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.
Karma
I read many chinese books on Buddhism and alot of them suggest that many of us who suffer alot in this life or die young from accidents or illness is due to the bad stuff we did in our previous life. I really have trouble with that idea. Does it mean people who died of cancer in their 20s or 30s 40s 50s or worse, death of babies and children are due to their own faults in their previous life?
0
Comments
@neverstoplovingmom There are plenty of things that people can do to themselves in this life to gain poor health and early deaths, and that is their karma (their actions taken leading to bad results). Tragedies involving genetic defects and the like aren't anyone's "fault", they're biology. If an infant dies of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, did they deserve it? Of course not... it's a tragedy. I think we covered this in the last thread you posted, didn't we? They of course didn't understand genetics or why people are different in the ancient past; we do. A lot of what "religion" is came about as trying to have answers to questions that no one really knew how to answer, and that's consequently why many things in religion have been proven wrong by scientific inquiry.
Do poor and starving children deserve their lot in life? NO! That's blaming the victim and failing to exercise empathy and compassion. At best you could look questioningly at the parents who brought them into such circumstances and ask "why?". I think a lot of other people also don't accept this view of karma, here in the West and elsewhere (and I'd toss these books you've been reading, they sound just awful). Don't just believe everything you read, not even if it's attributed to the Buddha (test it for yourself, if you can!).
I don't believe Buddha ever intended people to believe literally in the concepts of Karma and rebirth as they had been established in the Hindu cosmology.
Rather he incorporated the concepts into his teachings in order to lead students towards greater existential realizations of Maya, or illusion. That is the illusion of a system that surrounds us
To the OP:
That is very often the "old world" view (for example in Thailand) of karma.
Such views remind me of a Buddhist equivalent to
Christian versions of fire and brimstone.
I see it as someones unskillful attempt to convince suffering folks to simply accept there condition as previous inherited karma coming to fruition rather than blaming themselves for what they've might have done in this life to cause it.
The Buddha explains how kamma is the cause of differences in the fortunes of people.
(a) Some people die prematurely because in the past they have destoyed life. The karmic result of killing is to be shortlived. Others live long because they were kind and compassionate, they had respect and reverence for life. (b) Some are sickly because they have injured and hurt other beings. (c) Those who were often angry and harsh become ugly, those who were patient and cheerful become beautiful. (d) Some are rich because they have been generous in the past, some are poor because they have been selfish. (e) Some are influential because they have rejoiced in the good fortunes of others. (f) Some are weak and powerless because they have been envious of the good fortunes of others. (g) Some are intelligent because they have been reflective and studious in the past, because they always enquired and investigated matters. Some are dull and stupid because they have been lazy and negligent, because they never studied and did not think.Even if it is true you shouldn't say it to someone else who would not benefit from saying that. So you shouldn't say that to someone who doesn't already believe it pretty much.
I like believing everything is based on my actions because, far from negative, that means if I start now I can totally release from suffering. If good and bad things happened randomly I would be totally at the mercy of birth and death.
So Buddhism is not about seeing life as it really is.
I'm not convinced that the Buddha said this. Citing a source won't convince me either. It makes no sense. In my view, an enlightened person wouldn't say this, even if only to frighten children.
It doesn't hurt to leave unanswered questions unanswered. The important thing is to know whether or not you believe in karma in this life.
I may never find out why the world is imperfect or why I have suffering.
It doesn't matter as much as how will I live the rest of my life knowing that I believe in karma, that I might face my own actions one day.
@vinlyn I don't understand. Buddha said not to tell somebody something that doesn't help (and upsets) someone even if it is true. It's in the sutras somewhere or other. For the same reason his holiness the Dalai Lama said not to uproot people from other religions even those which are missing a right view. The reason is that secular wish for happiness is more important than convincing everyone to believe what you do. Generosity of speech is just starting when a person helps someone but only to have them have the same beliefs as the 'one' who is generous. An example is an evangelist. A higher generosity is to give someone something that will help them. So you should only tell someone the truth if it is beneficial and ideally it should not be a harsh delivery which ties into saying things at the right time.
