Looking for an understanding of Buddhism

[Danhalen]

For years, I have considered myself to be as far into secular living as one can possibly go. Recently, I have had experiences which I cannot reconcile with a purely secular point of view. Without going into details (they can be provided if you want), I can say that my recent experiences have led me to the conclusion that there is no self, and as such, there is no real concept of other. I have written about this in my current class on problems in the philosophy of religion, and my professor seems to keep pushing me toward Buddhism as a way of expressing my experience. I have only the most cursory understanding of Buddhism, and I was hoping some practicing Buddhists could help me discover if this is the path I am walking.

[Ergo]

hail and well met!! whazzis about details?? Provide 'em, friend! Provide 'em!! You'll find that one of the biggest threads amongs all us folken (aside from big hearts and open minds) is a healthy sense of curiosity and interest in hearing other people's stories!!

I'm not really PRACTICING Buddhism so much as I'm tripping over my two feet. *I* personally would explore it this way:

**Wikipedia and Google search (it's freeee!!)
**Buddhism for Dummies (good book!)
**books by Buddhist monks and the Dali Lama
**"Zen for Beginners" (sort of a picture book before the days of "for dummies" books)
**a meditation class or Buddhist workshop

The real funny thing is that Buddhism is almost a group of non-joiners. A lot of it is like wet soap: mentally squeeze it too hard and ::SQUIP!:: it slips out of your fingers. To even be attached to the concept of BEING Buddhist is to have an attachment and not to be aspired to (see?? ::SQUIP!!:: "what is the sound on one hand clutching soap?")

[Danhalen]

As far as the details go, I am currently writing my final project for the aforementioned philosophy class. When it is complete I will share it with you if you wish. I hope that will illuminate my experience for you.

Thank you for the suggestions. I have had the book Hardcore Zen recommended to me as well. Are you familiar?

Your closing comment is something that has always been at the back of mind (concerning Buddhism). To desire enlightenment has always seemed to be counter to the tenet of leaving all desire behind. Perhaps I have always been thinking about this in the wrong way. But I like the way you closed the statement with the 'aspire/attachment' distinction.

So much to think about.

By the way, I live about 45 minutes from lake Erie. I'm a rubber city rebel.

[Ayodhya]

Your closing comment is something that has always been at the back of mind (concerning Buddhism). To desire enlightenment has always seemed to be counter to the tenet of leaving all desire behind. Perhaps I have always been thinking about this in the wrong way. But I like the way you closed the statement with the 'aspire/attachment' distinction.


You seem to already have part of it. A lot of Buddhist situations are very similar to Hinduism, which I'm more familiar with, specifically Advaita Vedanta which is ridiculously close to Buddhism with basically one major theological difference (which I don't think is really applicable in real life).

You answered your own question though. Desire itself is not the problem, its attachment to that desire that matters or else we wouldn't actually do anything.

[Danhalen]

I have a strong affinity for the Hindu religion. There are a lot of Indian transplants where I live, and most of them are very open about their religion and their beliefs concerning their religion. The most beautiful aspect of Hinduism, to me, is its ability to absorb and/or coexist with any other religion and lack thereof. The concept of Brahman is the most pure God concept I have ever experienced (and I think that speaks volumes for a non-theist to say such a thing).

Thank you for your response.

[Ayodhya]

I have a strong affinity for the Hindu religion. There are a lot of Indian transplants where I live, and most of them are very open about their religion and their beliefs concerning their religion. The most beautiful aspect of Hinduism, to me, is its ability to absorb and/or coexist with any other religion and lack thereof. The concept of Brahman is the most pure God concept I have ever experienced (and I think that speaks volumes for a non-theist to say such a thing).


Sorry. I thought it might be a little condescending if I started to talk about Brahman - I didn't know how much you know. Fortunately, you know quite a bit.

But yes, Brahman or the Self (capital "s") is very close to the concept of Nirvana. Ultimately, I feel its primarily an ideological rather than an applicable difference of Brahman vs. Nirvana. Both talk about the extinction of the self in to something larger.

[Danhalen]

Both talk about the extinction of the self in to something larger.I will say of my recent experiences that this is exactly how I would describe them. My most vivid recollection was while I was sitting in my classroom, prior to it beginning, just watching the passersby. It was quite a pleasant scene, and I focused on two women riding their bikes past the window. I was also thinking about how matter is mostly empty space at the atomic level. That led me to think about everything being nothing at all. The thought felt oddly profound at the moment (I'd heard the sentiment many times before). All the while I was watching the two girls on their bikes. Suddenly it felt as if I was immediately aware of everything. I was the scene and all of its constituent parts. There was no distinction between me and what it was I was observing. I felt like 'I' was an inept term. There was no 'I' and there was no 'other.' The subject and object distinction disintegrated right there. Time slowed, and the feeling of love for all there is permeated existence. Then it was over as soon as it began. I was back in my classroom, dumbfounded. I had an immediate paradigm shift. I can never be who I was before that moment.

