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.
If someone who believes in a God says, well you can't disprove there is a God, either, the answer should be that it is not up to me to completely disprove anything before I claim disbelief, not that it means both belief and nonbelief are equally valid.
But why is there a need to "claim disbelief"? Why is there a need to take a position? Why not just say "I don't know"?
Why is there a need to be skeptical? What does it achieve?
I think it depends a lot on the situation. I don't feel the need to run down the middle of the street and scream out what I believe in or don't believe in. But if it's a topic someone wants to discuss, why not discuss it.
"What's the harm?" I suppose because some beliefs are dangerous and hurtful so we need to preach the way of being skeptical.... But, sometimes you have to confront beliefs for the sake of others. Saying, "I don't know" is giving people permission to consider their belief just as valid as anyone.
But this assumes that: 1. Other peoples' beliefs are our business; 2. We can judge what beliefs are "good" for people?
So, why are we reading your posts since your beliefs aren't our business?
This forum is almost totally comprised of people stating their beliefs.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited May 2012
I'd say that anyone who has equally studied more than one form of Buddhism and chose one over the other would be a skeptical Buddhist.
Or just an experienced Buddhist?
If they used critical thought to chose one over the other, I'd say they are using skepticism.
"What's the harm?" I suppose because some beliefs are dangerous and hurtful so we need to preach the way of being skeptical.... But, sometimes you have to confront beliefs for the sake of others. Saying, "I don't know" is giving people permission to consider their belief just as valid as anyone.
But this assumes that: 1. Other peoples' beliefs are our business; 2. We can judge what beliefs are "good" for people?
I know that I'm on shaky ground here. However, I'd say the woman being stoned because the villagers believe she cast a curse on someone might have an opinion on whether or not it's our business what other people believe as they pick up the rocks to throw at her.
Other people's beliefs are definitely our business in some cases, because those beliefs justify terrible actions. To absolve ourselves of the troubling responsibility of adding our voice to the debate is to be passive in the great push and shove of life. But as I said, I don't know how to draw the line. I'm not sure it's possible or wise to do so. If anyone can think of a hard and fast rule, I'd love to hear it.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'd say harmful beliefs would be those that make unwilling participants.
Believe whatever you want up until you infringe on somebody elses right to do the same.
As the only thing worth fearing is fear itself, the same logic applies to intolerance.
there wont be a western buddhism simply bcos the diversity of views and direct access to information means that each person will have his own ideas. do western buddhism accept reincarnation? yes, no, maybe?
If they used critical thought to chose one over the other, I'd say they are using skepticism. It's not like it's a dirty word.
For sure, it's good to question and challenge, but I wonder whether a position of constant questioning and doubt is really productive?
I think what you're looking at are people who seem to exist to argue? Who reject every answer almost before it's out of your mouth? To be a skeptic means to question, but to also listen to the answers. Then weigh the answers against experience, and come to a conclusion. Then use that conclusion to perhaps ask deeper, more important questions. In my own Buddhist practice, we call it a "don't know" mind and it's important to cultivate if we want to learn. However, I wouldn't try this if you're following a path that uses faith and belief as tools. Just leads to frustration.
Hmmm, blockquote tags aren't working very well for me, so I'll put the name of the person I'm quoting first.
Cinorjer: The only real question I have in all this is, can someone call agnostic a valid position, or are we avoiding a difficult choice?
porpoise: Why is there a need to be skeptical? What does it achieve? ... So presumably Skeptical Buddhism questions the metaphysical, rather than leaving it out altogether?
Cinorjer: "What's the harm?" I suppose because some beliefs are dangerous and hurtful so we need to preach the way of being skeptical. It doesn't work to peck away at individual wrong beliefs, because you're not treating the cause. ... Certainly beliefs in reincarnation are not usually dangerous and "I don't know" is better than blind belief, in my opinion. But, sometimes you have to confront beliefs for the sake of others.
ourself: It may be one step beyond agnosticism in that instead of simply saying "I don't know" it's saying "I don't believe so and here's why" or "Wow, I never thought of it that way before... So would that mean..?"
porpoise: But this assumes that: 1. Other peoples' beliefs are our business; 2. We can judge what beliefs are "good" for people?
Cinorjer: I know that I'm on shaky ground here. However, I'd say the woman being stoned because the villagers believe she cast a curse on someone might have an opinion on whether or not it's our business what other people believe as they pick up the rocks to throw at her...Other people's beliefs are definitely our business in some cases, because those beliefs justify terrible actions.
porpoise: For sure, it's good to question and challenge, but I wonder whether a position of constant questioning and doubt is really productive?
Cinorjer: I think what you're looking at are people who seem to exist to argue? Who reject every answer almost before it's out of your mouth? To be a skeptic means to question, but to also listen to the answers. Then weigh the answers against experience, and come to a conclusion. Then use that conclusion to perhaps ask deeper, more important questions. In my own Buddhist practice, we call it a "don't know" mind and it's important to cultivate if we want to learn.
When I use the term "skeptic" I'm not talking about eel-wriggling ala Sanjaya the Skeptic in the Pali suttas. I am talking about the kind of skeptic who, as Cinorjer describes, listens, thinks, and concludes. It's not that there's no solid ground ever, but that we work towards relative certainty and keep an open mind that on any given issue we probably don't know it all.
Perhaps more important than that is the willingness to accept that it is unlikely, on some issues, that we will even get to relative certainty in our lifetimes. And I think this was the point the Buddha was making about metaphysical views about life after death: we aren't too likely to get an answer to this one that a majority of people in the world will agree on -- we have a hard enough time with global warming.
On these particular issues his advice seems to have been to just set them aside and not argue about them, because the arguing leads nowhere. In the face of no good evidence one way or another, arguing just causes strife and division.
Instead of arguing about the metaphysics -- the underlying, unproven assumptions about the order of the universe -- he suggested we just focus on the things we do have evidence for, and that is, for example, that stoning a woman causes her great pain and is not something we would condone outside the moral system that causes it to happen. Focus on the behavior and the end result, not on the speculative beliefs.
To Cinorjer's first point above: It's not, then, "avoiding difficult choices" -- it is definitely taking a stand. The Buddha didn't waffle and say "I don't know! I don't know!" he said, "I know what causes suffering" and the cause is in part those speculative views -- they can't be resolved so just let them go, and focus on ending the suffering.
To porpoise's: The purpose of being a skeptical Buddhist is to achieve an end to dukkha by eliminating its causes, and the way we do that isn't by questioning the metaphysical but accepting that -- unless really solid evidence comes in that's going to be at least as convincing to the majority of people -- we can't know and so we shouldn't argue about it. Which means we don't question the metaphysical, we just set it aside, and focus instead on behavior and its results.
Cinorjer's 2nd: While it's true that the beliefs are the harm, and the temptation is to attack the beliefs, history does seem to have proven that that's not a useful approach. The more we argue with people about their beliefs, the more entrenched they get. So an entirely different approach like the Buddha's is called for: "I understand your belief system -- it's good because it aims at having you lead a good and moral life, and if your way turns out to be correct, and you have led a good and moral life, then you'll get your reward. And if it turns out the universe contains no inherent moral code, still you'll have led a good and moral life, and made the best of the opportunity you had for living." And reincarnation can be a dangerous belief: it leads to people saying of a child born with terrible genetic problems: "Don't help him -- he's working out his karma. He did something terrible in a past life. He deserves this."
To ourself's point: It's agnosticism defined as accepting that we can't always know, and shouldn't pretend that we do or that we have the one right answer, because that leads to serious amounts of conflict and results in the devastation of many lives.
To porpoise's 2nd and Cinorjer's that follows it: We don't need to judge what beliefs are good for people, but we can certainly judge the behavior that results from those beliefs. We might not be able to judge that belief in Allah is wrong, but we can certainly say that throwing those stones is wrong. One thing I like about the Buddha's system is that the doubt doesn't just apply to the metaphysics of the moral universe, but to how much we actually know about the events we base our actions on -- it teaches us to question, for example, how good our understanding is of what happened that caused the woman to be the object of stone-throwing. It casts all our usual beliefs about the way the world works into doubt, and some of that we can actually take the time to get solid evidence for -- but first we have to be taught to question our assumptions.
And porpoise again: So it's not constant doubt about everything, because there's much we *can* be certain of -- like the cause of suffering. And it's not even an active "wondering about" doubt about metaphysics -- it's setting them aside until there's better evidence.
Yeah, I've never found the easy way to do multiple block quotes. It would be nice if we could just highlight the needed part of the post and then hit quote.
Non-self, Voidness and Rebirth as according to Buddhism
Buddhism believes in Anattā (Non-self) and Śūnyatā (Voidness or Emptiness). How do we explain it?
Firstly, let us analyse what it means by non-self. In Buddhism, non-self means non-ownership of self. What we used to claim such as the ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is merely an expression for our mind to comprehend on day-to-day communication with another individual. However, this expression does not grant us with an ownership of our soul or body. And it is easier to explain the non-ownership of our body than the soul of us because we can see the rising (birth) and the passing (death) of physical bodies every time and anywhere we go.
As for the ‘soul’ thing, Buddhism believes in the absence of eternal existence of it. Soul is just a plain description for something that arised in intelligence but without physical appearance. And the ‘something that arised in intelligence’ is also not permanent and subject to change at all times as according to conditional phenomena (voidness in every existence). So there again, there is non-ownership of the soul-of-self.
So, how do we explain for believes in reincarnation process according to Buddhism? Actually, Buddhism believes in rebirth and not in reincarnation process. This is because there is no permanent grasping of soul or body during the rebirth process. It means though the mentioned cycle of process is repeated, every cycle is different from one another, just like the saying, ‘It looks like me, sounds like me, but it is not me.’ In other words, there is linkage between the past, present and future of an individual but there is no trans-migration process taking place. A clear example would be how the genetic lineage works for generations.
Let us look at the following illustration on how rebirth takes place as according to Buddhism: -
The Coffee in a Cup
Let say Coffee Original is one of the special brewed drinks: -
300ml hot liquid water 70% coffee powder ==> 100% Coffee Original in cup Jumbo 30% condensed milk
Supposedly, the cup Jumbo has broken apart by accident and the content has splattered around i.e. 30% onto the table, 40% onto the floor, 5% onto the wall, 10% onto the drain, 5% vaporised into thin air, 10% remained in the broken cup.
A cleaner then takes up a rag and wipes off the remaining liquid coffee in sequential order starting from the table, then the floor and then the wall. In a repeated gesture, the cleaner squeezed off the wet rag and the remaining coffee liquid flowed into three separate cups i.e.
Cup 1 80% already filled with tea liquid mixture. Cup 2 90% already filled with mocha liquid mixture. Cup 3 55% already filled with mineral water.
Let say 300ml of properties is a benchmark for a qualified special brewed drink.
The cleaner then filled up the respective cup rooms with liquids derived from the rag that is by and large the remaining of Coffee Original derived from the table, the floor and the wall.
In this case, the respective 300ml of liquids in Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 is dependent on the Coffee Original before a new special brewed drink is made possible. However, this does not mean that Coffee Original is the only dependent source or ingredient. Respectively, Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 would need to depend upon many other sustaining factors as well such as the already partially filled liquids and new cups before qualifying as special brewed drinks.
As a conclusion, the new liquid mixture arising in Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 is neither identical to, nor entirely different from, the old coffee liquid, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. There is a conditioned relationship between one liquid and the next; it is not identical but neither is it completely distinct.
The beauty of nature is that it allows all sorts of processes taking place such as aggregation, segregation, evolution, mutation, assimilation, etc. As a consequence, every existence would not be totally the same or different from each other. We are all so inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence – just like the Christian believes that all mankind derived from Adam and Eve.
Lastly, one should not confuse ‘non-self’ with ‘no-self’ and ‘non-eternal soul’ with ‘no-soul’. Buddhism sees in the existence of self or soul but in non-ownership or non-permanency manner.
Why Buddhism? What is Buddhism? Buddhism is merely a great philosophy that imparts knowledge on seeing reality of things and happenings in our daily lives. Historical facts have shown that Prince Siddartha Gautama became the Buddha out of his vast compassion to see the end of the vicious cycle of life. And the Buddha means the ‘Awakened One’ i.e. one who sees through the ultimate reality of things and happenings.
