I am starting this thread as a continuation of a brief discussion ending .
Selections on “Karma†from “Path to Bliss: A Practical Guide to Stages of Meditation†by H.H. the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso:
"As we discussed earlier, the phenomena that are directly related to our experience of pain and pleasure are subject to the law of interdependence and therefore depend on their causes and conditions. If there is a cause, the effects ensue and themselves in turn become causes and produce their fruits. So there is a kind of chain reaction – it is like playing a snooker game, in which one ball hits another and that hits another and so on. This law of interdependence is very powerful. Things that we would never expect sometimes arise, such as a small cause triggering great change and transformation. That is the meaning of the law of interdependence.
"The presentation of the law of causality is the presentation of a natural fact. It can be explained briefly in this way: if you do positive actions, you will face desirable consequences and if you engage in negative actions, you will have to face undesirable consequences. There is a connection of commensuration between cause and effect. Any action that produces happiness is positive. The distinction between negative and positive can be made only by judging the fruits.
"Happiness and suffering can be posited only on the basis of the feeling of a living being. If that factor of feeling is not taken into account, what basis can there be for making such a distinction between positive and negative or harm and benefit? Since we have to accept harm and benefit, or in other words pain and pleasure, any causes that give rise to suffering are negative, and any causes that give rise to happiness are positive. Positive actions result in desirable consequences. In this way there is a definiteness in karmic law.
"Occasionally people who do not have a proper knowledge of karmic law say that such and such a person is very kind and religious and so forth, but he always has problems, whereas so and so is very deceptive and negative, frequently indulging in negative actions, but always seems very successful. Such people may think there is no karmic law at all. There are others who go to the other extreme and become superstitious, thinking that when someone experiences illness, it is all due to harmful spirits. If such a person were the disciple of a Kadampa master, he would be beaten with a stick.
“Do not have the notion that karmic law is something laid down by the Buddha. Rather, it is a natural law like any other natural law. Although the very subtle aspects of karmic law are extremely hidden for us and can be inferred only by relying on scriptural sources, there are certain general aspects of which we can develop an understanding through reasoning.”
Selection on “Karma†from “Luminous Bliss: The Way of The Buddha†by Kalu Rinpoche:
“There is no judge who says, “You have been bad, you deserve to suffer.†Our misfortunes as well as our good fortune result from karma that we ourselves have created. It is because of their karma that Westerners think they have to work so hard for material comfort and security and that they spend all their time working and have no time to study and practice Dharma. It isn’t God or any other external agent that created this world in its complexity; it is the karma of the beings living here. Because karma is so profound, we cannot completely understand it. It is an extremely subtle reality that cannot be perceived unless we have attained enlightenment. But even though we do not understand it completely, we can still understand aspects of it and at least begin to refrain from committing harmful actions and try at every moment to cultivate positive ones.”
very enlightening. i recently became interested in Tibetan Buddhism and the tao, and this seems to flow wonderfully with what i have learned about it so far.
perhaps one of mans greatest downfalls is how poorly he is able to judge the fruit.
Is the idea of karma dependent on the principle that all things are one? It is stated as a tautology that good acts create happiness and bad acts create suffering, but it does not indicate who is made happy and who suffers. It seems then to value all suffering and happiness equally, regardless who experiences them. Is that right?
Not that they are ‘one’, but that they are interconnected and interdependent. If everything were one, we wouldn’t be able to make differentiations of a practical sort, and I would know your mind as clearly as I know my mind. The development of virtue in Buddhism is seen as a discipline which especially if undertaken in conjunction with the development of wisdom helps us to work ‘with the grain’ of reality, rather than against it - both intellectually and experientially. We ourselves become happier, feel more fulfilled, more energetic, less victimized… and that in turn affects everything and everyone we touch, at least in some fashion. So I don’t think that Buddhism values “all suffering and happiness equally, regardless who experiences them”, since we are not an undifferentiated mass of sentient life. On the other hand, I do think Buddhism encourages the ability to at least not ignore and at best make use of all of our experiences in life. So in that sense Buddhism does “value all suffering and happiness equally, regardless who experiences them”.
I think ‘good’ has a broader meaning in normal usage, and it is here being defined in a narrower sense. ‘Good’ implies ‘good at’ something - in this case ‘good at producing happiness’. I think it is a matter of defining the term as it relates to Buddhism, rather than simply stating a tautology.