Sorry for rambling.

[Danhalen]

But yes, Brahman or the Self (capital "s") is very close to the concept of Nirvana. Ultimately, I feel its primarily an ideological rather than an applicable difference of Brahman vs. Nirvana.Is this the monist versus dualist difference you are referring to? That is, is Brahman considered completely other while Nirvana is entirely everything? Or am I confusing my prior readings with other concepts?

[Ayodhya]

Sorry for rambling.

Hardly. I love listening to mystic experiences. Hinduism's basis, unlike Abrahamic religions, is in the mystic experience, if you ever read the Upanishads, for instance.

You will find, however, that you are not the only who has had the experience of "Oneness" of "All". Mystics from across the world and across traditions record similar experiences. Not to diminish your experience, though.

www.seekaftertruth.com

... is a self-titled "mystic repository". Tons of resources, although it is undergoing construction right now. Bookmark it and save it for later.

[Danhalen]

Hardly. I love listening to mystic experiences. Hinduism's basis, unlike Abrahamic religions, is in the mystic experience, if you ever read the Upanishads, for instance.It seems that mysticism is not enslaved to history, and that is appealing to me.

You will find, however, that you are not the only who has had the experience of "Oneness" of "All". Mystics from across the world and across traditions record similar experiences. Not to diminish your experience, though.Company makes me feel sane. You must understand that I was almost as condescending as Christopher Hitchens prior to my experience, and as such these experiences were anathema to me. That other people can share in the mystic ride gives me something to feel normal about. I was quite uncomfortable with myself when I came down off that cloud. I am only recently coming to accept what I experienced.


www.seekaftertruth.com (http://www.seekaftertruth.com)

... is a self-titled "mystic repository". Tons of resources, although it is undergoing construction right now. Bookmark it and save it for later.Awesome! Done and bookmarked.

[MidnightBlue]

Thank you for the suggestions. I have had the book Hardcore Zen recommended to me as well. Are you familiar?I love that book. Also Dropping Ashes on the Buddha, by Seung Sahn. Christmas Humphries' (Humphreys'?) Buddhism is a good introduction, if it's still in print, and I like Sit Down and Shut Up (like Hardcore Zen, it's by Brad Warner) and The Accidental Buddhist, by Dinty W. Moore (seriously).

I buy a lot of Buddhist books and I don't always finish them, so my criterion for saying a Buddhist book is good is that I make it all the way through, and a really good Buddhist book is one I want to read again.

Some of the websites I particularly like are:


Bad Buddhist Radio (http://www.badbuddhistradio.com/)
BuddhaNet - Worldwide Buddhist Information and Education Network (http://buddhanet.net/)
Bandar Utama Buddhist Society - Our Center (http://www.parami.org/)
About forest SANGHA - Venerable Ajahn Chah, Sangha, Dhamma (http://www.forestsangha.org/)
HARDCORE ZEN (http://www.hardcorezen.blogspot.com/) (Brad Warner's blog)

[Danhalen]

Thanks a lot.

Your avatar kicks ***!

ETA: I never considered actually asking Warner for help in this area. His band plays around here all the time. Akron Ohio mostly sucks, but not completely.

[revtroy]

Greetings, Danhalen

Buddhism is not the only area to explore, mysticism is a part of all human experience. Yet, Buddhism has developed quite far along the lines of the psychology of no-self. Thoughts without a Thinker and Going on Being by Mark Epstein are introductory books on Buddhist psychology. More applied than purely theoretical.

My own research in psychospiritual development has lead to some similar conclusions to Buddhist psychology. Also, I recently acquired Being No One: The Self-Model Theory of Subjectivity by Thomas Metzinger. Who seems to be further along a similar research track. I would also recommend Jorge Ferrer's work on Participatory Spirituality.

The shift that you noticed as a result of your experience is an example of what is called Gnosis in my tradition. Gnosis and psychospiritual development are my two primary research interests.

[Danhalen]

Thank you for the additional reading material. As you can probably understand, I am currently interested in all things mystic at the moment.

[MidnightBlue]

You may also want to check out Stephen Batchelor. In particular, Buddhism Without Beliefs and The Psychology of Awakening. He co-wrote the latter with Gay Watson and Guy Claxton.

[kiwimac]

Dan, you sound like me and Zoroastrianism!