Where is God in Buddhism?
Perhaps, what Buddhism lacks is the emphasis on the dependence of God. But this doesn’t mean that the Buddha has denied the existence of God. In Buddhism, God is viewed in a different perspective as compared with other religions. As you may know, according to Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence in this nature and God is placed at a higher level of existence than human being.
Of course, the Buddha did recognise that God has an important role in the spiritual development of individuals. God could help individuals in many ways but still, God is not permanent and subject to conditional influences as well.
At the end of the day, the Buddha has seen through that ‘dependence’ is part of the key sources of Dukkha arising and to eradicate it, one has to let go ‘dependence’ in total aspect. Therefore, Buddhism is an alternative method to seek solace and liberation for individual who needs it. Buddhism may not be acceptable to individuals that can’t make do without the dependence aspect in life. As again, there is no right or wrong element here, but simply a personal choice.
What does Buddhism believe in?
Buddhism believes in, literally, nothing. Yes, nothing! Buddhism merely involves in seeing, knowing and letting go of things or happenings. In other words, Buddhism upholds direct experience and recognition but not faith system.
Perhaps, one has heard the phrase, ‘Seeing is believing’. When one sees it, one truly sees it. No one could shake it. But when one only believes it, without seeing it, one would bind with more curiosities and disputes.
We can illustrate the above principle in a class of Mathematics. Supposedly, a new formula was put forward to the class - should the students adopt with attitudes of understanding on how the formula derived or should the students adopt with attitudes of simply memorising the formula without any understanding on how such formula derived? A wise student would definitely choose the former method because by understanding well the origin of the formula, one could lighten the weight of memorising the formula blindly. This is also how the path to enlightenment works – diminish the ‘bear with’ factor and enhance the ‘let go’ factor.
Undeniably, the Buddha has always emphasised the importance for one to utilise wisdom in all thoughts and actions. This is what he meant by wholesome thoughts or acts. The Buddha has never laid commandments that one should think or do this; never think or do that, etc. If one continues to adopt this sort of mentality, one would simply adopt the principle of ‘blind faith’ which is much on the contrary to Buddhism.
Just like, it would be wholesome for parents to expose their children with both good and bad influences together. Any acts of depriving the children from exposing to bad influences would only create distorted view or perception in the real society (unwholesome acts). Subsequently, upon exposure of both good and bad influences, parents could encourage their children to use their wisdom to lead more meaningful life in the real and complicated society (wholesome acts).
In short, the Buddha has laid emphasis that one should look in all angles of things or matters and then apply one's wisdom in the decision making. The Buddha has merely left behind guidelines for one to pursue with and it would be meaningless for one to read and tag along the contents of written texts, doctrines or sutras on Buddhism blindly without applying wisdom.
No doubt the available scriptures, doctrines or sutras did play important roles in keeping the essence of Buddhism, but how many of the so-called Buddhists nowadays have gained full enlightenment by mere reading or reciting it? The key question is not how good or well one could quote this or that from the scriptures, doctrines or sutras but more on the practicality and direct experience of it.
Preaching Dhamma is not about quoting this or that from various sources on Buddhism. These available scriptures, doctrines or sutras were merely tools for one’s Dhamma practices. And tools would remain as tools and it would not turn a person into an enlightened being if the application is without wisdom. Also, the Buddha has recommended the establishment of Sangha community so that any followers could interact and support each other while pursuing the guidelines of Dhamma. The Buddha has not established the various sects or schools of Buddhism as what we could see nowadays.
Once again, Buddhism is never about beliefs. Instead, it is all about direct experience and recognition. Seeing the Buddha is seeing the Dhamma – it is seeing and knowing the ultimate reality of things and happenings and not to get entangle with it. So, the choice in the way of life is ultimately yours. Live a life wholesomely, all the times! Be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
----------------------------------------------- The Buddha
One who sees the Dhamma sees me. One who sees me sees the Dhamma.
O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me.
My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience... My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship. My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river. Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.
If you were to follow the Dharma purely out of love for me or because you respect me, I would not accept you as disciple. But if you follow the Dharma because you have yourself experienced its truth, because you understand and act accordingly - only under these conditions have you the right to call yourself a disciple of the Exalted One.
Am I the mind? Am I the body? Or, am I the five body senses?
To the Master, I am a Servant, To the Teacher, I am a Student, To the Buddha, I am Empty.
So, who am I, actually? Am I the flesh and blood? Am I the soul? Am I the consciousness? Who am I, really!?
Frankly speaking, what we used to claim such as the ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is merely an expression for our mind to comprehend on day-to-day communication with another individual. However, this expression does not grant us with unchanging or permanent ownership of our mind and body.
The ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is purely part of the becoming processes in this dependent nature. Both our mind and body would constantly orientate and evolve as according to the subjected conditions. The physical body is shaped up as appearance due to the existence of matter and matter is basically concerted, aggregated or concentrated or wrapped energy.
In other words, appearance is merely a momentary outcome of aggregation process that varies according to subjected conditions. For example, ice, water and steam are different appearances derived from the orientation of H2O properties based on subjected conditions. In other words, it is the orientation of H2O properties that has taken place to conjure up the momentary outcome of it. As for the mind, it is also originated from the aggregation process that conjures up memory and conscious aggregates and varies under the influence of phenomenal conditions.
So, right now, how could we properly describe ourselves? The right way to express ourselves is, ‘I am what I am’. ‘If you think this is what I am, then I am’. ‘If you see that is what I am, then I am’. The phenomena that arise are very much related to the consciousness that perceives them. Phenomenon exists as this or that is dependent on the observers. It is just like describing the same elephant by different blind men – one blind man may say elephant looks like tree trunk; another blind man would say elephant looks like snake.
And this is how we explicate the presence of the wave of dependent phenomenon has clouded our mind from discerning the reality of circumstances. What constitutes a reality then? A reality exists beyond mind and beyond concepts and words in the sense that it is beyond our usual ways of perceiving things. Language and conception only imply that things exist in distinct manners i.e. wise person, dumb person, saint, devil, etc. - in such well-defined and independent categories. Perceiving reality is seeing that things do not exist in these fantasised, impossible ways, in black and white categories.
In other words, a reality is such label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less, colour-less, beginning-less, end-less and for the ease of our expression, we could summarise it as the ‘Deepest fact about Things’. An enlightened mind is able to discern the ‘Deepest fact about Things’ in crystal clear and without hesitation after getting rid of the wave of dependent phenomenon.
So, when we talk about Buddhism, it is all about transforming an ignorant state of mind into a realised state of mind – a process of Enlightenment. To begin with, one would need to set in a right mentality or determination. One has to see all things as they really are, to liberate from it and to be enlightened. Have boundless compassion and loving kindness along the way. This would be an everlasting remedy to the rising of Dukkha that was recommended by the wise Buddha.
In a fully awakened state of mind, there is no longer the need for label, colour, stereotype, boundary, beginning, ending, etc. All subjects and objects are in completely neutralised state of affairs - when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
Why do we always hear Buddhists saying, ‘Form is Empty, Empty is Form’? What is actually 'form'? We can actually see form as appearance but why do we say it is empty? Isn’t it strange, right?
Well, for common people, form is viewed as an ‘entity’. Entity means thing which exists as a separate unit. So, is it true to say that form does exist as a separate unit as what our ordinary mind perceived?
Let us make a simple illustration now. Supposedly, you stand in front of a large mirror looking at yourself – what you can see is your own appearance of physical body. Now, if you continue to see inside yourself, search deeper and deeper within yourself, what do you see? You could probably see various internal organs, blood veins, nerves, fluids, unit cells, etc.
At the end of the day, can you describe what is the inner most section of your physical body? After the single unit cell, what do you see further inside? Can you find any core essence that is eternal or non-changing further within it? You can’t find anything inside further, right? When one can’t find anything inside further, how does one translates it into? It is EMPTY, right? So, can we say that form is ultimately empty in the real sense? This is the clarification on ‘Form is Empty, Empty is Form’.
But one should not confuse empty with nothing. Empty cannot be literally translated as nothing. While we say form is empty, there are still basic elements remaining. Just like, when we do declare a vessel is empty, it does not literally mean ‘nothing’ inside the vessel – there could still be air, radiation, dust, viruses, etc. that cannot be discerned by our naked eyes.
At the end of the day, we could declare that form is empty in the real sense because there is no core essence within it except for the basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space that orientate and evolve constantly based on subjected conditions. In other words, what our naked eyes view as form is actually the matter and it is also known as concerted, aggregated or concentrated or wrapped energy. Since we can’t see energy with our naked eyes, we would say that the inner most of form is empty in the real sense.
In conclusion, everything that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing has ever existed in its own quality – nothing is permanent and unchanging. All objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances that in turn vary as per the perceptions of the beholders. Energy is the underlying element for all existence and it is dependent on conditional phenomenon.
Nirvana is a phenomenon beyond all conventional phenomena. Conventional phenomenon is subject to conditional and duality influences – in continuous and constantly changing state of affairs. Nirvana phenomenon would arise when there is non-existence of conditional and duality influences – a complete neutralising state of affairs.
There is no mind, no thinking, no becoming, no changing, no evolution, no clinging, no wanting, no impermanency in Nirvana. Moreover, Nirvana is not about wanting for nothing. In the first place, there is no wanting to begin with, therefore, wanting could not be the cause for nothing. One of the basic footsteps to achieve enlightenment and reach Nirvana is to practise ‘letting go’. Letting go is not the same as giving up hope - a frustrated expression. Not to hope is not to become; not to become is not to cling and suffer.
So the choice is yours ultimately – to hope and suffer or not to hope and not to suffer. There is no right or wrong choice but simply wholesome or unwholesome choice. Wholesome would mean seeing things as they truly are and in totality of perspectives; unwholesome would mean seeing things as they delusively are and in non-totality of perspectives. As such, for one to be awakened or otherwise, it is entirely a personal aspiration and not a commandment of sorts.
In Buddhism, there are no commandments to be found; no hierarchical ranking between followers, etc. Any sorts of authoritative claims based on personal gratifications are purely egocentric in nature and devoted followers must not put in their faith blindly on anything; come what may. And it is worrisome to see and hear nowadays that many of the so-called Buddhists are mere sutra collectors or interpreters.
In the first place, Buddhism is never about what the Buddha has said and what has not said personally. We have to examine, ‘What is the real meaning of the Buddha?’ It is literally translated as the ‘Awakened One’. But, what is one awakening to? It is awakened to the reality of ‘Dukkha’ and the cessation of it. Now, when we mentioned the Buddha's saying, are we only referring to Siddartha Gautama alone? How about other beings that have had achieved enlightenment along the thousands of years?
For general understanding, Siddartha Gautama is a Buddha, but Buddha may not necessarily be Siddartha Gautama alone. And the next question would be, ‘Who wrote all the sutras, when were it written?’ Definitely, Buddhism is not only about the sutras per se but also other missing links. On this pretext, Buddha is wise to mention that in order to appreciate what the essence of Dhamma is about, do not believe what he said until one investigates and sees it. This principle is so essential to uphold and sustain so that the original essence of Dhamma could remain intact; surpassing time.
In other words, there is no place for blind faith in Buddhism. Let us be awakened and not be hampered by belief boundaries. Nature belongs to nature; not to any particular religions or beliefs. Liberate ourselves from any hindrances and be enlightened. Apply your wisdom and you would find the true answers to it. The door is open and you need to walk in the path by yourself; someone could only shine the light or show the way in. One should always apply wisdom in all thoughts or actions and never be too fascinated or obsessed with what was written and mentioned in the so-called texts, doctrines, sutras, or any sort of supernatural claims, etc.
To see it, know it and let go – no need to grasp it – this is how one practises, ‘Seeing things as they are’ – see only with eyes and mind, don’t get into any involvement; more importantly – let go the self and ego factors.
Buddhism is not about circumstances, but attitude towards circumstances. Be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
What is suffering?
The word ‘suffering’ seems to appear in every corner of Buddhism. And generally, one would tend to associate suffering with pain, agony, sadness, dissatisfaction and all sorts of negativity in one’s life time. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the eyes of the Buddha.