Sorry, neither of the passages you provided actually use ‘good’ in the sense I used it. That was my interpretation.
Would it be right to say that Buddhism is utilitarian? That good in the broader, traditional western sense is equated with happiness? It seems to take that as granted, and then prescribe a system for maximizing it. Is that true?
I worry that Buddhism is inconsistent for this reason. If happiness is valued, but attachment is not, there seems to be a conflict. Happiness is inextricable from the brain, and the brain inextricable from the body. Without a metaphysical dualism, the position seems untenable, but I didn’t think that Buddhists were dualists.
In my own understanding, Buddhism engages in both metaphysics and pragmatism. There is a duality implied by misunderstanding that conceptual division as a real division. The central problem for most people in coming to grips with Buddhist thought and practice on a deeper level than simply reducing stress through utilizing meditative techniques (a good enough reason in itself), is that when looked at separately (dualistically) Buddhist metaphysics doesn’t seem to relate well with Buddhist pragmatism.
Buddhist metaphysics involves looking more closely at the ‘true mode’ of all phenomena. We assume that people have an independent ‘self’ and that any phenomenon has an essential identifiable nature ‘from it’s own side’. So what we consider real or integral on further inspection turns out to be compounded. Buddhist thinkers consider the ramifications of this way of thinking to be significant, in terms of both knowledge and behavior. If we recognize that ‘table’ is a conventional designation for something that lacks inherent tableness, then our attachment towards that phenomena as a truly existent thing is reduced. That insight has the power to change our relationship to the phenomenon and thus empowers us to mine its utility potential with more creativity. The ‘table’ could actually be used as a platform for painting our house. The example is mundane, but hopefully the point comes across. The main concepts which follow from these investigations into the nature of reality are twofold: ‘no-self’ and ‘emptiness’ or ‘shunyata’.
A misunderstanding of no-self and emptiness could lead to a nihilistic understanding of reality. The philosophical assertion here is not that nothing exists at all, but that things don’t exist in the way we think they exist. So the ‘positive’ pragmatism of the laws of karma could be seen as a corrective to the ‘negative’ metaphysics of no-self and emptiness. But it is even better to understand that relationship in a less dualistic way. If emptiness is understood properly, it is seen that all change and therefore utility in general is made possible by the fact of emptiness. If we were independent entities as we tend to think we are, then we would not be subject to change and we would not be able to engage in the Buddhist path (or any other enterprise) at all.
Buddhism doesn’t see attachment as connected to happiness. It is a misconception that Buddhism doesn’t value relationships, commitments, and both personal and social stability. ‘Attachment’ is a synonym for craving, clinging, desperation, fixation, etc. - even if those qualities are expressed in subtle ways. Attachment is an expression of a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the uncontrollable processes of the world we live in.
Does that answer at all to your feeling that “there seems to be a conflict”? I can never really tell how much sense I make.
While I’m no Buddhist, I have spent time in the study of Tao. I’ll offer my perspective: Pragmatically, cause and effect are commonsensical. I cannot see black without white, there is no front without a back, and so on. It follows that happiness and suffering depend on each other for their existence. Without suffering, there can be no happiness. All of the cause-effect of duality is mutually arising. Nothing arrives without bringing it’s opposite.
As mortal entities there is no escaping duality, there is only understanding that cause-effect are simply two sides of the same coin. Attachment is NOT understanding this, and if I understand correctly, karma may be viewed in essentially the same way.
To say it another way, there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in any experience, and what could be called enlightenment is seeing the complete interaction of both. A sage chooses neither, but fosters both in their mutually entailing parts within an experience. Pragmatically, we try to let the angel win without winning, and the devil to lose without losing.
I suffer the same problem as anon. I can never tell if I have made sense or not.
It’s not really possible to address Buddhist ethics by strict comparison with western models, but I think there are similarities to utilitarianism. According to utilitarianism, moral authority is derived through right acts being those which result in good consequences. In other words, the acts are deemed good because they produce good consequences. The Buddhist doctrine of kamma also teaches a close relationship between good acts and consequences, but places a lot of emphasis on intention. So you could say that good consequences result from good acts in Buddhism, rather than that the acts are good because the consequences are good. It’s a subtle, but real, distinction. From a Buddhist point of view, it’s fruitless to ‘seek happiness’ if happiness is defined as ‘the good’, because reality is beyond concepts of good and bad. That is to say, along the lines of what tentative noted, reality contains both good and bad unseparated, in a preconceptual state. As well, any conscious effort to remove half of reality would reflect an incorrect recognition of the existence of just that part (dualism).
