Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I'm not sure exactly what the "dead horse picture" is. But Thai Buddhists "get around" the issue by ONLY eating the meat, while virtually all butchers are Muslims. :eek:
This is what Tibetans do, too. The "dead horse picture" is a picture of someone flogging a dead horse, that gets posted when questions about karma and/or rebirth come up on the forum. "Do not kill" isn't a teaching, it's a precept.
Not speaking of earthquakes, but what about children born with deformities, or born to abusive parents, to poor (or wealthy) parents, etc.? (To address vinlyn's question.)
What about them? To be honest, I don't see any direct connection between them. Again, those things have causes (e.g., genetic, etc.), but not psychological ones.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The Buddha instructed that the workings of Kamma are unconjecturable. We cannot fathom the whys wherefores and hows of Kamma. Speculation is futile, and trying to second-guess what has happened to other people, and why, is a pointless exercise which often leads to a dead end, and no reasonable result.
The only Kamma we should be concerned about, is the one we are creating for ourselves, now, here, this moment, in what we think, in what we say and in what we do.
And on that note, I take this opportunity to sincerely apologise to @cinorjer for my outburst, but I would have thought after such a time on a Buddhist forum, with all the threads we have had, discussing Kamma, the view that 'Karma .....serves the same purpose as God the divine judge in other religions.' would not have been in anyone's mind, at all.
@cinorjer -putting it bluntly - you're talking total Rubbish. First of all, Kamma is VOLITIONAL ACTION. so the concept that it is a -
"God of Judgement, called Karma. In a very real way, Karma as a divine judge, in our Buddhist theology, serves the same purpose as God the divine judge in other religions."
Is complete and utter balderdash, and spouting imagined rubbish like this on a Buddhist forum is both ill-conceived and frankly utterly ridiculous. If you're going to speak of subjects of this kind, in a thread of this kind, at least have the foresight to do some factual research. This is nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism, and is pure fantasy, and not very laudable at that. Jeesh.....
I'm not talking about how you understand karma, or what the Buddha said. I'm talking about how many Buddhists see and treat karma. Karma replaces divine judgement in the minds of many Buddhists out there. It answers the same questions and has the same faults when trying to justify bad things in a life.
Read it again, and understand I'm making a criticism of how many people mistreat the concept to answer a universal question.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2011
Then I apologise double-fold. I would do some nifty deletion, but it would mess up the thread. I obviously read you completely wrong, and the migraine I'm studiously trying to deal with might be a partial factor. It must be my kamma for my rudeness, all I can say, is, I deserve it.
Then I apologise double-fold. I would do some nifty deletion, but it would mess up the thread. I obviously read you completely wrong, and the migraine I'm studiously trying to deal with might be a partial factor. It must be my kamma for my rudeness, all I can say, is, I deserve it.
(That was a joke.)
I think I may get an early night.....
Understood. It drives me crazy, also, when I hear people treat karma as fate or some cosmic scale of good and bad. But in reality, karma has almost nothing to do with our daily practice. In fact, as I try to point out, the Middle Way is a path of liberation from karma, whatever people believe about it.
Well, I thought Cinorjer's was an original thought, especially the point about the human tendency to envision some form of judging. Certainly it was a departure from the same-old, same-old karma debate, and as such, I found it refreshing.
Not speaking of earthquakes, but what about children born with deformities, or born to abusive parents, to poor (or wealthy) parents, etc.? (To address vinlyn's question.)
What about them? To be honest, I don't see any direct connection between them. Again, those things have causes (e.g., genetic, etc.), but not psychological ones.
According to teachings in some Buddhist traditions, the effects of karma aren't just psychological. Generosity in one lifetime leads to wealth in another, and so forth. I recall someone quoting a suttra that outlines this to some degree, way back in another thread on karma. Maybe this is one of those questions that differs depending on "mundane" and "supramundane" teachings....? In any case, the Buddha wasn't consistent in his teachings in this regard, and some traditions have based their teachings on cause and effect that goes beyond the psychological.