For general understanding, the meaning of Dukkha or suffering would be ‘to bear with’ in the Buddhist context. Any circumstances that would involve one - to continue with; to persevere with; to soldier on with; to carry on with; to undertake with; to go through with would mean suffering. Literally, it is not correct for one to focus so much on the condition of pain, agony, dissatisfaction, joyfulness or happiness; for these conditions merely reflected as the consequences of Dukkha arising.
‘To bear with’ is to suffer and the antonym of it is ‘to let go’. So, stop submitting yourself to the conditional circumstances and you would be freed, be liberated and be neutralised!
Let us cure the cause, not the symptoms!
What is Heaven? What is Hell?
For general understanding, heaven or hell is not a respective plane of existence waiting for exclusive memberships. Instead, it is the so-called member that has made up the self-qualifying arrangement for the chance of heaven or hell plane to arise.
Just like, inhabitant is a necessary pre-requisite for any villages to exist; without it, the village would be impossible. Therefore, once again, heaven or hell is not a plane of existence to be found ‘up-there’ or ‘down-there’ waiting to be filled in by the so-called rightful elements.
In fact, heaven or hell is simply next to your mind, your eyes, your ears, your consciousness, your sub-consciousness, etc. When a person lay dead on the ground, the three basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space elements would separate from each other. Precisely, both conscious and sub-conscious (energy) aggregates would depart the body (matter).
However, only sub-conscious aggregates would sustain in liberated forms but not the conscious aggregates. The switch of conscious aggregates would be turned off and it would not carry on beyond the graveyard. But the sub-conscious aggregates that have no switch for on/off-turning and would stay behind in the so-called soul or spirit forms. And it is the characteristics of the sub-conscious aggregates that would determine the next plane of existence for the so-called soul or spirit. Therefore, one should not miss the chance of moulding the sub-conscious aggregates in correct manners before kicking the bucket!
For instance, it is right to say that good begets good, evil begets evil. When one pays to live a hell-like condition in the present life time, one would be repaid in the next phase of existence as in hell plane. Just as sow apple seeds, reap apple fruits; sow orange seeds, reap orange fruits or Action 1 conjures up Reaction 1; Action 2 conjures up Reaction 2.
So, when one is dedicating one’s life towards hell-like conditions, then the sub-conscious aggregates would retain the so-called ‘hellish’ information that would carry on; surpassing the demise time period. The ‘hellish’ retention could only be weakened through conscientious goodwill prayers or persuasions being performed by the third parties (transference of merit).
Therefore, please be aware of the nature of circumstances that you are exposed to or associated with during your lifetime. And if possible, it is beneficial to create heaven-like ambience at all times; more importantly during the closing chapter of your present life. This is because where you ended up to in the next phase of existence is very much dependent on the retained information in your sub-conscious aggregates - be it heaven-like or hell-like ones.
In conclusion, the fate in your next life is very much dependent on the characteristics of your sub-conscious aggregates. It is the originator or architect for the heaven or hell realm. Mould it well at all times and if possible, be enlightened to eradicate the suffering of it.
Once again – be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
Why is it so difficult for one to know and see the Ultimate Truth? Why are we here breathing, thinking and talking right now? Why the beginning and then the ending? Why something? Why not nothing? Why this and that?
For one to see the Ultimate Truth, one has to unwind everything back to the moment of the origin. We do know things and happenings exist because it can be known and felt by our senses. And our mind interprets event or happening as a condition that one has to go through, to persevere with, to soldier on with, to carry on with or to undertake with inevitably. And since things and happenings existed long before we have the slightest opportunity to recognise and understand it well, we are bound to suffer ignorantly.
However, as human beings, we have the wisdom to make identification or recognition on the entire circle of events or happenings. In this dependent nature, we do know one thing that is consistently constant i.e. becoming. This becoming process is the main reason for all the things or happenings that we observe right now and then. When there is a becoming process, there is a change process. When there is a change process, there is a circumstance that shapes up some sort of abilities in this nature. This ability of sorts is also known as ‘energy’ in the scientific terminology. As such, we are clear now that energy is something that has always existed and remained constant as the Law of Conservation of Energy that says energy in a system can neither be created nor destroyed and the sum of all the energies is a constant or never changes.
When we deal with the subject of energy, indirectly, we also touch on the subject of matter. This is because energy or matter is actually the same thing - both reflected in a different form. Just like, cause or effect is the same thing - both reflected in a different time of event. As a summary, we could conclude that energy is a fundamental element in this dependent nature because every single thing or happening would involve energy aggregates. Even the so-called souls, ghosts or spirits are all part of the energy aggregates because they could positively be detected by electromagnetic devices.
So, when we mentioned that the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant or never changes, it means that there is a need for a balancing act in this dependent nature. Otherwise, constant factor cannot be achieved at all and the natural bounding law that dictates this circumstance of equilibrium in this dependent nature is called the Law of Karma. In other words, the Law of Karma is simply a natural law of balancing. And only when there is a balance circumstance, there is chance for a formation activity to take place i.e. under a balance phenomenon, one could witness shapes or forms arised; under an imbalance phenomenon, one could see no shapes or forms arised - and the cycle of conditional phenomena continues.
For general understanding, the Law of Karma is a comprehensive law that runs in phenomena full of complexity and way beyond the simple and straight forward action-reaction principles discovered by modern scientists. This is because events or happenings in this dependent nature varies in frequency under the conditional influences and thus the working result of Karma is non-conjecturable and to speculate about it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
Right now, let us take a look at the other angle of nature that is non-dependent nature. What constitutes a non-dependent nature? A non-dependent nature is also known as inherent nature of existence. Anything that inherently exists would not involve change and created objects cannot inherently exist since that would involve change. Therefore, we could conclude that all things or happenings in the dependent nature cannot inherently exist because the process of becoming or change is the key element of it.
So, how could we identify the ultimate truth in this nature? Rightfully, we could mention that this nature is ultimately universal and encompassed with both inherent and dependent qualities. The inherent quality of nature can be known as the deepest fact about things. It exists beyond mind, beyond concepts and words and it bears with the characteristics of beginning-less and end-less. Our mind is capable of perceiving this reality of nature and Buddhism is all about transformation from an ignorant state of mind into a realised state of mind. And an enlightened mind is able to discern the deepest fact about things in crystal clear and without hesitation after getting rid of the wave of dependent phenomenon.
As a conclusion, we shall know by now that this nature is universal that bears with the inherent and dependent qualities. The Ultimate Truth would remain unshaken no matter how one interprets it and one should not waste time trying to prove who is right, who is wrong, which school teaches more truth, etc. Trivial arguments would make one looks more foolish among all the other ignorant beings. And the world is not a closed one. Those who see, read, hear and evaluate for themselves can find the truth they seek. The role of religion in this era is not as a blockage but to help explain and educate in a mature manner.
Be bound-less, be stereotype-less, be label-less. Mould a right attitude and it would open up a new horizon of things.
Have a nice living day!
-------------------------------------- “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
What book or website are you quoting from? You don't say if you are the author, and if not you need to give the original source or author at least, but really a link to where we can read the original is best for copyright purposes. Fair use laws and such.
A have a few questions, but it depends on if you wrote it, or just agree with it.
Perhaps, what Buddhism lacks is the emphasis on the dependence of God. But this doesn’t mean that the Buddha has denied the existence of God. In Buddhism, God is viewed in a different perspective as compared with other religions. As you may know, according to Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence in this nature and God is placed at a higher level of existence than human being.
Not really. The Buddha taught about a god realm ( inhabited by gods ), but this should not be confused with the creator God ( singular, capital G ) described by the Abrahamic religions. ( Back to topic )
Heading off to work now. So I'll read the reply this evening.
My question is simply, the metaphor of the spilled tea is interesting, but are you saying that because some of the component parts are being reused, that's rebirth? In the metaphor you put the cup of tea back together.
So I am made of atoms born in the heart of an exploding star. Does that make me a reborn star? If so, what is being reborn?
I eagerly await your answer.
Nice writing, by the way.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Or just an experienced Buddhist?
If they used critical thought to chose one over the other, I'd say they are using skepticism. It's not like it's a dirty word.
For sure, it's good to question and challenge, but I wonder whether a position of constant questioning and doubt is really productive?
It depends on what you mean by constant questioning. It's been productive for me.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Where is God in Buddhism?
Perhaps, what Buddhism lacks is the emphasis on the dependence of God. But this doesn’t mean that the Buddha has denied the existence of God. In Buddhism, God is viewed in a different perspective as compared with other religions. As you may know, according to Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence in this nature and God is placed at a higher level of existence than human being.
Not really. The Buddha taught about a god realm ( inhabited by gods ), but this should not be confused with the creator God ( singular, capital G ) described by the Abrahamic religions. ( Back to topic )
Buddha also talked of Brahma. That's God with a capital G.
He pretty much left that one for us to figure out.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sorry, that's Brahman, not Brahma... I can't edit.
Perhaps, what Buddhism lacks is the emphasis on the dependence of God. But this doesn’t mean that the Buddha has denied the existence of God. In Buddhism, God is viewed in a different perspective as compared with other religions. As you may know, according to Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence in this nature and God is placed at a higher level of existence than human being.
Not really. The Buddha taught about a god realm ( inhabited by gods ), but this should not be confused with the creator God ( singular, capital G ) described by the Abrahamic religions. ( Back to topic )
Buddha also talked of Brahma. That's God with a capital G.
He pretty much left that one for us to figure out.
Brahman was one of the God's who asked the Buddha to teach and turn the wheel of Dharma.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The short answer is energy. No one can kill energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed and the total sum of all energies in a system is a constant or never changes as per the Law of Conservation of Energy acknowledged by modern scientists.
Energy would only transform. To transform is to change. To change is to become. To become is to reborn. So energy is ever ‘reborn’ all the times in this dependent nature.
All consciousness, mental activities, minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, memories, dreams, illusions, emotions, affections are part of energy aggregates. When we talk about energy, we talk about the ability to change or do work. So without energy, there is no chance for such ability to arise and no chance for change at all.
@Buddhitakso: How do you explain away energy dissipation? Like Stephen Hawking said, "When I hear of Shoedinger's Cat, I reach for my gun."
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@buddhitakso In your illustrations you seem to be suggesting that there isn't an individual stream of consciousness from life to life but a reformulation of multiple fragments of consciousness. Is that right? And how do you square that with the notion of karma being passed on from one life to the next or a path to nirvana taking more than a single life?
@buddhitakso In your illustrations you seem to be suggesting that there isn't an individual stream of consciousness from life to life but a reformulation of multiple fragments of consciousness. Is that right? And how do you square that with the notion of karma being passed on from one life to the next or a path to nirvana taking more than a single life?
Good questions! Here are my long answers…….
Dependent Origination
How does consciousness derive in the first place? Let us analyse into the Law of Dependent Origination, the way as I see it.
Every existence does contain with three basic elements - energy, matter and space. These basic elements would subject to conditional balance and imbalance phenomena. Under balance phenomenon, these elements would start to integrate with each other to create aggregate activities. Under imbalance phenomenon, these elements would start to disintegrate from each other to create segregate activities.
The principle in effect: -
A stream of balance phenomena would conjure up aggregate activity; A stream of aggregate activities would conjure up information; A stream of information would conjure up memory; A stream of memories would conjure up ignorance; A stream of ignorance would conjure up volitional impulse; A stream of volitional impulses would conjure up consciousness; A stream of consciousness would conjure up body and mind; A stream of body and mind would conjure up six sense bases; A stream of six sense bases would conjure up contact; A stream of contacts would conjure up feeling; A stream of feelings would conjure up craving; A stream of cravings would conjure up clinging; A stream of clinging would conjure up becoming; A stream of becoming would conjure up birth; A stream of births would conjure up aging; A stream of aging would conjure up death; A stream of deaths would conjure up segregate activity; A stream of segregate activities would conjure up imbalance phenomenon; A stream of imbalance phenomena would conjure up new balance phenomenon.
So, from the above principle, we could notice that consciousness arises out of volitional impulse, volitional impulse arises out of ignorance, ignorance arises out of memory, memory arises out of information, information arises out of aggregate activity and aggregate activity arises out of balance phenomenon.