Yes, unfortunately there are many Buddhists who believe everything you are and what happens to you in this life can always be traced to good and bad things you did in a previous life. Past life karma is neither a skillful nor useful belief and often leads to excusing the injustice perpetrated upon innocents by bad people as, "Oh, it's just the fault of their past life karma, don't you know. They deserve their suffering."
Before we understood genetics and how the environment can affect fetal development, past life karma was a good theory for why some children ended up deformed or with birthmarks, etc. It's also a handy crutch for the powerful and rich to feel like they were destined to be at the top of the social heap and poor people deserve their hunger. It's been a problem with Buddhism all along, if we can be honest about it. People are slow to let go of beliefs and traditions, though.
But it's not just Buddhism. There's a streak of selfishness in even Christianity that has been growing lately called "prosperity gospel" that teaches God rewards the rightious with money and success. If you're poor or sick, then it's your lack of faith and sinning. Same attempt to shoehorn justice into reality, different language.
Okay, so that's your truth. Why did you just tell me something that is not my truth?
You just did what you said you shouldn't do.
I hate to think of the state of this world -- and Buddhism -- if the truth didn't come forward every once in a while.
@vinlyn, because I don't think I harmed you by telling you my truth. Whereas a cancer patient or rape victim would be harmed by my telling them it is their karma.
The topic is right speech and the Buddha wrote about that in the Pali Canon iirc.
Hello:
There is a slight but possibly significant difference between what you have presented here and the way the Buddha presented it (as recorded in the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta, MN 135).
Your version:
Some people die prematurely because in the past they have destoyed life. The karmic result of killing is to be shortlived. Others live long because they were kind and compassionate, they had respect and reverence for life.
The Buddha's version:
Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell, he comes to the human state, he is short-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to short life, that is to say, to be a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
The difference is that the second version discusses future consequences as a result of action, whereas the first version tries to explain a present situation via past karmic factors.
The reason I think the difference may be significant is that the Buddha rejected past-life determinism, while upholding the principle of kamma. The precise workings of kamma are said to be an unconjecturable and only a Buddha would know for sure exactly what set of factors brought about a specific present-life situation, such as an illness.
So, for example, if I have a friend who is habitually stingy and mean, it would not be un-Buddhist to say that this behavior will lead to poverty in a future life.
But if I have a friend who is impoverished, it would not really be correct from a dhamma point of view to say that his/her poverty was the result of stinginess in a past life. To say this would be past-life determinism. In reality, according to the dhamma there is a complicated mixture of kammas ripening at different times, so unless you are a Buddha, you cannot know the exact kammic reason for something that is happening to you now.
Not that this stops people from trying. I have read some of the Chinese and other sources that are very deterministic in terms of saying "x is happening to you now because you did y in a past life." But this view seems to have drifted away from what the Buddha taught into a line of thought that he specifically rejected.
It gets very dangerous when someone -- in this case you -- arbitrarily has control over the truth.
What about people -- like me -- who want to know the truth, even when it is painful? Why do you get to be the gate keeper of truth?
Do you support the secrecy of the government over minorities who were historically intentionally infected with venereal diseases? After all, it was too late to cure them, so the truth could only hurt them.
Did you support Snowden? His exposure of truths hurt many people.
No person can possibly have freedom of thought if they also cannot know the truth.
@vinlyn, no I am not the gatekeeper of the truth. I think you take it case by case. The venereal disease thing you might tell the truth just to prevent the wrong doers from getting away.
The Buddhas teaching on right speech is only provisional meaning you have to apply it to a context. It is not absolute. That's a whole other topic how much of the Buddha's teachings are provisional.
In the case of a non-Buddhist cancer patient or rape victim I would not tell them it was their Karma unless I was their guru. And I wouldn't be anyone's guru because I don't know enough about awareness practice to do that.
I'm not a practising Buddhist but I do enjoy the philosophical quality that it offers. I've been troubled by the concept of karma, myself. Over the years, after much reading and discussing of the subject from many points of views, I've come to reject the negative interpretations.