[revtroy]

I guess I should have mentioned Evelyn Underhill's classic Mysticism. She looks at mysticism as a unitative experience, which is not the whole of mysticism but is an important part and would fit in with your experience. Dan Merkur's Gnosis: An Esoteric Tradition of Mystical Visions and Unions expands the perspective to include visionary experiences, and so makes a good complimentary work, but it is harder to find.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Danhalen,

fancy seeing you here :)

i'd be keen to answer any particular questions you may have regarding the Buddha Dharma, it's practice and philosophy, such to the degree that i am able.

the experience of no self is one which is not particular to the Buddha Dharma. generally speaking the dissolution of the ego is our first experience of this as it is, by and large, the ego which forms the view of self in its aggregate.

metta,

~v

[Danhalen]

Namaste Danhalen,

fancy seeing you here :)

i'd be keen to answer any particular questions you may have regarding the Buddha Dharma, it's practice and philosophy, such to the degree that i am able.

the experience of no self is one which is not particular to the Buddha Dharma. generally speaking the dissolution of the ego is our first experience of this as it is, by and large, the ego which forms the view of self in its aggregate.

metta,

~vThank you so much for the offer, once again. Since starting this thread, I have been carefully reading the Dhammapada (a version with extensive notes from a theravada practitioner). I will most likely to have more questions as I progress in my own understanding, but for now, I have more pressing matters, and those matters concern my attachment to certain aspects of my life that I dearly need to learn to let go.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Danhalen,

thanks for the post.

no worries :)

it is, in my view, always advisable to read the actual teachings rather than the commentaries on them as it is quite possible that the way the original is worded will create a resonance within that an exposition simply cannot.

recall that the teachings are originally given in verse form and thus have a poetic quality which some translators try to capture and others eschew.

metta,

~v

[DevaLight]

i'd be keen to answer any particular questions you may have regarding the Buddha Dharma, it's practice and philosophy, such to the degree that i am able.

I am not sure I can form an intelligible question, but I have been studying Buddhism a while and I just can't understand what karma is and how it operates. I think I grasp it, and then I go to a Buddhist forum and get warned for not stating in my posts that I am posting "non-Buddhist opinions".

In particular, is karma like a punishment? I thought that was a Hindu idea (not that all Hindus would subscribe to it either), and not Buddhist. It is very troubling to me, some of the things I have read and seen on the internet. It has even made me consider dropping all further study of the Dharma.

Just this morning I saw a this statement by a purported Tibetan Buddhist monk with reference to the topic of euthanasia of a dying animal:

A dying creature is purifying karma by the millisecond at an astonishing rate, because as the teachings on karma instruct us that a slow, painful death is karmic retribution for harming, in subtle and not so subtle ways, ourselves and others during our living, healthy life... Why deprive them of their natural right to burn off this heavy negativity while they have a chance, and probably improve their stock in future lives?

This is Very Disturbing.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste DevaLight,

thank you for the post.


I am not sure I can form an intelligible question, but I have been studying Buddhism a while and I just can't understand what karma is and how it operates. I think I grasp it, and then I go to a Buddhist forum and get warned for not stating in my posts that I am posting "non-Buddhist opinions".

Kamma (Pali)/Karma (Sanskrit) is a widely misunderstood part of the Buddha Dharma and even Buddhists that have been studying and practicing for awhile can become confused about it.

i'll address it in greater detail a bit further down in the post.


In particular, is karma like a punishment?


no :)

there are two parts to the equation here, Kamma and Vipaka. i suspect that you've not heard of Vipaka previously ;)

the Buddha Shakyamunis exposition of Kamma is actually very straightforward and not all that confusing.

Kamma, he states, is intention. by intending with thought, action or speech a being produces kamma of the bright (positive), dark (negative) or neutral sort.

the result of our intentional thoughts, words and deeds (kamma) is Vipaka, the fruit as it were.

an analogy that i oft employ is that of a farmer with is crop.

if a farmer tends his crops, weeds the fields and waters them, when the crop comes it we don't consider that the farmer is being rewarded we say, instead, that he is reaping what he has sown.

equally, when the farmer neglects his field, does not water the crops and leaves the weeds, when the crop does not come in we don't consider that he is being punished, again, he is reaping what he sowed.

what is reaped is, of course, different in both cases. in the first its food and income and all the rest whereas in the latter it is starvation and poverty. in both cases the result (vipaka) of his intentional actions, thoughts and words (karma) arises through a causal process.


I thought that was a Hindu idea (not that all Hindus would subscribe to it either), and not Buddhist. It is very troubling to me, some of the things I have read and seen on the internet. It has even made me consider dropping all further study of the Dharma.

whislt it is certainly true that the Sanatana Dharma (Hindu) understanding of kamma is different than the Buddha Dharma understanding in no case is kamma posited as a sentient being which can "will" or "intend" anything. it is a natural process rather like gravity or the electromagnetic field.