According to Buddhism, suffering arises out of ignorance. But ignorance could not arise out of nowhere or out of thin air. Definitely, it needs to arise out of something that has happened beforehand. In this case, we would conclude that ignorance arises out of memory.
In psychology, memory is defined as an organism's ability to store, retain, and recall information and experiences. So, when an aggregate activity starts to begin, some sort of information would be produced, stored and recalled in the integrated elements. In a layman term, this process is called pro-creation or creation within beings or things. If memory aggregate is absent, the process of replication could not arise in all beings or things at all.
Let us illustrate in the learning of speeches among young children. If a child has no memory ability, then whatever lessons that were taught on would be forgotten or erased instantly and progression to the next advance level would be deemed impossible.
Similarly, it was the Buddha’s recommendation for one to always see and live in the present, neither in the past nor in the future. When one lives well in the present, one would lead to the cessation of memories of the past and this would subsequently lead to the cessation of ignorance in the future.
The principle in effect: -
The seeing of Ultimate Truth leads to the cessation of balance phenomenon; The cessation of balance phenomenon leads to the cessation of aggregate activity; The cessation of aggregate activity leads to cessation of information; The cessation of information leads to cessation of memory; The cessation of memory leads to the cessation of ignorance; The cessation of ignorance leads to the cessation of volitional impulse; The cessation of volitional impulse leads to the cessation of consciousness; The cessation of consciousness leads to the cessation of body and mind; The cessation of body and mind lead to the cessation of six sense bases; The cessation of six sense bases lead to the cessation of contact; The cessation of contact leads to the cessation of feeling; The cessation of feeling leads to the cessation of craving; The cessation of craving leads to the cessation of clinging; The cessation of clinging leads to the cessation of becoming; The cessation of becoming leads to the cessation of birth; The cessation of birth leads to the cessation of aging; The cessation of aging leads to the cessation of death; The cessation of death leads to the cessation of segregate activity; The cessation of segregate activity leads to the cessation of imbalance phenomenon; The cessation of imbalance phenomenon leads to the cessation of conditional phenomenon; The cessation of conditional phenomenon leads to the cessation of time; The cessation of time leads to unconditional freedom of basic elements - energy, matter and space. Ultimately, pure energy, matter and space elements would sustain in permanency with absence of time – that is ambience of Nirvana.
The Law of Karma
Now, let us analyse into Karma. What does Karma mean? In Buddhism, Karma is translated as ‘volitional Action’. But the general meaning of Karma is beyond that. Karma can be loosely translated as mere ‘Action’.
Therefore, when we talk about the law of Karma, we talk about the law of Action. When we talk about the law of Action, we talk about the law of Reaction. And these laws are part of the Universal laws i.e. the natural phenomenon laws – not shaped by someone else, no one owns it, neither Buddhism. It is merely a natural law of balancing - to achieve the circumstances of equilibrium in the nature.
In this dependent nature, when a person lay dead on the ground, the three basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space elements would separate from each other. Precisely, both conscious and sub-conscious (energy) aggregates would depart the body (matter). However, only sub-conscious aggregates would sustain in liberated forms but not the conscious aggregates.
The sub-conscious aggregates would stay behind in the so-called soul or spirit forms and bear along the seeds of Karma. This is because within the sub-conscious aggregates, one would discover the sub-memory aggregates. Within the sub-memory aggregates, one would discover the sub-information aggregates. And the retained sub-information in each life cycle would evolve into the so-called ‘seed treasures’ of Karma that were accumulated throughout the series of one’s past lives.
Supposedly, the sub-conscious aggregates of: Individual A would bear with ‘Karma seed A’, Individual B would bear with ‘Karma seed B’, Individual C would bear with ‘Karma seed C’. When a new being is born i.e. Individual ABC, this newly formed individual would bear with all the ‘Karma seed A’, ‘Karma seed B’ and ‘Karma seed C’ during his or her present life time. This is what the Buddha means by emptiness in all things or happenings in this dependent nature – nothing is absolute, nothing is well-defined and nothing is independent.
Therefore, the law of Karma can never be deciphered as an eye for an eye kind of principle because it is impossible for one to carry out a clear separation of things or happenings. Every single thing or happening in this nature is so inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence. In short, every existence would not be totally the same or different from each other and this is what we called ‘Emptiness Everywhere’.
Right now, the next question is, ‘When would the seeds of Karma transform into the fruits of Karma?’ The Buddha has mentioned that the working result of Karma was one of the four unconjecturables and to speculate about it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. But why is it so difficult for one, even the Buddha, to predict the timeline for the fruits of Karma?
Let us analyse into the following illustrations: -
We do know that cause or effect is the same thing; both reflected in a different time of event.
Cause = Effect
Cause 1 conjures up Effect 1; Effect 1 conjures up Cause 1-1; Cause 1-1 conjures up Effect 1-1; Effect 1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1; .., etc.
Action = Reaction
Action 1 conjures up Reaction 1; Reaction 1 conjures up Action 1-1; Action 1-1 conjures up Reaction 1-1; .., etc.
If present, Cause 1 > Effect 1; Action 1 > Reaction 1
future will be, Effect 1 > Cause 1-1; Reaction 1 > Action 1-1*
* This is the scenario of a good person having to face with unfortunate events; a bad person having to enjoy fortunate events in a life time.
E.g.
Loan $100 = Repayment $100
If today, Loan $100 > Repayment $100
tomorrow will be, Repayment > new Loan $100
When we mention that the rising force of something would generate a new equal opposing force (the law of balancing), we are actually referring to action/cause and reaction/effect process under a constant motion phenomenon. But under variable motion phenomenon, the law of balancing would orientate in a unique harmonising mechanism.
Let us look at the following illustrations: -
Under constant motion circumstance, come factor equals to become factor: -
Come factor = Become factor
Acceleration
When come factor accelerates, the relative become factor would decelerate: -
Come factor ↑, Become factor ↓
(End results: Mental and physical progresses slow down --> time dilation circumstance in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It means comparatively an individual under accelerating motion would grow old slower than an individual under constant motion).
Deceleration
When come factor decelerates, the relative become factor would accelerate: -
Come factor ↓, Become factor ↑
(End results: Mental and physical progresses speed up --> ambience of meditation. For now, we know that meditation is a way to speed up the Awakening process. That is why monks or nuns need to become celibate and dis-engage themselves from the common society before re-engage again for spreading the Dhamma.)
In reality, things or happenings do exist in motions that always vary under the influence of conditional phenomena. Therefore, it is just impossible for one to foresee the working result of Karma. So by now, we would know the law of Karma is a comprehensive law that runs in phenomena full of complexity and way beyond the simple and straight forward action-reaction principles discovered by modern scientists.
Neutralising the Karma
With all the above explanation on how the principle of Karma works, we have come to an apex now on the approach to neutralise the fruits of Karma in order for one to attain the eternal bliss of Nirvana.
The first practical step to neutralise the fruits of Karma is to ‘live in the present moment’. When one realises fully on the present moment, the memory aggregate would eventually vanish - for memory of the past would lead to new becoming process in the future, and thus ignorance continues eventually across plane of existence and time.
For general understanding, we are part of the becoming processes and time is merely a tool to quantify it. When the becoming process ceases; the time would cease as well – thus, the absence of time stream (past, present and future). When we constantly sustain in the present moment, we leave behind no traces for the past or future moment to arise. Just like, we leave behind no seed for fruit bearing in every passing of moments. Under such circumstance, any new rising or falling activities would cast no chance of emerging at all. In the end, the vicious wheel of life would stop rotating with the absence of conditional phenomena and the ambience of full Awakening would emerge concurrently.
The second practical step would be to practise ‘letting go’. As again, Buddhism is not about circumstances but attitude towards circumstances. To ‘bear with’ is to suffer and the antonym of it is to ‘let go’. So, by not submitting oneself to the conditional circumstances, one would be freed, be liberated and be neutralised. Wisely, one can see it, know it and let go – no need to grasp it and do not get into any involvement.
The third practical step is to see things or happenings as they truly are; not delusively are. Just see things or happenings in direct perception - that is basically label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less or colour-less.
As a summary, enlightenment is not a far-fetched thing, achievable only by the privileged ones or the chosen ones or the qualified ones sitting in ivory towers. Instead, it is such a profound realisation that is achievable by anyone that inculcates with the right attitude or determination.
In a layman term, enlightenment means graduation and liberation. Every second, every minute, every hour, every day and night - we observe things, let things pass by, learn on something, let go something and finally realise on something. Somehow and somewhere, we have actually learned, graduated and liberated out of something without much attention on it. In other words, every one of us has actually tasted ‘little’ awakening moment in one way or the other. This will be a good or sweet motivation for one to elevate up spiritually and move forward until one is ready to fully liberate from the Samsara.
Remember! There is no mind, no memory, no becoming, no clinging, no desire, no ignorance, no happiness, no sadness, no changing in the eternal bliss of Nirvana. Meditate, meditate and meditate! Have boundless compassion and loving-kindness along the way.
The principle in effect: -
A stream of loving-kindness and compassion would conjure up empathy, A stream of empathy would conjure up boundless, A stream of boundless would conjure up voidness, A stream of voidness would conjure up stillness, A stream of stillness would conjure up peacefulness, A stream of peacefulness would conjure up Enlightenment.
Supposedly, the sub-conscious aggregates of: Individual A would bear with ‘Karma seed A’, Individual B would bear with ‘Karma seed B’, Individual C would bear with ‘Karma seed C’. When a new being is born i.e. Individual ABC, this newly formed individual would bear with all the ‘Karma seed A’, ‘Karma seed B’ and ‘Karma seed C’ during his or her present life time. This is what the Buddha means by emptiness in all things or happenings in this dependent nature – nothing is absolute, nothing is well-defined and nothing is independent.
Are you suggesting that there's a mixture of karma seeds? How would this differ from the misconception of group karma?
So you're using the laws of energy as how the mind works? I'll have to sit down later today and take my time reading and studying your diagrams. It's as good as any other paradigm, I would think. Somewhere in there, from a skeptical mindset, I expect to find (first) an explanation for how this mind procuces work (the ability of one energy system to effect another system from a distance) upon death. Otherwise you're just describing the physical brain function shutting down as the energy dissipates with no information transmitted. Second, I expect to find some way your theory can be tested or observed to both prove its accuracy and distinguish it from other theories. If that isn't present, a skeptical mind considers it perhaps a useful metaphor to visualize the mind at work, but still at the level of conjecture.
Supposedly, the sub-conscious aggregates of: Individual A would bear with ‘Karma seed A’, Individual B would bear with ‘Karma seed B’, Individual C would bear with ‘Karma seed C’. When a new being is born i.e. Individual ABC, this newly formed individual would bear with all the ‘Karma seed A’, ‘Karma seed B’ and ‘Karma seed C’ during his or her present life time. This is what the Buddha means by emptiness in all things or happenings in this dependent nature – nothing is absolute, nothing is well-defined and nothing is independent.
Are you suggesting that there's a mixture of karma seeds? How would this differ from the misconception of group karma?
Why not? It is all depending on how one conceptualise the definition of Karma.
In this dependent nature, emptiness is everywhere. Everything that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing has ever existed in its own quality – nothing is permanent and unchanging. All objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence.
Bend your faith to fit the Truth; not bend the Truth to fit your faith – that is Buddhism.
Bend your faith to fit the Truth; not bend the Truth to fit your faith – that is Buddhism.
But isn't that what you've done, bend the truth to fit your faith, or in this instance your pseudo-science?
Even Wikipedia managed to sum up this issue:
Other modern Buddhists have sought to formulate theories of group, collective and national karma which are not found in traditional Buddhist thinking. The earliest recorded instance of this occurred in 1925, when a member of the Maha Bodhi named Sheo Narain published an article entitled "Karmic Law" in which he invited Buddhist scholars to explore the question of whether an individual is "responsible not only for his individual actions in his past life but also for past communal deeds."
As one scholar writes, "a systematic concept of group karma was in no sense operative in early Theravada" or other schools based on the early sutras. "Instead," he writes, "the repeated emphasis in the canonical discussions of karma is on the individual as heir to his own deeds. It is only in this century, then, that one finds a conscious effort to split with this tradition."