According to teachings in some Buddhist traditions, the effects of karma aren't just psychological. Generosity in one lifetime leads to wealth in another, and so forth. I recall someone quoting a suttra that outlines this to some degree, way back in another thread on karma.
Well, if you can locate it, then we can discuss it. Until then, my personal opinion is that there's no direct connection between the shifting of the earth's tectonic plates and the things I happen to do, say or think. The same holds true for things like weather patterns and cosmic events. For example, I sincerely doubt that the meteorite which most likely killed off the dinosaurs was the result of their kamma.
Well, if you can locate it, then we can discuss it. Until then, my personal opinion is that there's no direct connection between the shifting of the earth's tectonic plates and the things I happen to do, say or think. The same holds true for things like weather patterns and cosmic events. For example, I sincerely doubt that the meteorite which most likely killed off the dinosaurs was the result of their kamma.
I agree. That's not what we were discussing; we were responding to Vinlyn's question relating to the circumstances one is born in.
If you believe in karma, then you should also believe in endless cycle of rebirth.
The above assertion has no basis in logic or verifiable reality.
Karma means intentional action. From karma comes result (vipaka). Example, stealing results in worry and may also result in imprisonment.
There is no evidence that karma results extend to rebirth.
Buddha said karma has three results, namely, immediate (example, pleasure from drunkenness); later (example, hangover from drunkenness); and later again (example, craving, habit or addiction towards drinking)
Didn't you post that video earlier, DD? I didn't see anything there that addresses these questions. And since when are you a follower of HHDL? I thought you were Tharavadan. So many disparaging comments about people following "smiling lamas", you were the last person I expected to see posting HHDL as authoritative
The video said clearly, unambiguously, we should not regard the Buddha's teachings as contradictory.
I am not a follower of HHDL but you might be. I can only recommend we pay appropriate (respectful) attention to our teachers rather than misrepresent them.
The Dalai Lama said clearly & unambiguously, in plain & understandible English, we should not regard the Buddha's teachings as contradictory.
HHDL teaches many things authoritatively, when he abides by the original suttas, which he often does.
What HHDL does not teach authoritatively, are matters such as 2nd turning of the wheel, no homosexuality, declaring Nargajuna was a Buddha, etc
Personally, I think the Dalai Lama was emphasising a Buddhist should have faith or conviction in the Buddha as a teacher, rather than asserting "the Buddha wasn't consistent in his teachings".
How can we have faith (it's not about faith, you know, it's about testing the teachings), when scholars come up with contradictory quotations of the suttras? This is a complex subject and requires a detailed analysis, not a quickie 5 or 10 minute U-Tube clip. If it weren't complex, it wouldn't generate so much debate.
There is absolutely NO scientific basis for such a ridiculous claim. It's so preposterous as to be laughable if you know the first thing about plate tectonics. The moon was reported to have been made of green cheese, but that doesn't make it so.
Well I don't want to keep using wiki, guess I am getting lazy, but maybe your discounting this claim to quickly about humans inducing earthquakes, maybe not the size of Japans recent one, but still it seems possible for humans to induce an earthquake. Check the link out.
I agree. That's not what we were discussing; we were responding to Vinlyn's question relating to the circumstances one is born in.
And my answer to that was, "I don't see any direct connection between them. Again, those things have causes (e.g., genetic, etc.), but not psychological ones." For example, in AN 3.99, the Buddha says:
Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
Kamma is our actions, our behaviour. Taking the teachings on rebirth literally, our behaviour can influence the realms we experience (of course, we can also say that our behaviour can influence the mental states we experience). That said, the teachings on rebirth don't say that our behaviour causes us to be born with a cleft palate or in a country prone to earthquakes as punishment for wrongdoing.