Some people embrace the "eye for an eye" concept because it confirms their beliefs from the Old testament of vengeance and righteous anger. Some people enjoy seeing suffering and humiliation and indulge in Schadenfreude
dictionary.reference.com/browse/schadenfreude
I don't believe that there is a cosmic scorekeeper, which is what would be needed to administer karma. I'm not an expert on the subject and have to rely on what makes sense to me.
Other posters pointed out that some tragic conditions are the result of poor choices, nature, and other conditions. I agree! Is a child born to an abusive woman who resents the unwanted child because of their past life actions OR because the woman didn't use the best birth control due to her religion? DO people have hard lives because they were bad in the past or has their system of government and other social institutions failed to create/support better conditions?
I'm sure that you and many others could point out more examples. That's just my take on the subject. Hope I haven't offended anyone.
As you can see from the above posts @neverstoplovingmom, there are a myriad of opinions and ideas on this topic.
For me, after a couple of years of trying to get my head around this intellectually, I've put it aside (along with the concept of rebirth / reincarnation). They are things we may never be able to "know".
I repeat: No person can possibly have freedom of thought if they also cannot know the truth.
That is one extreme view according to the Buddha.
I tend to interpret in this way. For example-
Someone does lots of evil/unskillful deeds but happened to fall into a coma. When he/she wakes up, he has no memory of all his previous deeds but he still has to deal with the consequences. He may find people getting angry with him for no apparent reason since he is no longer the same person as before. In other words, falling into coma is not a getting out of jail card. Even though he may not be the "same" person, he cannot escape from "his" kamma.
@pegembara, I disagree. It is extreme in your environment. It is not at all extreme in much of Southeast Asia.
It is an extreme view according to the Buddha. Much of what is taught is not in accord with the suttas.
the above description of kamma came from the sutta.
Majjhima Nikaya 135: The Shorter Exposition of Kamma (Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta)
You want: long life, health, beauty, power, riches, high birth, wisdom? Or even some of these things? They do not appear by chance. It is not someone's luck that they are healthy, or another's lack of it that he is stupid. Though it may not be clear to us now, all such inequalities among human beings (and all sorts of beings) come about because of the kamma they have made individually. Each person reaps his own fruits. So if one is touched by short life, sickliness, ugliness, insignificance, poverty, low birth or stupidity and one does not like these things, no need to just accept that that is the way it is. The future need not be like that provided that one makes the right kind of kamma now. Knowing what kamma to make and what not to make is the mark of a wise man. It is also the mark of one who is no longer drifting aimlessly but has some direction in life and some control over the sort of events that will occur.
You keep referring to something the Buddha said, rather than your interpretation. Give me a quote from a sutta that supports your view. (You would be hard pressed to find other occasions where I have asked for a specific quote from Buddha, but since you keep talking about "Much of what is taught is not in accord with the suttas", then I'd like you to provide a specific citation that specifically supports your interpretation. If you were simply stating your opinion, I would not ask for such a citation).
@neverstoplovingmom: You simply have to accept that some questions in life will be left unanswered.
Far from feeling powerless, this truth could help you focus on the things in life that really depend on you and getting to better accept those that don't.
We'll never really understand why we're here, and why we suffer. Finding someone or something to blame is totally unskillful because it doesn't actually offer a solution and leaves us mired in suffering.
You lost your mother. No amount of speculation will help you escape this affliction. We could debate all day over the different theories on karma and rebirth, but it's not that that will give you the answer your need. Face your affliction, make your duel and trust that time will help heal the wound.
You are young. Create a beautiful life for yourself. Here and now are the points of reference for you to begin your healing. The rest is a mirage.
karma should really be understood as unexplained dharma...
I doubt anyone here, can properly explain it... ...\
/ ...
Lets not forget the five niyamas not everything that happens is down to karma. I would provide a link but I am on my phone. However a quick Google should provide the relevant information.
This is indeed mundane right view which sides with merit but still "tainted". This is so obvious to see even in this very life. That is why there is the N8FP to to transcend this. One cannot just completely rely on kamma alone. It is just wrong to say that a person's misfortunes is caused by what he did in his past (although it is probably true). It is something that is true but not right to say. As stated the person who reaps the result is not the same nor is he different just as a butterfly is not the caterpillar nor is it different.