Buddhism does not deny that the actions taken by one generation of the citizens of a given country will have effects on later generations, for example. However, as noted above, all effects of actions are not karmic effects. Karmic effects impinge only on the mindstreams of those sentient beings who perform the actions. As Nyanatiloka Mahathera writes, individuals should be responsible for the deeds formerly done by this so-called 'same' people.
In reality, however, this present people may not consist at all of the karmic heirs of the same individuals who did these bad deeds. According to Buddhism it is of course quite true that anybody who suffers bodily, suffers for his past or present bad deeds. Thus also each of those individuals born within that suffering nation, must, if actually suffering bodily, have done evil somewhere, here or in one of the innunmerable spheres of existence; but he may not have had anything to do with the bad deeds of the so-called nation. We might say that through his evil Karma he was attracted to the miserable condition befitting to him. In short, the term Karma applies, in each instance, only to wholesome and unwholesome volitional activity of the single individual.
Thus, in the traditional view the effects of the actions of other beings—such as the leader of one's country, or prior generations of its citizens—might well serve as causes of suffering for an individual on one level, but not they would not be the karmic causes of the suffering of that individual—those causes would function in congruence with the karmic causes. There is, therefore, no "national karma" in traditional Buddhism. One "scholar of engaged Buddhism" wrote an article asserting that the "collective karma" of the United States deriving from the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would potentially "play out for generations," a view that is not supported by traditional Buddhist views of karma. The effects may well be felt by Americans for generations, but they would not constitute "collective karma."
"Collective karma" could be spoken of only in certain limited senses in the canonical tradition. In Vasubandu's Karmasiddhiprakarana, among other places, it is asserted that a group of individuals who collaborate and share the same intention for a planned action will all incur karmic merit or demerit based on that action, regardless of which individual actually carries out the action. The fruition of their merit or demerit, however, will not necessarily be experienced by each of the individuals together, and/or at the same time. Likewise, "family karma" is possible only when it refers to karmic dispositions which are similar in each individual family member. One scholar points out, "statements concerning group karma . . .are subject to conceptual confusion. It is important to distinguish group karma from what might be termed conjunctive karma, that is, the karmic residues which we experience as a result of the actions of everyone or everything operating casually in the situation, but which are justified by our own accumulated karma. . . the actions of many persons . . .mediate our karma to us. But this is not group karma, for the effect which we experience is justified by our own particular acts or pool of karma, and not by the karmic acts or pool of the group, even though it is mediated by the actions of others."
As example, as a non indigenous Australian I will continue experience the discrimination of being a white Australian to indigenous Australian individuals and I work hard in my interactions with others to overcome the limitations of my birth, including the colour of my skin. I have many good relationships with indigenous Australians.
Bend your faith to fit the Truth; not bend the Truth to fit your faith – that is Buddhism.
But isn't that what you've done, bend the truth to fit your faith, or in this instance your pseudo-science?
Perhaps, try not to be so quick to jump the gun in your above conclusion.
Keep this in mind: -
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
I'm not the only one on this forum who noticed that this stuff you've been posting is just a rehash of the vital force theory of the spirit, only that you've resculpt it with scientific jargon to support rebirth, ect. --- it became pseudo-science the minute you felt compelled to ignore the fact that science does in fact support the theory of cause and effect, but that wasn't good enough for you.
And grasshopper, don't dare quote the Kalama Sutta for this.
Cinorjer, just take all your time to meditate, ponder and reflect on any new discoveries.
Do not rush to find your answers for it.
Tell you what, I'll read through everything tonight, if you think about and answer several questions I already have. This is a posting about skeptical Buddhism, after all. So let's apply skeptical thinking to your work.
First, what evidence or proof or observation can you point to that tells us this is actually correct? Second, where is the mind in all this and how is it reborn? Using your scientific language, the mind is information. Information is not the same as energy. How is information reborn?
I'd like to hear your answer and thoughts, not see more pages from your work. Do you have it on a website somewhere? That way you can selectively quote from it or link to it.
“This is my simple religion. There is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness.”
~ Dalai Lama ~
"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact.
From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."
~Dalai Lama~
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
Comments
This forum is almost totally comprised of people stating their beliefs.
It's not like it's a dirty word.
Other people's beliefs are definitely our business in some cases, because those beliefs justify terrible actions. To absolve ourselves of the troubling responsibility of adding our voice to the debate is to be passive in the great push and shove of life. But as I said, I don't know how to draw the line. I'm not sure it's possible or wise to do so. If anyone can think of a hard and fast rule, I'd love to hear it.
Believe whatever you want up until you infringe on somebody elses right to do the same.
As the only thing worth fearing is fear itself, the same logic applies to intolerance.
of views and direct access to information means that
each person will have his own ideas.
do western buddhism accept reincarnation?
yes, no, maybe?
Perhaps more important than that is the willingness to accept that it is unlikely, on some issues, that we will even get to relative certainty in our lifetimes. And I think this was the point the Buddha was making about metaphysical views about life after death: we aren't too likely to get an answer to this one that a majority of people in the world will agree on -- we have a hard enough time with global warming.
On these particular issues his advice seems to have been to just set them aside and not argue about them, because the arguing leads nowhere. In the face of no good evidence one way or another, arguing just causes strife and division.
Instead of arguing about the metaphysics -- the underlying, unproven assumptions about the order of the universe -- he suggested we just focus on the things we do have evidence for, and that is, for example, that stoning a woman causes her great pain and is not something we would condone outside the moral system that causes it to happen. Focus on the behavior and the end result, not on the speculative beliefs.
To Cinorjer's first point above: It's not, then, "avoiding difficult choices" -- it is definitely taking a stand. The Buddha didn't waffle and say "I don't know! I don't know!" he said, "I know what causes suffering" and the cause is in part those speculative views -- they can't be resolved so just let them go, and focus on ending the suffering.
To porpoise's: The purpose of being a skeptical Buddhist is to achieve an end to dukkha by eliminating its causes, and the way we do that isn't by questioning the metaphysical but accepting that -- unless really solid evidence comes in that's going to be at least as convincing to the majority of people -- we can't know and so we shouldn't argue about it. Which means we don't question the metaphysical, we just set it aside, and focus instead on behavior and its results.
Cinorjer's 2nd: While it's true that the beliefs are the harm, and the temptation is to attack the beliefs, history does seem to have proven that that's not a useful approach. The more we argue with people about their beliefs, the more entrenched they get. So an entirely different approach like the Buddha's is called for: "I understand your belief system -- it's good because it aims at having you lead a good and moral life, and if your way turns out to be correct, and you have led a good and moral life, then you'll get your reward. And if it turns out the universe contains no inherent moral code, still you'll have led a good and moral life, and made the best of the opportunity you had for living." And reincarnation can be a dangerous belief: it leads to people saying of a child born with terrible genetic problems: "Don't help him -- he's working out his karma. He did something terrible in a past life. He deserves this."
To ourself's point: It's agnosticism defined as accepting that we can't always know, and shouldn't pretend that we do or that we have the one right answer, because that leads to serious amounts of conflict and results in the devastation of many lives.
To porpoise's 2nd and Cinorjer's that follows it: We don't need to judge what beliefs are good for people, but we can certainly judge the behavior that results from those beliefs. We might not be able to judge that belief in Allah is wrong, but we can certainly say that throwing those stones is wrong. One thing I like about the Buddha's system is that the doubt doesn't just apply to the metaphysics of the moral universe, but to how much we actually know about the events we base our actions on -- it teaches us to question, for example, how good our understanding is of what happened that caused the woman to be the object of stone-throwing. It casts all our usual beliefs about the way the world works into doubt, and some of that we can actually take the time to get solid evidence for -- but first we have to be taught to question our assumptions.
And porpoise again: So it's not constant doubt about everything, because there's much we *can* be certain of -- like the cause of suffering. And it's not even an active "wondering about" doubt about metaphysics -- it's setting them aside until there's better evidence.
Buddhism believes in Anattā (Non-self) and Śūnyatā (Voidness or Emptiness). How do we explain it?
Firstly, let us analyse what it means by non-self. In Buddhism, non-self means non-ownership of self. What we used to claim such as the ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is merely an expression for our mind to comprehend on day-to-day communication with another individual. However, this expression does not grant us with an ownership of our soul or body. And it is easier to explain the non-ownership of our body than the soul of us because we can see the rising (birth) and the passing (death) of physical bodies every time and anywhere we go.
As for the ‘soul’ thing, Buddhism believes in the absence of eternal existence of it. Soul is just a plain description for something that arised in intelligence but without physical appearance. And the ‘something that arised in intelligence’ is also not permanent and subject to change at all times as according to conditional phenomena (voidness in every existence). So there again, there is non-ownership of the soul-of-self.
So, how do we explain for believes in reincarnation process according to Buddhism? Actually, Buddhism believes in rebirth and not in reincarnation process. This is because there is no permanent grasping of soul or body during the rebirth process. It means though the mentioned cycle of process is repeated, every cycle is different from one another, just like the saying, ‘It looks like me, sounds like me, but it is not me.’ In other words, there is linkage between the past, present and future of an individual but there is no trans-migration process taking place. A clear example would be how the genetic lineage works for generations.
Let us look at the following illustration on how rebirth takes place as according to Buddhism: -
The Coffee in a Cup
Let say Coffee Original is one of the special brewed drinks: -
300ml hot liquid water
70% coffee powder ==> 100% Coffee Original in cup Jumbo
30% condensed milk
Supposedly, the cup Jumbo has broken apart by accident and the content has splattered around i.e.
30% onto the table,
40% onto the floor,
5% onto the wall,
10% onto the drain,
5% vaporised into thin air,
10% remained in the broken cup.
A cleaner then takes up a rag and wipes off the remaining liquid coffee in sequential order starting from the table, then the floor and then the wall. In a repeated gesture, the cleaner squeezed off the wet rag and the remaining coffee liquid flowed into three separate cups i.e.
Cup 1 80% already filled with tea liquid mixture.
Cup 2 90% already filled with mocha liquid mixture.
Cup 3 55% already filled with mineral water.
Let say 300ml of properties is a benchmark for a qualified special brewed drink.
The cleaner then filled up the respective cup rooms with liquids derived from the rag that is by and large the remaining of Coffee Original derived from the table, the floor and the wall.
In this case, the respective 300ml of liquids in Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 is dependent on the Coffee Original before a new special brewed drink is made possible. However, this does not mean that Coffee Original is the only dependent source or ingredient. Respectively, Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 would need to depend upon many other sustaining factors as well such as the already partially filled liquids and new cups before qualifying as special brewed drinks.
As a conclusion, the new liquid mixture arising in Cup 1, Cup 2 and Cup 3 is neither identical to, nor entirely different from, the old coffee liquid, but forms part of a causal continuum or stream with it. There is a conditioned relationship between one liquid and the next; it is not identical but neither is it completely distinct.
The beauty of nature is that it allows all sorts of processes taking place such as aggregation, segregation, evolution, mutation, assimilation, etc. As a consequence, every existence would not be totally the same or different from each other. We are all so inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence – just like the Christian believes that all mankind derived from Adam and Eve.
Lastly, one should not confuse ‘non-self’ with ‘no-self’ and ‘non-eternal soul’ with ‘no-soul’. Buddhism sees in the existence of self or soul but in non-ownership or non-permanency manner.
Namaste!
Why Buddhism? What is Buddhism? Buddhism is merely a great philosophy that imparts knowledge on seeing reality of things and happenings in our daily lives. Historical facts have shown that Prince Siddartha Gautama became the Buddha out of his vast compassion to see the end of the vicious cycle of life. And the Buddha means the ‘Awakened One’ i.e. one who sees through the ultimate reality of things and happenings.
Where is God in Buddhism?
Perhaps, what Buddhism lacks is the emphasis on the dependence of God. But this doesn’t mean that the Buddha has denied the existence of God. In Buddhism, God is viewed in a different perspective as compared with other religions. As you may know, according to Buddhism, there are 31 planes of existence in this nature and God is placed at a higher level of existence than human being.
Of course, the Buddha did recognise that God has an important role in the spiritual development of individuals. God could help individuals in many ways but still, God is not permanent and subject to conditional influences as well.