Just this morning I saw a this statement by a purported Tibetan Buddhist monk with reference to the topic of euthanasia of a dying animal:

A dying creature is purifying karma by the millisecond at an astonishing rate, because as the teachings on karma instruct us that a slow, painful death is karmic retribution for harming, in subtle and not so subtle ways, ourselves and others during our living, healthy life... Why deprive them of their natural right to burn off this heavy negativity while they have a chance, and probably improve their stock in future lives?This is Very Disturbing.

the monk is correct from a purely technical point of view yet incorrect, in my opinion, from a practical point of view. the way the paragraph is worded is also somewhat problematic however one cannot overestimate the difficulty that a Tibetan speaker will have in rendering into English many common understandings. the ending of the paragraph poses the question of interest... do we have a right to interfer in these instances? i would suggest that it depends on a beings own potential to mitigate the suffering of another, some beings have more ability to do this than others.

to further complicate the matter the paragraph doesn't indicate if the monk is speaking of human being or other sentient beings.

metta,

~v

[DevaLight]

Kamma, he states, is intention. by intending with thought, action or speech a being produces kamma of the bright (positive), dark (negative) or neutral sort.

the result of our intentional thoughts, words and deeds (kamma) is Vipaka, the fruit as it were.

I can understand karma as cause and effect. Action and the effects of actions. But the intention part of it is what doesn't make sense to me. Why is that separated out and make something important?

whislt it is certainly true that the Sanatana Dharma (Hindu) understanding of kamma is different than the Buddha Dharma understanding in no case is kamma posited as a sentient being which can "will" or "intend" anything. it is a natural process rather like gravity or the electromagnetic field.

Yes as a natural process rather like gravity is something I understand, but when "intention" is put in as a factor in creating some special type of significance, I am seeing it as putting in another force, a God if you will, with a system of justice distinguishing between "good intentions and "bad intentions" which produce results accordingly. No one actually knows what another's intentions are. Why would the universe care what our intentions were? Since Buddhism doesn't bring in God as a judge, I hope you see my problem.

What does intention mean? Why its significance? :confused:

to further complicate the matter the paragraph doesn't indicate if the monk is speaking of human being or other sentient beings.

I don't know specifically what the writer was referring to, but it was used in the context of animals which have been injured, such as being hit by a car and still alive but in a terminal state and whether it was proper to euthanize them.

So to sum up, in Buddhism karma is intentional action and the fruit of it. There is general cause and effect, but that type of action does not create karmic effects (vipaka?). Is that true?

[Aupmanyav]

If there is intention, then action is not far behind. That is why 'manasa, vacha, karmana' in hinduism (do not think that way, do not speak that way, do not act that way).

Euthenesia will not be contra-indicated in hinduism. With reasons it could be an act of charity.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste DevaLight,

thank you for the post.


I can understand karma as cause and effect. Action and the effects of actions. But the intention part of it is what doesn't make sense to me. Why is that separated out and make something important?

however karma isn't "cause and effect" as it is typically understood. karma is that which creates the conditions and the vipaka is the result that we experience.

let me see if an analogy may help.

suppose a Dr. wanted to give you an injection to cure you of an illness. the Dr. knows that the injection will cause you pain however his intention is not to cause you pain but rather to help prevent your suffering. as the Dr.s intentions are "right intentions" the Dr. will not produce negative karma even though the injection will cause you pain.

karma is only created through intentional, i.e. deliberate, thoughts, actions and speech. actions, thoughts and words which are not intentional, not deliberate, do not produce karma.

Yes as a natural process rather like gravity is something I understand, but when "intention" is put in as a factor in creating some special type of significance, I am seeing it as putting in another force, a God if you will, with a system of justice distinguishing between "good intentions and "bad intentions" which produce results accordingly.


it doesn't create any sort of significance; intention creates karma. without intention there is no karma. karma isn't anything other than intentional actions, thoughts and words, it is vipaka which we experience as the consequences of our actions, thoughts and words. if you were to drop a hammer on your foot there is no thought that some cosmic force willed or chose for your foot to hurt as a result and the same is true of karma. that our experience of vipaka may be positive or negative is simply the direct result of our karma without any cosmic force willing it or choosing it.


No one actually knows what another's intentions are.


indeed. this is so.


Why would the universe care what our intentions were? Since Buddhism doesn't bring in God as a judge, I hope you see my problem.

well.. not entirely, no.

the universe doesn't care as the universe is not sentient in the least little bit. apples fall to the ground due to the natural force of gravity without any cosmic being choosing for it to be so. vipaka arises from karma without any cosmic being choosing for it to be so.

i think, perhaps, one of the issues you are encountering is the idea that vipaka is a judgement or punishment or reward for a beings karma... that is a viewpoint which is foreign to the Buddha Dharma


What does intention mean? Why its significance?

in·ten·tion (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifn-thttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ebreve.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifshhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gifn)n.1. A course of action that one intends to follow.
2. a. An aim that guides action; an objective.
b. intentions Purpose with respect to marriage: honorable intentions.

3. Medicine The process by which or the manner in which a wound heals.
4. Archaic Import; meaning.

the significance of intention is that these are actions, thoughts and words which a being purposefully engages in. if they are negative that means the being choose to be harmful, if they are positive that means the being choose to be compassionate (for instance). Buddha Dharma teaches that it is only actions, thoughts and words which we intend, which we purposefully engage in, which produce karma. actions, thoughts and words which we do not purposefully engage in do not produce karma.