That is why is is said to be an unconjecturable. As @dharmamom so eloquently put in not so many words "We'll never really understand why we're here, and why we suffer. Finding someone or something to blame is totally unskillful because it doesn't actually offer a solution and leaves us mired in suffering."
That is why there is the N8FP and the 4NT. Kamma is not unique to Buddhism!
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas[1] is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...[2]
"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
Mundane right view involves a correct grasp of the law of kamma, the moral efficacy of action. Its literal name is "right view of the ownership of action" (kammassakata sammaditthi), and it finds its standard formulation in the statement: "Beings are the owners of their actions, the heirs of their actions; they spring from their actions, are bound to their actions, and are supported by their actions. Whatever deeds they do, good or bad, of those they shall be heirs."
Superior Right View
The right view of kamma and its fruits provides a rationale for engaging in wholesome actions and attaining high status within the round of rebirths, but by itself it does not lead to liberation. It is possible for someone to accept the law of kamma yet still limit his aims to mundane achievements. One's motive for performing noble deeds might be the accumulation of meritorious kamma leading to prosperity and success here and now, a fortunate rebirth as a human being, or the enjoyment of celestial bliss in the heavenly worlds. There is nothing within the logic of kammic causality to impel the urge to transcend the cycle of kamma and its fruit. The impulse to deliverance from the entire round of becoming depends upon the acquisition of a different and deeper perspective, one which yields insight into the inherent defectiveness of all forms of samsaric existence, even the most exalted.
This superior right view leading to liberation is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is this right view that figures as the first factor of the Noble Eightfold Path in the proper sense: as the noble right view. Thus the Buddha defines the path factor of right view expressly in terms of the four truths: "What now is right view? It is understanding of suffering (dukkha), understanding of the origin of suffering, understanding of the cessation of suffering, understanding of the way leading to the cessation to suffering."[7] The Eightfold Path starts with a conceptual understanding of the Four Noble Truths apprehended only obscurely through the media of thought and reflection. It reaches its climax in a direct intuition of those same truths, penetrated with a clarity tantamount to enlightenment. Thus it can be said that the right view of the Four Noble Truths forms both the beginning and the culmination of the way to the end of suffering.
http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp2.php
In Buddhism, kamma is described as volitional action and vipaka refers to the end result of any particular volitional actions. Generally speaking, volition is referred to an act of making a choice or decision. In other words, it is the act of making a ‘conscious’ choice or decision. Therefore, we need to investigate into the state of mind while understanding into the kamma-vipaka because mind is the forerunner of all states. Literally, the mind is comprised with two terms i.e. prevailing consciousness and subtle consciousness. Both the prevailing and subtle mind consciousnesses would arise in the sentient beings but for other things, merely subtle mind consciousness would arise. The role of prevailing conscious mind is like mind-in-command i.e. the mind that can lead, take charge, concentrate, make decision and convey action. However, subtle conscious mind is like herd of wild horses - roaming in discrete directions and needed domestication. This means the prevailing mind consciousness would act as a guarding chain to the wild and monkey-like subtle mind consciousness.
Therefore, the focal point of kamma in accordance with Buddhism is the volitional thought or action and it would arise concurrently with the existence of prevailing mind consciousness. This means in the absence of prevailing mind consciousness, the term ‘volition’ would cease to exist. As such, the prevailing mind consciousness is a prerequisite for the process of kamma-vipaka. Any thoughts or actions that require the utilisation of prevailing mind consciousness would subject to the law of kamma-vipaka as per Buddhism. This is because volitional human thought or action would generate the most potent vibration that penetrate all time, space and subsequently attracts what is desired or wished for. Just like the swelling of big waves with the enormous waves of energy would require longer time to fritter away and generate a visible and long-lasting implication to the surroundings. In other words, all sentient beings are electro-magnetic beings with the prevailing mind consciousness that generates potent kamma and the subtle mind consciousness that acts as an antenna or a radar detector constantly attracting and magnetising other similar vibrational frequencies (discernible vipaka) within the cosmos.
