mum arrives") -- eventually the whole DO cycle, e.g. "I've learned I prefer the feelings associated with Mum being here, maybe feelings of needs (and eventually "cravings") satisfied, therefore I want Mum to arrive, therefore I intend to cry".</p>

<p>People (on this site) interpret "birth" and <em>bhava</em> and so in different ways, but I think that this (above) is at least one or two of those ways (i.e. physical birth plus the arising of a self-view or conceit, plus kamma as an intentional action, resulting from previously acquired/stored/interpreted/associative experience).</p>

<p>This is further complicated by two factors:</p>

<ul>
<li>This answer associates a self (i.e. "I" or "we") e.g. with physical form, a body (which <em>anatta</em> may suggest is a wrong view and/or well worth unlearning)</li>
<li>There's more to a person (and a person receives more from their parents) than just DNA -- also food, a formal education, all informal experiences -- and not only from "parents" but from teachers, friends, the world -- and from "themselves" i.e. people are shaped by "their own intentions/actions"</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Why were we physically born?</strong></p>

<p>That's biology, isn't it? So e.g. "ask your Mum and Dad" about that?</p>

<p>Or do you mean, "why do 'we' associate 'me' with 'this body' or 'our body'"? In which case, I don't know, I think there was a metaphor in a sutta of "a dog, tied to a stake"...</p>

<p><strong>Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this?</strong></p>

<p>I think it's better not to blame other people -- e.g. "you made me like this, you made me do this, it's your fault that I exist" and so on.</p>

<p><strong>Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma?</strong></p>

<p>So far as I know, the text says that "people inherit their own kamma".</p>

<p>Also I think the Dependent Origination is taught as a (repeating) cycle, a.k.a. "the wheel of life".</p>

<p><strong>Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken?</strong></p>

<p>It's "a beginning is not evident", isn't it?</p>

<p><strong>Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?</strong></p>

<p>Well ... indirectly? Perhaps?</p>

<p>There are personal reasons, but I don't know that I can attribute those (project them onto) "many Buddhists".</p>

<p>That kind of doctrine (vegetarian) is more a feature of some schools than others.</p>

<p>I think the Buddha in the suttas says more about e.g. "gratitude and parents" than about "chickens and eggs" (though "not killing" and "metta" and so on is also, I think, clearly mentioned).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-01T08:18:37.487Z
2018-12-01T08:25:08.410Z
2018-12-01T08:25:08.410Z
ChrisW
<p>The buddha says that sankharas are linked to the kamma of actions and that kamma is linked to various realms.
 those sankharas, kamma and rebirths can be generated by others or youself</p>

<p><a href="http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/04_fours/an04.171.olds.bd.htm#p1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/04_fours/an04.171.olds.bd.htm#p1</a></p>

<p><a href="http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.172.wood.pts.htm#p1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.172.wood.pts.htm#p1</a></p>

<p>but what matters is ending the sankaras and since puthujjanas are easily influenced by other puthujjanas and non-puthujjanas, puthujjanas should be careful about the humans they associate with.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-02T20:08:11.173Z
I marked this answer down because it is a wrong understanding of the links. The suttas posted are about the "acquisition of self becoming" (attabhāvapaṭilābhe) or "personality".
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-02T11:59:57.830Z
2018-12-02T20:00:44.680Z
2018-12-02T20:00:44.680Z
Veiculo longo
<p>I read the following words on the internet: </p>

<blockquote>
  <p><em>A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant. The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.</em></p>
</blockquote>

<p>These words appear to say it was a personal act of kamma of a person that resulted in life or the five aggregates to come into being; similar to how the Bible describes an act of God that lead to the creation of the physical world, life &amp; the social world. </p>

<p>Why were we physically born? Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this? If so, how did this self or person who makes a choice come into being before there was kamma? Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma? Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken? Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians? </p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-12-02T16:52:04.293Z
I think the answer to those questions lies in the assumptions behind the questions, so perhaps asking why you want these questions answered will prove to be more insightful.
user29568
<papanca>
Are we born on this Earth because of our personal kamma?
# Are we born on this Earth because of our personal kamma?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-12-01)

I read the following words on the internet:

> *A person ends making Kamma when he becomes an Arahant. The Vipaka of his Kamma continues until he attains Parinibbana.*

These words appear to say it was a personal act of kamma of a person that resulted in life or the five aggregates to come into being; similar to how the Bible describes an act of God that lead to the creation of the physical world, life & the social world.