It should also be noted that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). Personally, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
A careful study of these concepts of heaven and hell, gods and evil spirits, reveals that they were accepted in Buddhism as regulative ideas or concepts only. The fact that they are merely theories based on speculation is well brought out it certain statements by the Buddha. To a Brahman who questioned the Buddha as to whether there are gods, he replied, "It is not so." When asked whether there are no gods, the Buddha's reply was the same, "It is not so." And finally to the Brahman who was baffled by these replies, the Buddha said, "The world, O Brahman, is loud in agreement that there are gods" (ucce sammatam kho etam brahmana lokasmin yadidam atthi devati). The same is the attitude of the Buddha with regard to the concept of hell. In the Samyutta-nikaya he is represented as saying that it is only the uneducated ordinary man (assutava puthujjano) who believes that there is a hell beneath the great ocean. According to the Buddha's view, hell is another name for unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana). [The first reference is MN 2.213, the second is S 4.206]
Thanks, z. The link DD provided gives a link to an article about oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico causing a quake there. But still, these incidents have nothing to do with Japan's quake.
Kamma is our actions, our behaviour. Taking the teachings on rebirth literally, our behaviour can influence the realms we experience (of course, we can also say that our behaviour can influence the mental states we experience). That said, the teachings on rebirth don't say that our behaviour causes us to be born with a cleft palate or in a country prone to earthquakes as punishment for wrongdoing.
It should also be noted that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). Personally, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
A careful study of these concepts of heaven and hell, gods and evil spirits, reveals that they were accepted in Buddhism as regulative ideas or concepts only. The fact that they are merely theories based on speculation is well brought out it certain statements by the Buddha. To a Brahman who questioned the Buddha as to whether there are gods, he replied, "It is not so." When asked whether there are no gods, the Buddha's reply was the same, "It is not so." And finally to the Brahman who was baffled by these replies, the Buddha said, "The world, O Brahman, is loud in agreement that there are gods" (ucce sammatam kho etam brahmana lokasmin yadidam atthi devati). The same is the attitude of the Buddha with regard to the concept of hell. In the Samyutta-nikaya he is represented as saying that it is only the uneducated ordinary man (assutava puthujjano) who believes that there is a hell beneath the great ocean. According to the Buddha's view, hell is another name for unpleasant feelings (dukkha vedana). [The first reference is MN 2.213, the second is S 4.206]
Very interesting post, Jason. I hesitate to discuss it because it seems we are getting quite far from the original topic of the thread.
@jason, great blog link, that puts things into very simple, and logical terms.
''Buddhism teaches causation, that the whole universe is a web of interrelated causes and effects. There are two types of causation - natural causation and moral causation. Natural causation has nothing to do with people being good or bad, it is simply a matter of the various forces in the universe acting on each other. A rainstorm or crops ripening would be examples of natural causation. Natural causes can of course have an effect on us - being caught in a rainstorm can give us a bad cold. But suffering from a cold has nothing to do with moral or immoral past actions - it would be a natural effect of a natural cause. Moral causation is about how people think, speak and act and how they feel as a result.''
Not speaking of earthquakes, but what about children born with deformities, or born to abusive parents, to poor (or wealthy) parents, etc.? (To address vinlyn's question.)
What about them? To be honest, I don't see any direct connection between them. Again, those things have causes (e.g., genetic, etc.), but not psychological ones.
psychological states of mother affects foetus' development, rite?
psychological states of mother affects foetus' development, rite?
To some extent, yes; however, I doubt that a mother's psychological states have the ability to cause preexisting genetic abnormalities. Moreover, the teachings on kamma don't state that one person experiences the effects of another's actions, especially when it comes to something like fetal development. That would most likely fall under what are called biological laws (bija-niyama), not kamma.
I may have a wrong understanding of it. I always thought it simply meant cause and effect. Like what I'd say when my glass of water spilled when I balanced it precariously on the dirty, cluttered bedside table. Like, I should have known better, Karma. I didn't think it meant cosmic retribution and payback. Just, Holding Metal Rod + Thunderstorm = ZAP! or Visiting Grandma + Mowing Her Yard = Much Appreciation and cookies. Simple like, and maybe a little complex? But not mystical retributions from a discerning cosmic justice system...