So to sum up, in Buddhism karma is intentional action and the fruit of it. There is general cause and effect, but that type of action does not create karmic effects (vipaka?). Is that true?

Karma is intentional actions, thoughts and words. the fruit of Karma is called Vipaka. Karma is a quality unique to sentient beings rather than inanimate or non-sentient beings. thus the physical ideas of cause and effect are not terribly apropos when discussing karma and vipaka other than as a crude analogy. it could be said, i suppose, that karma and vipaka are like cause and effect in the moral realm.

metta,

~v

[DevaLight]

however karma isn't "cause and effect" as it is typically understood. karma is that which creates the conditions and the vipaka is the result that we experience.

Ok, that seems clear. It isn't just "cause and effect" as I thought it was.

karma is only created through intentional, i.e. deliberate, thoughts, actions and speech. actions, thoughts and words which are not intentional, not deliberate, do not produce karma.

This is where I can't understand what is going on. What if I intend to do something but never actually do it? I just thought about it? Karma created or not? You say "thoughts". If you are speaking about a purely internal mental type process I think I can see where intention might apply and create karma. For example, if I am always thinking how much I hate someone, that is detrimental to my own mental state. But how can outside events occur as a result of my own private internal mental state?

the universe doesn't care as the universe is not sentient in the least little bit. apples fall to the ground due to the natural force of gravity without any cosmic being choosing for it to be so. vipaka arises from karma without any cosmic being choosing for it to be so.


Agreed the universe doesn't care. How is my intention a force like gravity? I don't see why the universe should care at all what my intentions are. Especially it seems odd since the Dharma states everything is impermanent and empty. How can the temporary intentions of a purely temporary stream of consciousness have any real influence?

karma and vipaka are like cause and effect in the moral realm.

If it were confined to the moral or mental realm I wouldn't have a problem, I can see harmful intentions actually creating harm to a mind, but the way some Buddhists describe it, it seems like something else, like a separate force of nature like gravity acting on "outside" events.

I am not rejecting it, it is just that I still don't understand it. I do appreciate your efforts in trying to explain it.

[Aupmanyav]

'But how can outside events occur as a result of my own private internal mental state?': Some event has already occured, you have succumbed to hate, this is 'adharma' (you see, you are talking about believers, where things can have different reasons, not only physical). Hinduism does not accept this kind of emptiness. Even Buddha's emptiness is not really emptiness, it is anatta (non-authority, my translation of the word). If my guess is not correct than perhaps Vajradhara will explain.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste DevaLight,

thank you for the post.


karma is only created through intentional, i.e. deliberate, thoughts, actions and speech. actions, thoughts and words which are not intentional, not deliberate, do not produce karma.This is where I can't understand what is going on. What if I intend to do something but never actually do it? I just thought about it? Karma created or not?


even if you never carry out the action or speak the words you've had the intentional thought, thus, karma is created. many beings only think of karma as operative in the physical realm however it is also operative in the emotional, psychological and spiritual realm.


You say "thoughts". If you are speaking about a purely internal mental type process I think I can see where intention might apply and create karma. For example, if I am always thinking how much I hate someone, that is detrimental to my own mental state. But how can outside events occur as a result of my own private internal mental state?

easily enough. if you are very angry at a being it can lead you to engage in unskillful actions, such as harsh speech or even physical altercations.

the Buddha Shakyamuni explains that the full workings of karma are not able to be discerned by unAwakened beings, we can only get a glimpse of the full workings. the glimpse that we get, however, is quite sufficient and fairly difficult for many beings to accept especially given that the generative karma is operative for seven arisings.


Agreed the universe doesn't care. How is my intention a force like gravity?


your intention isn't, per se. karma and vipaka are. they are like gravity in the sense that it requires no consciousness for this process to occur. vipaka arises from karma as naturally as gravity arises from objects moving through spacetime with accellerated velocity.


I don't see why the universe should care at all what my intentions are.


the uinverse is non-sentient can has no feelings, thoughts or intentions for any being or anything, in the same manner of a rock. your intentions only produce karma for you, insofar as you exist ;)


Especially it seems odd since the Dharma states everything is impermanent and empty. How can the temporary intentions of a purely temporary stream of consciousness have any real influence?

whilst that is the case until you reach the Other Shore you, like all other beings not Across, are subject to karma and vipaka. karma isn't permanent, by the way, which perhaps you have been thinking. not is it unchangeable. if it were either permanent or unchangable Awakening and Liberation would not be possible.


If it were confined to the moral or mental realm I wouldn't have a problem, I can see harmful intentions actually creating harm to a mind, but the way some Buddhists describe it, it seems like something else, like a separate force of nature like gravity acting on "outside" events.

karma, either the positive or negative sort, can manifest in the physical, emotional or psychological aspects of a beings consciousness.