So what this means in terms of ethics is that moral action doesn’t always equate to conceived notions of morality. The reason is that Buddhism believes that only this present moment is real, therefore only conduct in the here and now can be right or wrong. So acting right at this moment is the only true morality. We can (and often do) discuss right and wrong as abstract concepts, but those abstractions are always divorced from the real situation before us. Ultimate reality is nothing other than this reality realized correctly. Which is where kamma, ultimately, dissolves, along with all other illusion. (I’m necessarily writing this in the past, which is why I can bother to speak of kamma arising or ceasing at all.) It’s when this reality is intellectualized into constituent parts that we, out of ignorance, construct stories about life.
IMO, while “Buddhist metaphysics” is grounded in the three marks of existence (impermanence, non-self, and suffering/dissatisfaction), it’s probably more accurate to call Buddhism anti-metaphysical, since it doesn’t involve abstract theorization, instead emphasizing the pragmatic aspects of meditation and ethical action. That’s why ‘right’, as it’s applied to intention and action, is realized through the deepened understanding of one’s true nature and the true nature of all things.
Edited in: If we’re supposed to be referencing the ‘masters’ here, call this rendition “Dogen-esque”.
Yeah, I can’t tell if you guys have made sense either.
I’m kind of getting the impression that Buddhism is metaphysical Popeye-ism: the universe is what it is and that’s all that it is. Tent, what you say about black and white causing each other, and Anon, what you say about valuing worldly things without craving them, make it seem like the idea is to see both the bad and the good in the world, and sort of accept them. You can appreciate the good, but when the good goes away, you observe and accept that the bad is necessary. Is that the idea?
Ingenium, you’re right about Millian utilitarianism, but I think any sort of coherent utilitarianism needs to be based in the present. It doesn’t make sense to wait until the full consequences of an action are through unfolding to judge the act (when are an acts consequences through unfolding, anyway?). If I say “I’m going to kill you” and pull the trigger, I’ve done wrong even if the bullet passes harmlessly through soft tissue, and magically defuses an inoperable tumor on its way.
Anon and Ingenium, you two seem to disagree about metaphysics. Is that a real disagreement, or an artifact of language? Because Anon just seems to be describing a pragmatic metaphysics, and Ingenium is saying it’s not metaphysics at all, just pragmatism. Although, on the face of it I’d have to agree more with Anon, because some of theses responses are fairly abstract.
Yes in a way, but curiosity and investigation into ourselves and our world is highly valued. Otherwise we would mistake what we think it is for what it really is.
It is definitely the case that we learn to accept both good and bad in a calm manner. We don’t need to react too quickly and emotionally. In terms of karma, we can learn to see what happens in the world as a result of past karma. In that way we become more intelligent about how we engage in the world. For instance if a person happens to have an interest in social activism they would learn to more intelligently distinguish between causes and effects - between what will actually help induce change and what is a waste of energy. Acting virtuously is not in conflict with acceptance of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’. They go together as one integrated approach to the world.
I kind of think of this as like a parent raising a child. When can the parent affect the child and when can’t they? Moralists can be like a parent trying to change the thoughts and behavior of a 17 year old - a ludicrous thing to witness in many ways. On the other hand what kind of parent wouldn’t pay close attention to what kind of values they transmit to their 5 year old? Virtue is important, but so is acceptance.
Well she will let you know for sure, but I thought she was addressing this point when she said “So you could say that good consequences result from good acts in Buddhism, rather than that the acts are good because the consequences are good.”
I think it is a semantic difference. I almost never use the word ‘metaphysical’ in relation to Buddhism and I almost didn’t with this post. But technically I think the word fits, even though what I am calling Buddhist metaphysics seems to me the complete opposite approach to any kind of conjecture or speculation, which is what the word is often taken to imply.