''Buddhism teaches causation, that the whole universe is a web of interrelated causes and effects. There are two types of causation - natural causation and moral causation. Natural causation has nothing to do with people being good or bad, it is simply a matter of the various forces in the universe acting on each other. A rainstorm or crops ripening would be examples of natural causation. Natural causes can of course have an effect on us - being caught in a rainstorm can give us a bad cold. But suffering from a cold has nothing to do with moral or immoral past actions - it would be a natural effect of a natural cause. Moral causation is about how people think, speak and act and how they feel as a result.''
Great stuff. There are the things we do and the results that come of them; and then there are the things that are not "done" by us (minds), such as the natural rhythms and movement of the Earth. Such is the reason for the earthquake, and for the tsunami. Do you know what is an effect of the Japanese people's karma? The fact that they took it all in stride, with calm.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I may have a wrong understanding of it. I always thought it simply meant cause and effect. Like what I'd say when my glass of water spilled when I balanced it precariously on the dirty, cluttered bedside table. Like, I should have known better, Karma. I didn't think it meant cosmic retribution and payback. Just, Holding Metal Rod + Thunderstorm = ZAP! or Visiting Grandma + Mowing Her Yard = Much Appreciation and cookies. Simple like, and maybe a little complex? But not mystical retributions from a discerning cosmic justice system...
you might like to read the link in the OP of this thread. Food for thought...
I may have a wrong understanding of it. I always thought it simply meant cause and effect. Like what I'd say when my glass of water spilled when I balanced it precariously on the dirty, cluttered bedside table. Like, I should have known better, Karma. I didn't think it meant cosmic retribution and payback. Just, Holding Metal Rod + Thunderstorm = ZAP! or Visiting Grandma + Mowing Her Yard = Much Appreciation and cookies. Simple like, and maybe a little complex? But not mystical retributions from a discerning cosmic justice system...
No,your understanding is as valid as any. The beliefs about karma range from a reward and punish system for good and bad behavior over multiple reincarnations to a simple cause and effect in your everyday life.
And even then, karma doesn't mean fate. Sometimes the evil prosper and the good are punished. Sometimes the consequences of stealing someone's money is that you have money and someone else is now poor, if you're able by standing or circumstance to get away with it. People will say that sometime, somewhere in the thief's life karma has to catch up to him. Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of thiefs die of old age, rich and happy in their mansion, surrounded by family. Granted, some do face consequences. Prison, or being killed when you steal from the wrong person, or having your own stuff stolen by your buddies who are also thieves. Karma just makes the potential consequences more likely, it doesn't guarantee anything. That would be fate. The world would be a paradise if it acted that way. Bad people would have bad luck, and good people would have good things happen to them. Obviously, that's not how it works.
Thus the belief that the SOB up on the hill in his mansion who stole your Daddy's land so that a good, compassionate man died broke must be punished by karma at least in the next life. And Daddy must get his reward in the next life. We want justice. Preferably in this life, where we can see it, but if not, we have comforting beliefs.
So when it comes to karma, the universe doesn't care if you're good or bad. Earthquakes and floods sweep up guilty and innocent alike. So actions have consequences. Sometimes stealing money means you have money and someone else now does not. Sometimes it means getting caught and going to jail. Steal enough times, and the odds of the unwanted consequence become larger. Not too satisfying, when we thirst for justice.
The idea that karma carries over to another lifetime was based in teachings about morality. That belief is an additional check on people's behavior, in addition to whatever effect they may experience from unskillful actions in a given lifetime. Some people seem to get away with creating all manner of mayhem without suffering any "ripening" of their karma in their lifetime. But it could "ripen" later.
Comments
The "dead horse picture" is a picture of someone flogging a dead horse, that gets posted when questions about karma and/or rebirth come up on the forum.
"Do not kill" isn't a teaching, it's a precept.
We cannot fathom the whys wherefores and hows of Kamma.
Speculation is futile, and trying to second-guess what has happened to other people, and why, is a pointless exercise which often leads to a dead end, and no reasonable result.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
The only Kamma we should be concerned about, is the one we are creating for ourselves, now, here, this moment, in what we think, in what we say and in what we do.