I am not rejecting it, it is just that I still don't understand it. I do appreciate your efforts in trying to explain it.

no worries :) many Western Buddhists reject the idea of karma so it's no surprise that you may have some difficulty with it :)

metta,

~v

[DevaLight]

even if you never carry out the action or speak the words you've had the intentional thought, thus, karma is created. many beings only think of karma as operative in the physical realm however it is also operative in the emotional, psychological and spiritual realm.

Yes, I can see how it operates in the emotional, psychological and spiritual realms.

easily enough. if you are very angry at a being it can lead you to engage in unskillful actions, such as harsh speech or even physical altercations

Yes of course it can, or you may decide to do nothing outwardly. If you did or said nothing in this example, how would karma work out? Or is this not something anyone could answer?


the Buddha Shakyamuni explains that the full workings of karma are not able to be discerned by unAwakened beings, we can only get a glimpse of the full workings. the glimpse that we get, however, is quite sufficient and fairly difficult for many beings to accept especially given that the generative karma is operative for seven arisings.

Could you please explain what "seven arisings" mean? Is that seven lives? What is "generative karma"?


the uinverse is non-sentient can has no feelings, thoughts or intentions for any being or anything, in the same manner of a rock. your intentions only produce karma for you, insofar as you exist ;)

I think we could open another thread and discuss emptiness in relation to this question. :)

karma isn't permanent, by the way, which perhaps you have been thinking. not is it unchangeable. if it were either permanent or unchangable Awakening and Liberation would not be possible.

Yes, I understand that karma cannot be permanent and unchangeable.

no worries :) many Western Buddhists reject the idea of karma so it's no surprise that you may have some difficulty with it :)

I am attending practices (on a beginner level) with a Vajrayana group that definately does not reject the idea of karma. That's one reason why I am really trying to understand it. Also I do think it is an important part of what Buddha taught. I am still working on it but you are really helping me to clear the confusion up. Thanks! :)

I just want to add that I have seen incorrect ideas about karma (in the Buddhist sense) all the time on internet Buddhist discussion boards.

[Aupmanyav]

In hinduism, action done without seeking results and in line of 'dharma' does not accumulate bad karma (Geeta - I think Geeta could be post-Buddha).

[Vajradhara]

Namaste DevaLight,

thank you for the post.

Yes of course it can, or you may decide to do nothing outwardly. If you did or said nothing in this example, how would karma work out? Or is this not something anyone could answer?

well... we could answer it to some degree based solely upon that scenario however vipaka is a culmination of overall intentional, so it is quite possible that your skillful, positive, intentions have completely mitigated the unskillful, negative, ones.


Could you please explain what "seven arisings" mean? Is that seven lives? What is "generative karma"?

well... yes.. lives i suppose would be how you'd say. there are many sorts of karma, proximate karma, generative karma and so forth. generative karma/vipaka is that which influences the conditions of our arising, healthy or ill, wealthy or poor and everywhere in between.


I am attending practices (on a beginner level) with a Vajrayana group that definately does not reject the idea of karma. That's one reason why I am really trying to understand it. Also I do think it is an important part of what Buddha taught. I am still working on it but you are really helping me to clear the confusion up. Thanks!

no worries. indeed, the Buddha states that karma/vipaka is a teaching that we have to accept on faith until we can verify it for ourselves. he also claims that the Doctrine and Discipline (his name for the Buddha Dharma) is incomplete without the teachings of karma/vipaka.


I just want to add that I have seen incorrect ideas about karma (in the Buddhist sense) all the time on internet Buddhist discussion boards.

as have i. there are lot of misconceptions regarding it which are, in some cases, artifacts of when the Theosophists first introduced Buddha Dharma to the West. it is also my experience that a great many beings that profess to study the Buddha Dharma in the West don't actually read the Suttas/Sutras, rather, they rely upon commentaries explaning the Sutta/Sutra. Commentaries are valuable but, in my view, no substitute for reading the text for oneself.

metta,

~v

[DevaLight]

Vajradhara,

Karma/rebirth is a complicated subject but it is part of the Dharma and I feel it is important to try to understand it. Even though my understanding is still incomplete, I do accept it "on faith".

It seems to me that Buddhism in the west tries to diminish or set aside the importance of the doctrines of karma and rebirth in order to adjust itself to western sensibilities.

Yes, the Theosophists did a service in introducing eastern religions to the west, but a disservice in presenting it. Blavatsky mixed Hinduism and Buddhism together in a way that seemed more palatable. Either that or she and other early Theosophists were simply confused. At least that is my guess. Interestingly, Blavatsky herself did become a Buddhist toward the end of her life.

Thanks again for the explanation.

[Aupmanyav]

They were thoroughly confused and intent on being the high priests/priestesses of a new religion. Bahaullah and party were more successful. :)

[DevaLight]

Aupmanyav:

Depends on your definition of "religion." It seems to me that the founders of the Society, especially H.P. Blavatsky, did not view themselves as "high priests/preistesses" of a new religion. See

http://www.blavatsky.net/blavatsky/arts/IsTheosophyAReligion.htm

Anyway, we are getting off topic. I wanted to discover what the true explanation of karma was, in the Buddhist sense. It definately differs from the Hindu and theosopical explanations that I was familiar with and I wanted to clear it up.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

as i prefer to let people read the source material for themselves (transliterations notwithstanding) this may be of some interest, the Shorter Discourse on Kamma, the Cula-Kammavibhanka Sutta:

1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park.