Sorry, I meant the bit about utilitarianism to be in agreement with Ingenium. Strictly speaking, utilitarian and Buddhist ethics are different in the way she described, I agree. My point was that that difference might be best understood as a shortcoming of classic Millian utilitarianism.
Here I go again. A critical perspective in Taoism is that the universe is processual with all “things” coming into being, maturing, and returning. This is true of the oldest star to the most fleeting thought. What our conciousness perceives may have a disposition (shape) and a propensity (potential toward) but there is no external agency controlling the process. Rather, each constituent in any experience finds its place in coterminous interaction with all other constituents within that experience. Sagacity or awareness is in seeing the disposition and propensity in each of those constituent parts, and guiding them toward a beneficial path of completion. Dao De Jing expresses it this way:
[i]"Way-making (dao) is an easy-flowing stream
Which can run in any direction.
With all things accomplished and the work complete,
It does not assume any proprietary claim.
Since all things (wanwu) offer it allegiance
and yet it does not act as master,
It can be counted among things of the most minor significance.
And since all things offer it allegiance
And yet it does not act as master,
It can also be counted among things of the greatest significance.
It is thus that the capacity of the sages to become great
Is simply because they do not try to do great things.
This is why they are indeed able to be great.
Chp. 34[/i]
But how does this relate to the concept called karma? There is one more precept that is important, and Dao De Jing addresses it in this way:
[i]Knowing that one does not know is knowing at its best,
But not knowing that one knows is suffering from a disease.
Thus, the reason sages are free of disease
Is because they recognize the disease as a disease.
This is why they are not afflicted.
Chp. 71[/i]
In any experience, we bring our pre-conceived ideas (disease). It is in knowing our pre-conceived notions that we are able to not only be aware of the potential in an experience, but also to be aware of our perspectives that color our perception and participation in that experience.
Taoism does not refer to karma directly, but the parallels in thought are obvious. What we see, think, and act out is tied directly to our awareness of all involved in an on-going experience, including ourselves.
The emphasis is not in some externalized notion of intrinsic good or bad, but in our awareness of all potential and acting out in our genuine nature. The sense of good-evil, of morality, resides within, not without. In this sense, karma isn’t a “thing”, it is our on-going experience.
I have no idea if this will help. As usual, I use lots of words to say very little…
Well yes its obvious,I never felt it necessary to mention in the first place since I imagined you would have already understood Buddhism as just an extension of Hindu beliefs. Buddhism is just another way of understanding Hinduism,the Gods in Japanese and Chinese Buddhism are the same Gods of the hindu scriptures with different names only . Siddhartha Gautama was not an atheist,even if the Dalai lama is . Atheism is tolerated in Hinduism for the same reasons as in Buddhism.
Thats why.But that does not mean Siddhartha Gautama was an atheist
Therefore God is not important. As one Zen monk put it “its important to believe in nothing” The goal is the realization of your self.But,that doesnt mean Gods dont exist
A natural law which is benevolent by default. The realization of why there is a default state comes once you,ve become Boddhisattva. But you can only begin the study of karma properly through meditation not books. Did Buddha read books to find enlightenment? No,it was all the internal work he done,meditation,yoga,but this internal work doesnt seem to be the focus of many people trying to understand Buddhism. The confusion on how to live as a Buddhist began right after the Buddha died
So as a result,Buddhas message has been misunderstood by some,because its seen as atheistic based on a the lack of emphasis on a creator god,and because so many Buddhists live a life which isnt anything like Siddhartha Gautamas.Why wouldnt Buddha have believed the universe had been created like the other Hindu sages ? I think the point is he did but never bothered explaining why for good reason,and that his concept of God would have been radically different to the God of orthodox Muslims and Christians .
Having said that
But he never emphasized the divine for specific reasons
Extract from the Digha Nikaya
Thats what Ive been saying,do you see what I mean? By not discussing God Siddharthas intention was that you leave God alone and ask Buddha instead=meditate and find the answer yourself
There are countless millions of beings in space,unseen to us in other dimensions,who can help humans that are sincere in their devotion,there are Gods,and demons,and Ruler Gods,creator Gods,this is the teaching found in Hinduism,Sufism,Judaism,all Native American and South American spiritual traditions,all African spiritual traditions,and Buddhism
Chief Gods of Hinduism and
Counterparts in Japanese Buddhism
Åšiva. The “Destroyer.” Sanskrit = Mahesvara. Also transliterated in Japan as Makeishura . Lord of Cosmic Destruction. In Japan, Siva comes in various forms, including Daijizaiten and Ishanaten .