And on that note, I take this opportunity to sincerely apologise to @cinorjer for my outburst, but I would have thought after such a time on a Buddhist forum, with all the threads we have had, discussing Kamma, the view that 'Karma .....serves the same purpose as God the divine judge in other religions.' would not have been in anyone's mind, at all.
Read it again, and understand I'm making a criticism of how many people mistreat the concept to answer a universal question.
I would do some nifty deletion, but it would mess up the thread.
I obviously read you completely wrong, and the migraine I'm studiously trying to deal with might be a partial factor.
It must be my kamma for my rudeness, all I can say, is, I deserve it.
(That was a joke.)
I think I may get an early night.....
I can show you the dead horse picture if you like. But what about the topic of the thread?
Karma means intentional action. From karma comes result (vipaka). Example, stealing results in worry and may also result in imprisonment.
There is no evidence that karma results extend to rebirth.
Buddha said karma has three results, namely, immediate (example, pleasure from drunkenness); later (example, hangover from drunkenness); and later again (example, craving, habit or addiction towards drinking)
The video said clearly, unambiguously, we should not regard the Buddha's teachings as contradictory.
I am not a follower of HHDL but you might be. I can only recommend we pay appropriate (respectful) attention to our teachers rather than misrepresent them.
The Dalai Lama said clearly & unambiguously, in plain & understandible English, we should not regard the Buddha's teachings as contradictory.
HHDL teaches many things authoritatively, when he abides by the original suttas, which he often does.
What HHDL does not teach authoritatively, are matters such as 2nd turning of the wheel, no homosexuality, declaring Nargajuna was a Buddha, etc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_seismicity
Metta to all sentient beings
It should also be noted that when the Buddha talks about hell (niraya), he's often talking about unpleasant or painful painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell" (AN 4.235). Personally, I think the Buddha held a more nuanced position than a lot traditionalists believe. For example, David Kalupahana notes in his book, Buddhist Philosophy, that:
''Buddhism teaches causation, that the whole universe is a web of interrelated causes and effects. There are two types of causation - natural causation and moral causation. Natural causation has nothing to do with people being good or bad, it is simply a matter of the various forces in the universe acting on each other. A rainstorm or crops ripening would be examples of natural causation. Natural causes can of course have an effect on us - being caught in a rainstorm can give us a bad cold. But suffering from a cold has nothing to do with moral or immoral past actions - it would be a natural effect of a natural cause. Moral causation is about how people think, speak and act and how they feel as a result.''
Food for thought...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10055/a-good-discussion-of-the-meaning-of-karmas#Item_4
Also,
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kamma.html
And even then, karma doesn't mean fate. Sometimes the evil prosper and the good are punished. Sometimes the consequences of stealing someone's money is that you have money and someone else is now poor, if you're able by standing or circumstance to get away with it. People will say that sometime, somewhere in the thief's life karma has to catch up to him. Maybe, maybe not. Plenty of thiefs die of old age, rich and happy in their mansion, surrounded by family. Granted, some do face consequences. Prison, or being killed when you steal from the wrong person, or having your own stuff stolen by your buddies who are also thieves. Karma just makes the potential consequences more likely, it doesn't guarantee anything. That would be fate. The world would be a paradise if it acted that way. Bad people would have bad luck, and good people would have good things happen to them. Obviously, that's not how it works.
Thus the belief that the SOB up on the hill in his mansion who stole your Daddy's land so that a good, compassionate man died broke must be punished by karma at least in the next life. And Daddy must get his reward in the next life. We want justice. Preferably in this life, where we can see it, but if not, we have comforting beliefs.
So when it comes to karma, the universe doesn't care if you're good or bad. Earthquakes and floods sweep up guilty and innocent alike. So actions have consequences. Sometimes stealing money means you have money and someone else now does not. Sometimes it means getting caught and going to jail. Steal enough times, and the odds of the unwanted consequence become larger. Not too satisfying, when we thirst for justice.