Then Subha the student (brahman), Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side. When he had done so, Subha the student said to the Blessed One:

2. "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"


3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."


4. "I do not understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning."
"Then listen, student, and heed well what I shall say."
"Even so, Master Gotama," Subha the student replied. The Blessed One said this:


5. "Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.


6. "But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living beings.


7. "Here, student, some woman or man is one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is sickly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to sickness, that is to say, to be one who harms beings with one's hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.


8. "But here some woman or man is not one who harms beings with his hands, or with clods, or with sticks, or with knives. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is healthy wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to health, that is to say, not to be one who harms beings with his hands or with clods or with sticks or with knives.


9. "Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness.


10. "But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry, ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.


11. "Here, student, some woman or man is envious; he envies, begrudges and harbors envy about others' gains, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is insignificant wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to insignificance, that is to say, to be envious, to envy, begrudge, and harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings.

continued....

[Vajradhara]

2. "But here some woman or man is not envious, he does not envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is influential wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to influence, that is to say, not to be envious, not to envy, begrudge or harbor envy about others' gain, honor, veneration, respect, salutations and offerings.

13. "Here, student, some woman or man is not a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks or brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is poor wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to poverty, that is to say, not to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans.

14. "But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is rich wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to riches, that is to say, to be a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, garlands, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmans.

15. "Here, student, some woman or man is obdurate and haughty; he does not pay homage to whom he should pay homage, or rise up for whom he should rise up, or give a seat to whom he should give a seat, or make way for whom he should make way, or worship him who should be worshipped, or respect him who should be respected, or revere him who should be revered, or honor him who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is low-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to low birth, that is to say, to be obdurate and haughty, not to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, nor rise up for..., nor give a seat to..., nor make way for..., nor worship..., nor respect..., nor revere..., nor honor him who should be honored.

16. "But here some woman or man is not obdurate or haughty; he pays homage to whom he should pay homage, rises up for whom he should rise up, gives a seat to whom he should give a seat, makes way for whom he should make way, worships him who should be worshipped, respects him who should be respected, reveres him who should be revered, honors him who should be honored. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is high-born wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to high birth, that is to say, not to be obdurate or haughty, to pay homage to whom he should pay homage, to rise up for..., to give a seat to..., to make way for..., to worship... respect... revere... honor him who should be honored.

17. "Here, student, some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, does not ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir? What is unwholesome? What is blamable? What is blameless? What should be cultivated? What should not be cultivated? What, by my doing it, will be long for my harm and suffering? Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he will be stupid wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to stupidity, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, not to ask: 'What is wholesome?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?'

18. "But here some woman or man when visiting a monk or brahman, asks: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?' Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is wise wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to wisdom, that is to say, when visiting a monk or brahman, to ask: 'What is wholesome, venerable sir?... Or what, by my doing it, will be long for my welfare and happiness?'

19. "So, student, the way that leads to short life makes people short-lived, the way that leads to long life makes people long-lived; the way that leads to sickness makes people sick, the way that leads to health makes people healthy; the way that leads to ugliness makes people ugly, the way that leads to beauty makes people beautiful; the way that leads to insignificance makes people insignificant, the way that leads to influence makes people influential; the way that leads to poverty makes people poor, the way that leads to riches makes people rich; the way that leads to low birth makes people low-born, the way that leads to high birth makes people high-born; the way that leads to stupidity makes people stupid, the way that leads to wisdom makes people wise.

20. "Beings are owners of kammas, student, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."

21. When this was said, Subha the student, Todeyya's son, said to the Blessed One: "Magnificent, Master Gotama! Magnificent, Master Gotama! The Dhamma has been made clear in many ways by Master Gotama, as though he were turning upright what had been overthrown, revealing the hidden, showing the way to one who is lost, holding up a lamp in the darkness for those with eyes to see forms.

22. "I go to Master Gotama for refuge, and to the Dhamma and to the Sangha of bhikkhus. From today let Master Gotama accept me as a lay follower who has gone to him for refuge for life."


metta,


~v

[DevaLight]

Thank you for posting that Vajradhara. After hearing of all the karmic consequences of various actions, no wonder Subha went to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for refuge!

Everyone would want a way out of this endless round of existence.

[Aupmanyav]

'.. after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn.': Buddha, you know, I rever you no less than than the 'advaita' teachers who have helped form my world view. But this would not interest a person of science in 21st Century. Give us a better reason.