Brahma. BrahmÄ. The “Creator.” Lord who created the world. In Japan, Brahma is known as Bonten, and is one of the Twelve Deva. Often shown together with Taishakuten = Indra or Sakra.
Visnu.The “Preserver.” Represents ultimate reality, the all-pervading essence. In Japan, Vishnu appears in numerous forms, including Bichuten (BichÅ«ten), Mishichiju (MishichijÅ«), and Ungyo (UngyÅ), the latter the closed-mouth Nio Guardian who protects the entrance to the temple. Vishnu’s mount is the bird-man deity known in Japan as Karura . His wife in Hindu myths is the Buddhist deity known in Japan as Kichijoten (KichijÅten) or Kudokuten, the goddess of fortune and merit. In Esoteric Buddhism, he appears as a divinity in the outer court of the Taizokai (TaizÅkai) mandala. He has many different names, including NÄrÄyana, Narasimha and Vasudeva
The 12 Deva Guardians are deities of the 12 directions in Esoteric Buddhism, including the four directions and four semi-directions, up and down, and sun and moon
Table of Twelve Deva Guardians and
Counterparts
Bonten (Skt. = BrahmÄ); Upper Direction; Heaven Deva
Taishakuten (Skt. = Indra, Indira); East; Lord of the Deva
Suiten (Skt. = Varuna); West; Water Deva
Bishamonten or Tamonten (Skt. = Vaiśravana); North; Wealth
Enmaten (Skt. = Yama); South; Underworld Deva
Katen (Skt. = Agni); Southeast, Fire Deva
Rasetsuten (Skt. = Raksasa); Southwest; Demons
Ishanaten (Skt. = Isana, Maheśvara, Śiva); Northeast
Futen (Skt. = Vayu); Northwest; Wind Deva
Nitten (Skt. = Aditya); Sun Deva
Gatten (Skt. = Candra); Moon Deva
Jiten (Skt. = Prthivi); Downward Direction; Earth Deva
Nichiren Daishonin mentions Tensho Daijin and Dai Bonten
Dai Bonten (Brahmadeva in Sanskrit) creator of the universe
Tensho Daijin - goddess who created Japan
Brahma. The “Creator.” Lord who created the world. In Japan, Brahma is known as Bonten . A major Hindu god who serves as king of the gods
The Lotus Sutra
He, moreover, always hears the voice of gods and Nâgas; he hears the tunes, sweet and affecting, of song, as well as the voices of men and women, boys and girls
That great man from his very place on earth smells the flowers here above (in the sky) with the gods, such as Mandâravas, Mañgûshakas, and those growing on the coral tree.
In whatever point of space the Sugata, the great Seer, so benign and bounteous, reveals the law in the midst of the crowd of attending disciples, the Bodhisattva by the odour recognises him as the Lord of the universe
My goodness, I wonder how I missed that over the years.
Sorry DoL, but I went down that road long ago and don’t care to again. So, while I wish you the best in your beliefs, I have no desire to get into Buddhist tenants with someone so determinedly misinformed.
Just cant help yourself can you,from making little smart remarks,so much for your Buddhist enlightenment,patience,nobility,it means more to you to just win the argument regardless it seems,which is a bit shoddy considering you say your a Buddhist
Rather than just repeating over and over “your wrong” without any actual evidence to show why that might be,try and explain why,or am I wrong just because you say so ? You could do with being a bit more mature about this,and stop being so defensive while your at it .