At the end of the day, the Buddha has seen through that ‘dependence’ is part of the key sources of Dukkha arising and to eradicate it, one has to let go ‘dependence’ in total aspect. Therefore, Buddhism is an alternative method to seek solace and liberation for individual who needs it. Buddhism may not be acceptable to individuals that can’t make do without the dependence aspect in life. As again, there is no right or wrong element here, but simply a personal choice.
What does Buddhism believe in?
Buddhism believes in, literally, nothing. Yes, nothing! Buddhism merely involves in seeing, knowing and letting go of things or happenings. In other words, Buddhism upholds direct experience and recognition but not faith system.
Perhaps, one has heard the phrase, ‘Seeing is believing’. When one sees it, one truly sees it. No one could shake it. But when one only believes it, without seeing it, one would bind with more curiosities and disputes.
We can illustrate the above principle in a class of Mathematics. Supposedly, a new formula was put forward to the class - should the students adopt with attitudes of understanding on how the formula derived or should the students adopt with attitudes of simply memorising the formula without any understanding on how such formula derived? A wise student would definitely choose the former method because by understanding well the origin of the formula, one could lighten the weight of memorising the formula blindly. This is also how the path to enlightenment works – diminish the ‘bear with’ factor and enhance the ‘let go’ factor.
Undeniably, the Buddha has always emphasised the importance for one to utilise wisdom in all thoughts and actions. This is what he meant by wholesome thoughts or acts. The Buddha has never laid commandments that one should think or do this; never think or do that, etc. If one continues to adopt this sort of mentality, one would simply adopt the principle of ‘blind faith’ which is much on the contrary to Buddhism.
Just like, it would be wholesome for parents to expose their children with both good and bad influences together. Any acts of depriving the children from exposing to bad influences would only create distorted view or perception in the real society (unwholesome acts). Subsequently, upon exposure of both good and bad influences, parents could encourage their children to use their wisdom to lead more meaningful life in the real and complicated society (wholesome acts).
In short, the Buddha has laid emphasis that one should look in all angles of things or matters and then apply one's wisdom in the decision making. The Buddha has merely left behind guidelines for one to pursue with and it would be meaningless for one to read and tag along the contents of written texts, doctrines or sutras on Buddhism blindly without applying wisdom.
No doubt the available scriptures, doctrines or sutras did play important roles in keeping the essence of Buddhism, but how many of the so-called Buddhists nowadays have gained full enlightenment by mere reading or reciting it? The key question is not how good or well one could quote this or that from the scriptures, doctrines or sutras but more on the practicality and direct experience of it.
Preaching Dhamma is not about quoting this or that from various sources on Buddhism. These available scriptures, doctrines or sutras were merely tools for one’s Dhamma practices. And tools would remain as tools and it would not turn a person into an enlightened being if the application is without wisdom. Also, the Buddha has recommended the establishment of Sangha community so that any followers could interact and support each other while pursuing the guidelines of Dhamma. The Buddha has not established the various sects or schools of Buddhism as what we could see nowadays.
Once again, Buddhism is never about beliefs. Instead, it is all about direct experience and recognition. Seeing the Buddha is seeing the Dhamma – it is seeing and knowing the ultimate reality of things and happenings and not to get entangle with it. So, the choice in the way of life is ultimately yours. Live a life wholesomely, all the times! Be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
-----------------------------------------------
The Buddha
One who sees the Dhamma sees me.
One who sees me sees the Dhamma.
O monks and wise men, just as a goldsmith would test his gold by burning, cutting and rubbing it, so must you examine my words and accept them, not merely out of reverence for me.
My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience...
My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship.
My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.
Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.
If you were to follow the Dharma purely out of love for me or because you respect me, I would not accept you as disciple. But if you follow the Dharma because you have yourself experienced its truth, because you understand and act accordingly - only under these conditions have you the right to call yourself a disciple of the Exalted One.
From Old Path, White Clouds by Thich Nath Hanh
Am I the mind? Am I the body? Or, am I the five body senses?
To the Master, I am a Servant,
To the Teacher, I am a Student,
To the Buddha, I am Empty.
So, who am I, actually? Am I the flesh and blood? Am I the soul? Am I the consciousness? Who am I, really!?
Frankly speaking, what we used to claim such as the ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is merely an expression for our mind to comprehend on day-to-day communication with another individual. However, this expression does not grant us with unchanging or permanent ownership of our mind and body.
The ‘I’ or ‘You’ or ‘We’ is purely part of the becoming processes in this dependent nature. Both our mind and body would constantly orientate and evolve as according to the subjected conditions. The physical body is shaped up as appearance due to the existence of matter and matter is basically concerted, aggregated or concentrated or wrapped energy.
In other words, appearance is merely a momentary outcome of aggregation process that varies according to subjected conditions. For example, ice, water and steam are different appearances derived from the orientation of H2O properties based on subjected conditions. In other words, it is the orientation of H2O properties that has taken place to conjure up the momentary outcome of it. As for the mind, it is also originated from the aggregation process that conjures up memory and conscious aggregates and varies under the influence of phenomenal conditions.
So, right now, how could we properly describe ourselves? The right way to express ourselves is, ‘I am what I am’. ‘If you think this is what I am, then I am’. ‘If you see that is what I am, then I am’. The phenomena that arise are very much related to the consciousness that perceives them. Phenomenon exists as this or that is dependent on the observers. It is just like describing the same elephant by different blind men – one blind man may say elephant looks like tree trunk; another blind man would say elephant looks like snake.
And this is how we explicate the presence of the wave of dependent phenomenon has clouded our mind from discerning the reality of circumstances. What constitutes a reality then? A reality exists beyond mind and beyond concepts and words in the sense that it is beyond our usual ways of perceiving things. Language and conception only imply that things exist in distinct manners i.e. wise person, dumb person, saint, devil, etc. - in such well-defined and independent categories. Perceiving reality is seeing that things do not exist in these fantasised, impossible ways, in black and white categories.
In other words, a reality is such label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less, colour-less, beginning-less, end-less and for the ease of our expression, we could summarise it as the ‘Deepest fact about Things’. An enlightened mind is able to discern the ‘Deepest fact about Things’ in crystal clear and without hesitation after getting rid of the wave of dependent phenomenon.
So, when we talk about Buddhism, it is all about transforming an ignorant state of mind into a realised state of mind – a process of Enlightenment. To begin with, one would need to set in a right mentality or determination. One has to see all things as they really are, to liberate from it and to be enlightened. Have boundless compassion and loving kindness along the way. This would be an everlasting remedy to the rising of Dukkha that was recommended by the wise Buddha.
In a fully awakened state of mind, there is no longer the need for label, colour, stereotype, boundary, beginning, ending, etc. All subjects and objects are in completely neutralised state of affairs - when this arises, that arises; when this ceases, that ceases.
Why do we always hear Buddhists saying, ‘Form is Empty, Empty is Form’? What is actually 'form'? We can actually see form as appearance but why do we say it is empty? Isn’t it strange, right?
Well, for common people, form is viewed as an ‘entity’. Entity means thing which exists as a separate unit. So, is it true to say that form does exist as a separate unit as what our ordinary mind perceived?
Let us make a simple illustration now. Supposedly, you stand in front of a large mirror looking at yourself – what you can see is your own appearance of physical body. Now, if you continue to see inside yourself, search deeper and deeper within yourself, what do you see? You could probably see various internal organs, blood veins, nerves, fluids, unit cells, etc.
At the end of the day, can you describe what is the inner most section of your physical body? After the single unit cell, what do you see further inside? Can you find any core essence that is eternal or non-changing further within it? You can’t find anything inside further, right? When one can’t find anything inside further, how does one translates it into? It is EMPTY, right? So, can we say that form is ultimately empty in the real sense? This is the clarification on ‘Form is Empty, Empty is Form’.
But one should not confuse empty with nothing. Empty cannot be literally translated as nothing. While we say form is empty, there are still basic elements remaining. Just like, when we do declare a vessel is empty, it does not literally mean ‘nothing’ inside the vessel – there could still be air, radiation, dust, viruses, etc. that cannot be discerned by our naked eyes.
At the end of the day, we could declare that form is empty in the real sense because there is no core essence within it except for the basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space that orientate and evolve constantly based on subjected conditions. In other words, what our naked eyes view as form is actually the matter and it is also known as concerted, aggregated or concentrated or wrapped energy. Since we can’t see energy with our naked eyes, we would say that the inner most of form is empty in the real sense.
In conclusion, everything that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing has ever existed in its own quality – nothing is permanent and unchanging. All objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence. They only exist in relation to each other as appearances that in turn vary as per the perceptions of the beholders. Energy is the underlying element for all existence and it is dependent on conditional phenomenon.
Nirvana is a phenomenon beyond all conventional phenomena. Conventional phenomenon is subject to conditional and duality influences – in continuous and constantly changing state of affairs. Nirvana phenomenon would arise when there is non-existence of conditional and duality influences – a complete neutralising state of affairs.
There is no mind, no thinking, no becoming, no changing, no evolution, no clinging, no wanting, no impermanency in Nirvana. Moreover, Nirvana is not about wanting for nothing. In the first place, there is no wanting to begin with, therefore, wanting could not be the cause for nothing. One of the basic footsteps to achieve enlightenment and reach Nirvana is to practise ‘letting go’. Letting go is not the same as giving up hope - a frustrated expression. Not to hope is not to become; not to become is not to cling and suffer.
So the choice is yours ultimately – to hope and suffer or not to hope and not to suffer. There is no right or wrong choice but simply wholesome or unwholesome choice. Wholesome would mean seeing things as they truly are and in totality of perspectives; unwholesome would mean seeing things as they delusively are and in non-totality of perspectives. As such, for one to be awakened or otherwise, it is entirely a personal aspiration and not a commandment of sorts.
In Buddhism, there are no commandments to be found; no hierarchical ranking between followers, etc. Any sorts of authoritative claims based on personal gratifications are purely egocentric in nature and devoted followers must not put in their faith blindly on anything; come what may. And it is worrisome to see and hear nowadays that many of the so-called Buddhists are mere sutra collectors or interpreters.
In the first place, Buddhism is never about what the Buddha has said and what has not said personally. We have to examine, ‘What is the real meaning of the Buddha?’ It is literally translated as the ‘Awakened One’. But, what is one awakening to? It is awakened to the reality of ‘Dukkha’ and the cessation of it. Now, when we mentioned the Buddha's saying, are we only referring to Siddartha Gautama alone? How about other beings that have had achieved enlightenment along the thousands of years?
For general understanding, Siddartha Gautama is a Buddha, but Buddha may not necessarily be Siddartha Gautama alone. And the next question would be, ‘Who wrote all the sutras, when were it written?’ Definitely, Buddhism is not only about the sutras per se but also other missing links. On this pretext, Buddha is wise to mention that in order to appreciate what the essence of Dhamma is about, do not believe what he said until one investigates and sees it. This principle is so essential to uphold and sustain so that the original essence of Dhamma could remain intact; surpassing time.
In other words, there is no place for blind faith in Buddhism. Let us be awakened and not be hampered by belief boundaries. Nature belongs to nature; not to any particular religions or beliefs. Liberate ourselves from any hindrances and be enlightened. Apply your wisdom and you would find the true answers to it. The door is open and you need to walk in the path by yourself; someone could only shine the light or show the way in. One should always apply wisdom in all thoughts or actions and never be too fascinated or obsessed with what was written and mentioned in the so-called texts, doctrines, sutras, or any sort of supernatural claims, etc.
To see it, know it and let go – no need to grasp it – this is how one practises, ‘Seeing things as they are’ – see only with eyes and mind, don’t get into any involvement; more importantly – let go the self and ego factors.
Buddhism is not about circumstances, but attitude towards circumstances. Be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
What is suffering?
The word ‘suffering’ seems to appear in every corner of Buddhism. And generally, one would tend to associate suffering with pain, agony, sadness, dissatisfaction and all sorts of negativity in one’s life time. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the eyes of the Buddha.