DevaLight: There is no way out of this endless round of existence. The atoms that constitute you will always survive. That is Brahman. How do you extinguish Brahman? It is eternal. What happens if we go into a black-hole, I do not know, but there also there is no extinction. The energy comes out in a plume (http://www.alienalley.com/Blackh1.gif).

[DevaLight]

Perhaps we should have a discussion on Nirvana.

nirvana/nibbana * It is the cessation of suffering (http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM#dukka), the liberation from karma (http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM#karma), and therefore the passing over into another existence. The best way to think about nirvana is that it is the final goal of Buddhism, and that Enlightenment (http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM#enlightenment) is the step immediately before it. Thus one becomes aware of the nature of Ultimate Reality in Enlightenment, and then one becomes unified with that reality in nirvana. Thus the Buddha (http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM#buddha), when he died, passed into Nirvana, having previously attained Enlightenment during his life and sharing it with humanity. A bodhisattva (http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM#bodhisattva) is one who has attained Enlightenment, but rather than passing over into nirvana, chose to come back to this world to use their power to help other people.
from: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/Religionet/er/buddhism/BGLOSSRY.HTM

[Aupmanyav]

Bodhisattva (Wikipedia): When, during his discourses, he recounts his experiences as a young aspirant, he regularly uses the phrase "When I was an unenlightened Bodhisatta...". The term therefore connotes a being who is "bound for enlightenment", in other words, a person whose aim it is to become fully enlightened. Some of the previous lives of the Buddha as a bodhisattva are featured in the Jataka Tales.

A 'bodhisattva' is one who is on way to become a Buddha (All-knowing).

[DevaLight]

There are different interpretations of the word "Bodhisattva" between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

A 'bodhisattva' is one who is on way to become a Buddha (All-knowing). -

That is one interpretation. But there is also this:

Mahayana Buddhism, on the other hand, regards the Bodhisattva as a person who already has a considerable degree of enlightenment and seeks to use their wisdom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajna) to help other human beings to become liberated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha) themselves. In this understanding of the word the Bodhisattva is an already wise person who uses skillful means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skillful_means) to lead others to see the benefits of virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sila) and the cultivation of wisdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhisattva

So the Bodhisattva has a " considerable degree of enlightenment".

[DevaLight]

DevaLight: There is no way out of this endless round of existence. The atoms that constitute you will always survive. That is Brahman. How do you extinguish Brahman? It is eternal. What happens if we go into a black-hole, I do not know, but there also there is no extinction. The energy comes out in a plume (http://www.alienalley.com/Blackh1.gif).


"The realizing of nirvana is compared to the ending of avidyā (ignorance) which perpetuates the will (cetana) into effecting the incarnation of mind into biological or other form passing on forever through life after life (samsara). Samsara is caused principally by craving and ignorance (see dependent origination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_origination)). A person can attain nirvana without dying. When a person who has realized nirvana dies, his death is referred as parinirvāṇa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parinirvana) (Pali: parinibbana), his fully passing away, as his life was his last link to the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara_(Buddhism))), and he will not be reborn again. Buddhism holds that the ultimate goal and end of samsaric existence (of ever "becoming" and "dying" and never truly being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being)) is realization of nirvana; what happens to a person after his parinirvāṇa cannot be explained, as it is outside of all conceivable experience."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana


Nirvana is ultimately beyond description, but it is the end of the conditioned mind, and the end of further incarnations.

[Aupmanyav]

DevaLight, excuse me for my personal interpretation of 'nirvana' or 'enlightenment'. It is ending of 'avidya', OK. The 'chetna' will end with our life and there is no re-birth for it to be passed on. There is, of course, the recycling of energy in the pool, which will continue to create new forms. 'Samsara' is caused by this recycling of energy. As buddhism as well as 'advaita' hinduism say, 'self' is only an illusion, it has no 'atta'/'satta'/dominion.

Yes, 'nirvana' or 'enlightenment' is obtained in this life, because there is no other. If you consider 'no re-birth' as 'nirvana', then every living-being attains 'nirvana' in this life, though it may not obtain 'enlightenment'. 'Enlightenment'/'Vidya' is easily describable, it is understanding of conditions and of the fact that it is 'energy' which constitutes everything, perceived or non-perceived, in the universe.

[DevaLight]

Aupmanyav,

I am not going to debate rebirth in a non-debate forum. You say there is no rebirth, no next life, I think that may be Advaita Vedanta, but it is not Buddhism, according to what I have read. Yet, I know there are different ways of understanding this. In any event, there is no doubt that the present life must be the most important focus

The self is an illusion, that's true in both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta.

I am far from knowing everything, I have been researching and starting to practice Buddhism only in the last 6 months.

[Vajradhara]

Thank you for posting that Vajradhara. After hearing of all the karmic consequences of various actions, no wonder Subha went to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha for refuge!

Everyone would want a way out of this endless round of existence.

Namaste DevaLight,

thank you for the post.

not all beings see it the same, of course, but that is a primary reason that Buddha Shakyamuni arose in this world system.

metta,

~v