Im sure your journey is a lot longer than you Imagine,the road is only beginning for you by the sounds of it,you,ll be telling me vegetarianism isnt necessary for a Boddhisattva next
That Buddhism is “just an extension of Hindu beliefs” may or may not be true - it is a matter of point of view. Of course Buddhism’s origins are historically rooted in Indian Brahmanical culture, but most Buddhists would contend that Hinduism never taught the non-existence of ‘atman’, which is the guiding principle of Buddhism. Buddhism teaches that phenomena are devoid of self-essence, and are therefore ‘illusory’ in that respect. So although there are the existence of gods in Buddhism (more or less, depending on the particular school), those gods would be understood in an utterly different way than how they are typically understood. Sometimes it is said that gods or deities are “just as real as we are”, which from a Buddhist point of view essentially means not real at all. Even the most substantialist of Buddhist schools taught that nothing we perceive substantially exists - that everything can be reduced to “partless particles” and “irreducible moments of consciousness”. Further Buddhist elaborations on theories of reality go even further than that - asserting that nothing in all of existence can be determined as partless or irreducible. With that kind of posture towards the universe, the typical understanding of gods and deities is completely turned on its head. So that makes it questionable whether it can be said that Buddhist gods are the same as Hindu gods. I’m not saying you’re wrong - just that it’s worth considering.
Most western Buddhists would agree with you concerning the primacy of meditation, and I agree as well. That is the way Buddhism has come to the modern western world - firstly as a practical tool for stress reduction. The historical Buddha certainly became enlightened though meditation, not through reading books. But in fact the common problem today, at least in America, may generally be the opposite - that lots of people are ‘meditating’, but not fully understanding what they are doing. There are many dabblers, trying to gain the benefits of meditation without doing much work. This is fine of course - it’s just that you get out of something what you put into it. Regarding book knowledge: in one common metaphor, proper understanding which comes from study and knowledge is considered the ‘eyes’ and meditation guided by that understanding is considered the ‘legs’. One without the other won’t get you where you want to go. Relating in person to a living teacher is considered the best kind of book knowledge, because that teacher can easily recognize and help to clarify our conceptual misunderstandings. Many Buddhist texts are written in a terse outline style that was only meant as a teaching aid in the first place. Sometimes practitioners try to make sense of these kinds of books themselves, which is a tricky route to say the least.
“Buddhists live a life which isn’t anything like Siddhartha Gautama’s” because we are not Siddhartha Gautama. But your criticism is valid of course. I’m pretty much a hedonist in comparison to the Buddha, even though the Buddha taught the middle way between Spartanism and Hedonism.
“Why wouldnt Buddha have believed the universe had been created like the other Hindu sages?” But why should he have? Your opinions concerning the existence of a creator god are fine by me, but the generally accepted fact is that the Buddha taught no such concept.
I agree wholeheartedly. Philosophical questions can be a help or they can be a hindrance. The insights born of meditation are an excellent aid in our quest to properly discern the difference.
There is a slight chance that you have grasped the finger instead of looking where it is pointing. You seem to be full of knowing. “When you see the buddha, kill the buddha.”
Yes so why havent some people killed him yet? And full of the knowing of hard work,countless lifetimes,discipline,meditation,vows I am yes.
Its interesting you think you can accuse me like that of grasping the finger,how if I said you were weak and never had the courage to stand up for an idea completely because of your fear of upsetting the board here,you wouldnt like that would you,suppose I thought you were confused because you studied Buddhism and Daoism yet never done any of the physical or mental work required to find any real enlightenment ? Its what I might think,yet its not necessarily what I should say,even though its true
Nonetheless,all of this doesnt change what Im saying about Buddha being fact,even if you are caught up in a world of meaningless Zen quotes
Like it or not,there are people who know better than you,and being “full of knowing” isnt always a bad thing,this statement of yours ironically reveals more of your ignorance than it does mine,because your clearly intimidated by the mention of anyone “knowing”,and saying that a Boddhisattva,a Buddha, cant be “full of knowing” is clearly ridiculous,considering the enlightened person will know much much more than someone not as enlightened.Thats why the Buddha called himself “the greatest thing in the universe”,but then had you been there at the time you might have called him vein for saying that ? How dare he claim to know eh,how dare anyone else claim to know what he knew,we must all be good devotees and never get above our station,even if we have lived for thousands of years and sat with Siddhartha Guatama himself is that it ? LOL
A critical perspective in Taoism is that the universe is processual with all “things” coming into being, maturing, and returning. This is true of the oldest star to the most fleeting thought. What our conciousness perceives may have a disposition (shape) and a propensity (potential toward) but there is no external agency controlling the process. Rather, each constituent in any experience finds its place in coterminous interaction with all other constituents within that experience. Sagacity or awareness is in seeing the disposition and propensity in each of those constituent parts, and guiding them toward a beneficial path of completion. 