For general understanding, the meaning of Dukkha or suffering would be ‘to bear with’ in the Buddhist context. Any circumstances that would involve one - to continue with; to persevere with; to soldier on with; to carry on with; to undertake with; to go through with would mean suffering. Literally, it is not correct for one to focus so much on the condition of pain, agony, dissatisfaction, joyfulness or happiness; for these conditions merely reflected as the consequences of Dukkha arising.
‘To bear with’ is to suffer and the antonym of it is ‘to let go’. So, stop submitting yourself to the conditional circumstances and you would be freed, be liberated and be neutralised!
Let us cure the cause, not the symptoms!
What is Heaven? What is Hell?
For general understanding, heaven or hell is not a respective plane of existence waiting for exclusive memberships. Instead, it is the so-called member that has made up the self-qualifying arrangement for the chance of heaven or hell plane to arise.
Just like, inhabitant is a necessary pre-requisite for any villages to exist; without it, the village would be impossible. Therefore, once again, heaven or hell is not a plane of existence to be found ‘up-there’ or ‘down-there’ waiting to be filled in by the so-called rightful elements.
In fact, heaven or hell is simply next to your mind, your eyes, your ears, your consciousness, your sub-consciousness, etc. When a person lay dead on the ground, the three basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space elements would separate from each other. Precisely, both conscious and sub-conscious (energy) aggregates would depart the body (matter).
However, only sub-conscious aggregates would sustain in liberated forms but not the conscious aggregates. The switch of conscious aggregates would be turned off and it would not carry on beyond the graveyard. But the sub-conscious aggregates that have no switch for on/off-turning and would stay behind in the so-called soul or spirit forms. And it is the characteristics of the sub-conscious aggregates that would determine the next plane of existence for the so-called soul or spirit. Therefore, one should not miss the chance of moulding the sub-conscious aggregates in correct manners before kicking the bucket!
For instance, it is right to say that good begets good, evil begets evil. When one pays to live a hell-like condition in the present life time, one would be repaid in the next phase of existence as in hell plane. Just as sow apple seeds, reap apple fruits; sow orange seeds, reap orange fruits or Action 1 conjures up Reaction 1; Action 2 conjures up Reaction 2.
So, when one is dedicating one’s life towards hell-like conditions, then the sub-conscious aggregates would retain the so-called ‘hellish’ information that would carry on; surpassing the demise time period. The ‘hellish’ retention could only be weakened through conscientious goodwill prayers or persuasions being performed by the third parties (transference of merit).
Therefore, please be aware of the nature of circumstances that you are exposed to or associated with during your lifetime. And if possible, it is beneficial to create heaven-like ambience at all times; more importantly during the closing chapter of your present life. This is because where you ended up to in the next phase of existence is very much dependent on the retained information in your sub-conscious aggregates - be it heaven-like or hell-like ones.
In conclusion, the fate in your next life is very much dependent on the characteristics of your sub-conscious aggregates. It is the originator or architect for the heaven or hell realm. Mould it well at all times and if possible, be enlightened to eradicate the suffering of it.
Once again – be freed, be liberated, be neutralised!
Why is it so difficult for one to know and see the Ultimate Truth? Why are we here breathing, thinking and talking right now? Why the beginning and then the ending? Why something? Why not nothing? Why this and that?
For one to see the Ultimate Truth, one has to unwind everything back to the moment of the origin. We do know things and happenings exist because it can be known and felt by our senses. And our mind interprets event or happening as a condition that one has to go through, to persevere with, to soldier on with, to carry on with or to undertake with inevitably. And since things and happenings existed long before we have the slightest opportunity to recognise and understand it well, we are bound to suffer ignorantly.
However, as human beings, we have the wisdom to make identification or recognition on the entire circle of events or happenings. In this dependent nature, we do know one thing that is consistently constant i.e. becoming. This becoming process is the main reason for all the things or happenings that we observe right now and then. When there is a becoming process, there is a change process. When there is a change process, there is a circumstance that shapes up some sort of abilities in this nature. This ability of sorts is also known as ‘energy’ in the scientific terminology. As such, we are clear now that energy is something that has always existed and remained constant as the Law of Conservation of Energy that says energy in a system can neither be created nor destroyed and the sum of all the energies is a constant or never changes.
When we deal with the subject of energy, indirectly, we also touch on the subject of matter. This is because energy or matter is actually the same thing - both reflected in a different form. Just like, cause or effect is the same thing - both reflected in a different time of event. As a summary, we could conclude that energy is a fundamental element in this dependent nature because every single thing or happening would involve energy aggregates. Even the so-called souls, ghosts or spirits are all part of the energy aggregates because they could positively be detected by electromagnetic devices.
So, when we mentioned that the sum of all the energies in the system is a constant or never changes, it means that there is a need for a balancing act in this dependent nature. Otherwise, constant factor cannot be achieved at all and the natural bounding law that dictates this circumstance of equilibrium in this dependent nature is called the Law of Karma. In other words, the Law of Karma is simply a natural law of balancing. And only when there is a balance circumstance, there is chance for a formation activity to take place i.e. under a balance phenomenon, one could witness shapes or forms arised; under an imbalance phenomenon, one could see no shapes or forms arised - and the cycle of conditional phenomena continues.
For general understanding, the Law of Karma is a comprehensive law that runs in phenomena full of complexity and way beyond the simple and straight forward action-reaction principles discovered by modern scientists. This is because events or happenings in this dependent nature varies in frequency under the conditional influences and thus the working result of Karma is non-conjecturable and to speculate about it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
Right now, let us take a look at the other angle of nature that is non-dependent nature. What constitutes a non-dependent nature? A non-dependent nature is also known as inherent nature of existence. Anything that inherently exists would not involve change and created objects cannot inherently exist since that would involve change. Therefore, we could conclude that all things or happenings in the dependent nature cannot inherently exist because the process of becoming or change is the key element of it.
So, how could we identify the ultimate truth in this nature? Rightfully, we could mention that this nature is ultimately universal and encompassed with both inherent and dependent qualities. The inherent quality of nature can be known as the deepest fact about things. It exists beyond mind, beyond concepts and words and it bears with the characteristics of beginning-less and end-less. Our mind is capable of perceiving this reality of nature and Buddhism is all about transformation from an ignorant state of mind into a realised state of mind. And an enlightened mind is able to discern the deepest fact about things in crystal clear and without hesitation after getting rid of the wave of dependent phenomenon.
As a conclusion, we shall know by now that this nature is universal that bears with the inherent and dependent qualities. The Ultimate Truth would remain unshaken no matter how one interprets it and one should not waste time trying to prove who is right, who is wrong, which school teaches more truth, etc. Trivial arguments would make one looks more foolish among all the other ignorant beings. And the world is not a closed one. Those who see, read, hear and evaluate for themselves can find the truth they seek. The role of religion in this era is not as a blockage but to help explain and educate in a mature manner.
Be bound-less, be stereotype-less, be label-less. Mould a right attitude and it would open up a new horizon of things.
Have a nice living day!
--------------------------------------
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
~ The Buddha ~
What book or website are you quoting from? You don't say if you are the author, and if not you need to give the original source or author at least, but really a link to where we can read the original is best for copyright purposes. Fair use laws and such.
A have a few questions, but it depends on if you wrote it, or just agree with it.
( Back to topic )
My question is simply, the metaphor of the spilled tea is interesting, but are you saying that because some of the component parts are being reused, that's rebirth? In the metaphor you put the cup of tea back together.
So I am made of atoms born in the heart of an exploding star. Does that make me a reborn star? If so, what is being reborn?
I eagerly await your answer.
Nice writing, by the way.
He pretty much left that one for us to figure out.
Energy would only transform. To transform is to change. To change is to become. To become is to reborn. So energy is ever ‘reborn’ all the times in this dependent nature.
All consciousness, mental activities, minds, souls, spirits, ghosts, memories, dreams, illusions, emotions, affections are part of energy aggregates. When we talk about energy, we talk about the ability to change or do work. So without energy, there is no chance for such ability to arise and no chance for change at all.
All the above images are under Copyright © 2012 Buddhitakso.
Good questions! Here are my long answers…….
Dependent Origination
How does consciousness derive in the first place? Let us analyse into the Law of Dependent Origination, the way as I see it.
Every existence does contain with three basic elements - energy, matter and space. These basic elements would subject to conditional balance and imbalance phenomena. Under balance phenomenon, these elements would start to integrate with each other to create aggregate activities. Under imbalance phenomenon, these elements would start to disintegrate from each other to create segregate activities.
The principle in effect: -
A stream of balance phenomena would conjure up aggregate activity;
A stream of aggregate activities would conjure up information;
A stream of information would conjure up memory;
A stream of memories would conjure up ignorance;
A stream of ignorance would conjure up volitional impulse;
A stream of volitional impulses would conjure up consciousness;
A stream of consciousness would conjure up body and mind;
A stream of body and mind would conjure up six sense bases;
A stream of six sense bases would conjure up contact;
A stream of contacts would conjure up feeling;
A stream of feelings would conjure up craving;
A stream of cravings would conjure up clinging;
A stream of clinging would conjure up becoming;
A stream of becoming would conjure up birth;
A stream of births would conjure up aging;
A stream of aging would conjure up death;
A stream of deaths would conjure up segregate activity;
A stream of segregate activities would conjure up imbalance phenomenon;
A stream of imbalance phenomena would conjure up new balance phenomenon.
So, from the above principle, we could notice that consciousness arises out of volitional impulse, volitional impulse arises out of ignorance, ignorance arises out of memory, memory arises out of information, information arises out of aggregate activity and aggregate activity arises out of balance phenomenon.
According to Buddhism, suffering arises out of ignorance. But ignorance could not arise out of nowhere or out of thin air. Definitely, it needs to arise out of something that has happened beforehand. In this case, we would conclude that ignorance arises out of memory.
In psychology, memory is defined as an organism's ability to store, retain, and recall information and experiences. So, when an aggregate activity starts to begin, some sort of information would be produced, stored and recalled in the integrated elements. In a layman term, this process is called pro-creation or creation within beings or things. If memory aggregate is absent, the process of replication could not arise in all beings or things at all.
Let us illustrate in the learning of speeches among young children. If a child has no memory ability, then whatever lessons that were taught on would be forgotten or erased instantly and progression to the next advance level would be deemed impossible.
Similarly, it was the Buddha’s recommendation for one to always see and live in the present, neither in the past nor in the future. When one lives well in the present, one would lead to the cessation of memories of the past and this would subsequently lead to the cessation of ignorance in the future.
The principle in effect: -
The seeing of Ultimate Truth leads to the cessation of balance phenomenon;
The cessation of balance phenomenon leads to the cessation of aggregate activity;
The cessation of aggregate activity leads to cessation of information;
The cessation of information leads to cessation of memory;
The cessation of memory leads to the cessation of ignorance;
The cessation of ignorance leads to the cessation of volitional impulse;
The cessation of volitional impulse leads to the cessation of consciousness;
The cessation of consciousness leads to the cessation of body and mind;
The cessation of body and mind lead to the cessation of six sense bases;
The cessation of six sense bases lead to the cessation of contact;
The cessation of contact leads to the cessation of feeling;
The cessation of feeling leads to the cessation of craving;
The cessation of craving leads to the cessation of clinging;
The cessation of clinging leads to the cessation of becoming;
The cessation of becoming leads to the cessation of birth;
The cessation of birth leads to the cessation of aging;
The cessation of aging leads to the cessation of death;
The cessation of death leads to the cessation of segregate activity;
The cessation of segregate activity leads to the cessation of imbalance phenomenon;
The cessation of imbalance phenomenon leads to the cessation of conditional phenomenon;
The cessation of conditional phenomenon leads to the cessation of time;
The cessation of time leads to unconditional freedom of basic elements - energy, matter and space.
Ultimately, pure energy, matter and space elements would sustain in permanency with absence of time – that is ambience of Nirvana.
The Law of Karma
Now, let us analyse into Karma. What does Karma mean? In Buddhism, Karma is translated as ‘volitional Action’. But the general meaning of Karma is beyond that. Karma can be loosely translated as mere ‘Action’.
Therefore, when we talk about the law of Karma, we talk about the law of Action. When we talk about the law of Action, we talk about the law of Reaction. And these laws are part of the Universal laws i.e. the natural phenomenon laws – not shaped by someone else, no one owns it, neither Buddhism. It is merely a natural law of balancing - to achieve the circumstances of equilibrium in the nature.