Why were we physically born? Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this? If so, how did this self or person who makes a choice come into being before there was kamma? Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma? Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken? Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?

**Tags:** papanca

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think the answer to those questions lies in the assumptions behind the questions, so perhaps asking why you want these questions answered will prove to be more insightful.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-12-01. Score: 2

The answer comes in [DN 15](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html):

> "Thus, Ananda, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
> consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes
> name-and-form. From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes
> contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From
> feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a
> requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite
> condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes
> birth. From birth as a requisite condition, aging, death, sorrow,
> lamentation, pain, distress, and despair come into play. Such is the
> origination of this entire mass of stress.

It's not because of kamma that we're born.

The cyclic link between name-and-form and consciousness, may be the clue to why a beginning is not evident, just like the chicken and egg.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks but i read nothing you are alluding to in this answer. All this quote appears to say is consciousness of the mind-body (nama-rupa) occurs due to mind-body.  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-12-01. Score: 2

In case you're interested the way I see it is that something is born -- something physical, biological -- e.g. starting at conception with sperm and ovum etc.

That causes a blastocyst and so on -- which I doubt is a "sentient" being yet, though what do I know?

After (physical) birth the infant develops (psychologically), maybe acquires a sense of "Mum" and "Me" and "Dad" and "Food" and "Cold" and "wet" and so on and so on.

I suspect that ability to distinguish "self" results of acting semi-autonomously (e.g. "if 'I' start to cry, then Mum arrives") -- eventually the whole DO cycle, e.g. "I've learned I prefer the feelings associated with Mum being here, maybe feelings of needs (and eventually "cravings") satisfied, therefore I want Mum to arrive, therefore I intend to cry".

People (on this site) interpret "birth" and *bhava* and so in different ways, but I think that this (above) is at least one or two of those ways (i.e. physical birth plus the arising of a self-view or conceit, plus kamma as an intentional action, resulting from previously acquired/stored/interpreted/associative experience).

This is further complicated by two factors:

* This answer associates a self (i.e. "I" or "we") e.g. with physical form, a body (which *anatta* may suggest is a wrong view and/or well worth unlearning)
* There's more to a person (and a person receives more from their parents) than just DNA -- also food, a formal education, all informal experiences -- and not only from "parents" but from teachers, friends, the world -- and from "themselves" i.e. people are shaped by "their own intentions/actions"

**Why were we physically born?**

That's biology, isn't it? So e.g. "ask your Mum and Dad" about that?

Or do you mean, "why do 'we' associate 'me' with 'this body' or 'our body'"? In which case, I don't know, I think there was a metaphor in a sutta of "a dog, tied to a stake"...

**Was it our personal kamma? Did we personally choose this?**

I think it's better not to blame other people -- e.g. "you made me like this, you made me do this, it's your fault that I exist" and so on.

**Does kamma create the self (person)? Or does self (the person) create kamma?**

So far as I know, the text says that "people inherit their own kamma".

Also I think the Dependent Origination is taught as a (repeating) cycle, a.k.a. "the wheel of life".

**Did the Buddha teach it cannot be determined whether the chicken comes before the egg or the egg comes before the chicken?**

It's "a beginning is not evident", isn't it?

**Is this why many Buddhists are vegetarians?**

Well ... indirectly? Perhaps?

There are personal reasons, but I don't know that I can attribute those (project them onto) "many Buddhists".

That kind of doctrine (vegetarian) is more a feature of some schools than others.

I think the Buddha in the suttas says more about e.g. "gratitude and parents" than about "chickens and eggs" (though "not killing" and "metta" and so on is also, I think, clearly mentioned).


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-12-02. Score: 0

The buddha says that sankharas are linked to the kamma of actions and that kamma is linked to various realms.
those sankharas, kamma and rebirths can be generated by others or youself

<http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/bd/an/04_fours/an04.171.olds.bd.htm#p1>

<http://obo.genaud.net/dhamma-vinaya/pts/an/04_fours/an04.172.wood.pts.htm#p1>

but what matters is ending the sankaras and since puthujjanas are easily influenced by other puthujjanas and non-puthujjanas, puthujjanas should be careful about the humans they associate with.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I marked this answer down because it is a wrong understanding of the links. The suttas posted are about the "acquisition of self becoming" (attabhāvapaṭilābhe) or "personality".  

---