In this dependent nature, when a person lay dead on the ground, the three basic elements i.e. energy, matter and space elements would separate from each other. Precisely, both conscious and sub-conscious (energy) aggregates would depart the body (matter). However, only sub-conscious aggregates would sustain in liberated forms but not the conscious aggregates.
The sub-conscious aggregates would stay behind in the so-called soul or spirit forms and bear along the seeds of Karma. This is because within the sub-conscious aggregates, one would discover the sub-memory aggregates. Within the sub-memory aggregates, one would discover the sub-information aggregates. And the retained sub-information in each life cycle would evolve into the so-called ‘seed treasures’ of Karma that were accumulated throughout the series of one’s past lives.
Supposedly, the sub-conscious aggregates of: Individual A would bear with ‘Karma seed A’, Individual B would bear with ‘Karma seed B’, Individual C would bear with ‘Karma seed C’. When a new being is born i.e. Individual ABC, this newly formed individual would bear with all the ‘Karma seed A’, ‘Karma seed B’ and ‘Karma seed C’ during his or her present life time. This is what the Buddha means by emptiness in all things or happenings in this dependent nature – nothing is absolute, nothing is well-defined and nothing is independent.
Therefore, the law of Karma can never be deciphered as an eye for an eye kind of principle because it is impossible for one to carry out a clear separation of things or happenings. Every single thing or happening in this nature is so inter-dependent, inter-woven and inter-related with each other since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence. In short, every existence would not be totally the same or different from each other and this is what we called ‘Emptiness Everywhere’.
Right now, the next question is, ‘When would the seeds of Karma transform into the fruits of Karma?’ The Buddha has mentioned that the working result of Karma was one of the four unconjecturables and to speculate about it would bring madness and vexation to anyone who conjectured about it. But why is it so difficult for one, even the Buddha, to predict the timeline for the fruits of Karma?
Let us analyse into the following illustrations: -
We do know that cause or effect is the same thing; both reflected in a different time of event.
Cause = Effect
Cause 1 conjures up Effect 1;
Effect 1 conjures up Cause 1-1;
Cause 1-1 conjures up Effect 1-1;
Effect 1-1 conjures up Cause 1-1-1;
.., etc.
Action = Reaction
Action 1 conjures up Reaction 1;
Reaction 1 conjures up Action 1-1;
Action 1-1 conjures up Reaction 1-1;
.., etc.
If present,
Cause 1 > Effect 1;
Action 1 > Reaction 1
future will be,
Effect 1 > Cause 1-1;
Reaction 1 > Action 1-1*
* This is the scenario of a good person having to face with unfortunate events; a bad person having to enjoy fortunate events in a life time.
E.g.
Loan $100 = Repayment $100
If today,
Loan $100 > Repayment $100
tomorrow will be,
Repayment > new Loan $100
When we mention that the rising force of something would generate a new equal opposing force (the law of balancing), we are actually referring to action/cause and reaction/effect process under a constant motion phenomenon. But under variable motion phenomenon, the law of balancing would orientate in a unique harmonising mechanism.
Let us look at the following illustrations: -
Under constant motion circumstance, come factor equals to become factor: -
Come factor = Become factor
Acceleration
When come factor accelerates, the relative become factor would decelerate: -
Come factor ↑, Become factor ↓
(End results: Mental and physical progresses slow down --> time dilation circumstance in Einstein’s special theory of relativity. It means comparatively an individual under accelerating motion would grow old slower than an individual under constant motion).
Deceleration
When come factor decelerates, the relative become factor would accelerate: -
Come factor ↓, Become factor ↑
(End results: Mental and physical progresses speed up --> ambience of meditation. For now, we know that meditation is a way to speed up the Awakening process. That is why monks or nuns need to become celibate and dis-engage themselves from the common society before re-engage again for spreading the Dhamma.)
In reality, things or happenings do exist in motions that always vary under the influence of conditional phenomena. Therefore, it is just impossible for one to foresee the working result of Karma. So by now, we would know the law of Karma is a comprehensive law that runs in phenomena full of complexity and way beyond the simple and straight forward action-reaction principles discovered by modern scientists.
Neutralising the Karma
With all the above explanation on how the principle of Karma works, we have come to an apex now on the approach to neutralise the fruits of Karma in order for one to attain the eternal bliss of Nirvana.
The first practical step to neutralise the fruits of Karma is to ‘live in the present moment’. When one realises fully on the present moment, the memory aggregate would eventually vanish - for memory of the past would lead to new becoming process in the future, and thus ignorance continues eventually across plane of existence and time.
For general understanding, we are part of the becoming processes and time is merely a tool to quantify it. When the becoming process ceases; the time would cease as well – thus, the absence of time stream (past, present and future). When we constantly sustain in the present moment, we leave behind no traces for the past or future moment to arise. Just like, we leave behind no seed for fruit bearing in every passing of moments. Under such circumstance, any new rising or falling activities would cast no chance of emerging at all. In the end, the vicious wheel of life would stop rotating with the absence of conditional phenomena and the ambience of full Awakening would emerge concurrently.
The second practical step would be to practise ‘letting go’. As again, Buddhism is not about circumstances but attitude towards circumstances. To ‘bear with’ is to suffer and the antonym of it is to ‘let go’. So, by not submitting oneself to the conditional circumstances, one would be freed, be liberated and be neutralised. Wisely, one can see it, know it and let go – no need to grasp it and do not get into any involvement.
The third practical step is to see things or happenings as they truly are; not delusively are. Just see things or happenings in direct perception - that is basically label-less, bound-less, stereotype-less or colour-less.
As a summary, enlightenment is not a far-fetched thing, achievable only by the privileged ones or the chosen ones or the qualified ones sitting in ivory towers. Instead, it is such a profound realisation that is achievable by anyone that inculcates with the right attitude or determination.
In a layman term, enlightenment means graduation and liberation. Every second, every minute, every hour, every day and night - we observe things, let things pass by, learn on something, let go something and finally realise on something. Somehow and somewhere, we have actually learned, graduated and liberated out of something without much attention on it. In other words, every one of us has actually tasted ‘little’ awakening moment in one way or the other. This will be a good or sweet motivation for one to elevate up spiritually and move forward until one is ready to fully liberate from the Samsara.
Remember! There is no mind, no memory, no becoming, no clinging, no desire, no ignorance, no happiness, no sadness, no changing in the eternal bliss of Nirvana. Meditate, meditate and meditate! Have boundless compassion and loving-kindness along the way.
The principle in effect: -
A stream of loving-kindness and compassion would conjure up empathy,
A stream of empathy would conjure up boundless,
A stream of boundless would conjure up voidness,
A stream of voidness would conjure up stillness,
A stream of stillness would conjure up peacefulness,
A stream of peacefulness would conjure up Enlightenment.
Be virtuous, be peaceful and be neutralised!
So you're using the laws of energy as how the mind works? I'll have to sit down later today and take my time reading and studying your diagrams. It's as good as any other paradigm, I would think. Somewhere in there, from a skeptical mindset, I expect to find (first) an explanation for how this mind procuces work (the ability of one energy system to effect another system from a distance) upon death. Otherwise you're just describing the physical brain function shutting down as the energy dissipates with no information transmitted. Second, I expect to find some way your theory can be tested or observed to both prove its accuracy and distinguish it from other theories. If that isn't present, a skeptical mind considers it perhaps a useful metaphor to visualize the mind at work, but still at the level of conjecture.
In this dependent nature, emptiness is everywhere. Everything that exists is empty because there is no essence to anything and nothing has ever existed in its own quality – nothing is permanent and unchanging. All objects exist conditionally without an eternal essence.
Bend your faith to fit the Truth; not bend the Truth to fit your faith – that is Buddhism.
Do not rush to find your answers for it.
Even Wikipedia managed to sum up this issue:
Other modern Buddhists have sought to formulate theories of group, collective and national karma which are not found in traditional Buddhist thinking. The earliest recorded instance of this occurred in 1925, when a member of the Maha Bodhi named Sheo Narain published an article entitled "Karmic Law" in which he invited Buddhist scholars to explore the question of whether an individual is "responsible not only for his individual actions in his past life but also for past communal deeds."
As one scholar writes, "a systematic concept of group karma was in no sense operative in early Theravada" or other schools based on the early sutras. "Instead," he writes, "the repeated emphasis in the canonical discussions of karma is on the individual as heir to his own deeds. It is only in this century, then, that one finds a conscious effort to split with this tradition."
Buddhism does not deny that the actions taken by one generation of the citizens of a given country will have effects on later generations, for example. However, as noted above, all effects of actions are not karmic effects. Karmic effects impinge only on the mindstreams of those sentient beings who perform the actions. As Nyanatiloka Mahathera writes, individuals should be responsible for the deeds formerly done by this so-called 'same' people.
In reality, however, this present people may not consist at all of the karmic heirs of the same individuals who did these bad deeds. According to Buddhism it is of course quite true that anybody who suffers bodily, suffers for his past or present bad deeds. Thus also each of those individuals born within that suffering nation, must, if actually suffering bodily, have done evil somewhere, here or in one of the innunmerable spheres of existence; but he may not have had anything to do with the bad deeds of the so-called nation. We might say that through his evil Karma he was attracted to the miserable condition befitting to him. In short, the term Karma applies, in each instance, only to wholesome and unwholesome volitional activity of the single individual.
Thus, in the traditional view the effects of the actions of other beings—such as the leader of one's country, or prior generations of its citizens—might well serve as causes of suffering for an individual on one level, but not they would not be the karmic causes of the suffering of that individual—those causes would function in congruence with the karmic causes. There is, therefore, no "national karma" in traditional Buddhism. One "scholar of engaged Buddhism" wrote an article asserting that the "collective karma" of the United States deriving from the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse would potentially "play out for generations," a view that is not supported by traditional Buddhist views of karma. The effects may well be felt by Americans for generations, but they would not constitute "collective karma."
"Collective karma" could be spoken of only in certain limited senses in the canonical tradition. In Vasubandu's Karmasiddhiprakarana, among other places, it is asserted that a group of individuals who collaborate and share the same intention for a planned action will all incur karmic merit or demerit based on that action, regardless of which individual actually carries out the action. The fruition of their merit or demerit, however, will not necessarily be experienced by each of the individuals together, and/or at the same time. Likewise, "family karma" is possible only when it refers to karmic dispositions which are similar in each individual family member. One scholar points out, "statements concerning group karma . . .are subject to conceptual confusion. It is important to distinguish group karma from what might be termed conjunctive karma, that is, the karmic residues which we experience as a result of the actions of everyone or everything operating casually in the situation, but which are justified by our own accumulated karma. . . the actions of many persons . . .mediate our karma to us. But this is not group karma, for the effect which we experience is justified by our own particular acts or pool of karma, and not by the karmic acts or pool of the group, even though it is mediated by the actions of others."
Keep this in mind: -
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
~ Buddha~
And grasshopper, don't dare quote the Kalama Sutta for this.
First, what evidence or proof or observation can you point to that tells us this is actually correct? Second, where is the mind in all this and how is it reborn? Using your scientific language, the mind is information. Information is not the same as energy. How is information reborn?
I'd like to hear your answer and thoughts, not see more pages from your work. Do you have it on a website somewhere? That way you can selectively quote from it or link to it.
~ Dalai Lama ~
"Buddhism does not accept a theory of God, or a creator. According to Buddhism, one's own actions are the creator, ultimately. Some people say that, from a certain angle, Buddhism is not a religion but rather a science of mind. Religion has much involvement with faith. Sometimes it seems that there is quite a distance between a way of thinking based on faith and one entirely based on experiment, remaining skeptical. Unless you find something through investigation, you do not want to accept it as fact.
From one viewpoint, Buddhism is a religion, from another viewpoint Buddhism is a science of mind and not a religion. Buddhism can be a bridge between these two sides. Therefore, with this conviction I try to have closer ties with scientists, mainly in the fields of cosmology, psychology, neurobiology and physics. In these fields there are insights to share, and to a certain extent we can work together."
~Dalai Lama~
"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."
~Dalai Lama~