On the same front, Buddhism basically touches on the scenario of cause and condition more than the case of cause and effect. Frankly speaking, all phenomenal existences are products of the proper combination of causes and conditions. For example, according to the philosophy of yin-yang, our bodies are made up of the combination of four great elements of earth, water, fire and wind and if any of these elements are not in a harmonious orientation, we would be taken ill physically. These four elements would represent the causes and the conditions would be the need for it to orientate with one another harmoniously at all times or otherwise, our bodies would fall sick as the result.
The principle-in-effect: -
This arising (the cause and condition), that arises (the result);
This ceasing (the cause and condition), that ceases (the result).
In other words, everything that exists is the result of multiple causes and conditions. Each of the causes would need other causes to be present together with their respective conditions. Just like for a new house to exist, we need the bricks, cement, wood, iron rods, roof tiles, plastic pipes and other materials. The construction can only be completed when one has all the essential materials and all the prerequisites are met, such as the skillfulness of the workers, the time allocation, etc. The wood needs the forest, the sunshine, the rain, etc. The workers need their parents, their meals, their clothing, their shelters, etc. If we were to observe these scenarios in its entirety, we could realise that everything in the cosmos attributed to the existence of the new house; without it, the new house would be impossible. The clear fact here is that one cause is never enough to bring about an effect. A cause must, at the same time, be an effect, and every effect must also be the cause of something else.
The principle-in-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.
Therefore, cause and effect are simply two aspects of the same thing. The only difference between these two aspects is the time of event. In other words, cause and effect are inter-changing, inter-relating and inter-waving with one another. This is how the conventional reality works i.e. not in-linear but in inter-dependence, inter-woven and inter-relation since the dawn of time in a very comprehensive and complicated network of existence. In other words, cause and effect cannot be referred independently in a linear point of reference and therefore, no first cause, no first effect can be found within the dependent nature. Instead, there is only inter-dependent co-arising of all things or matters. This means 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 i.e. every existence is empty and emptiness is in every existence.
As a conclusion, when we talk about the law of action, we talk about the law of reaction. This scenario is basically due to the elements of attraction existing in the cosmos and the universal law of attraction states that we attract what we are sending out i.e. like attracts like, unlike repels unlike. Hence, favourable energies attract favourable energies and unfavourable energies attract unfavourable energies. In Buddhism, the initiation of new kamma (volitional thought or action) arises mostly in the human realm if compared with the other higher or lower realms of existence. This is because all the realms of existence with the exception of human realm are merely reaping the end result of the preceding kamma. The main reason is that humans are just one type of sentient beings with both the prevailing and subtle conscious mind stream. This means human realm is a plane of transition whereby it is a centric plane for the process of kamma-vipaka with the faculty of choosing or resolving.
As such, one should be grateful for the destiny of being reborn as a human and live it well with all the meaningful purposes. The ultimate purpose of human beings is to attain the opportunity to learn to live wholesomely. It is regardless whether one would live a good life, a luxurious life, a poor life or a pathetic life. By being alive as humans, we have all the liberties or choices of pathway to begin with. Therefore, it is crucial for one to live a life wholesomely at all times – at least there would not be a regret factor arises in one’s life later. Living wholesomely would mean living a healthy life with exploration and enjoyment to the fullest extent with wisdom and not with ignorance.
Perhaps.
So is Buddhahood the cause of ignorances demise? Or is ignorance the cause of Buddhahood unmanifest?
Is emptiness form or form emptiness?
All too much for Mr Cushion. His head just exploded!
so, do you think that someone who is born physically disabled or
with down syndrome has anything to do with their past karma?
Precisely.
Much of what befalls us may not be karma-vipaka the fruits of OUR actions at all.
According to Buddhaghosa
The 5 Niyamas or causative factors are ;
Utu-niyama..time and season we are cold or hot for example due to the seasons.
Bija-Niyama..bija literally means 'seeds' which covers hereditary tendencies, like a tendency towards diabetes or Bipolar syndrome. Or of course to Down's Syndrome.
Kammaniyama the fruits of our intentional actions.
Cittaniyama which we can translate as psychological factors..including our mindset.
Dhammaniyama which are the laws of nature..the inbuilt way that things are. For example gravity is a dhammaniyama..Evolution is a meta-dhammaniyama.
So, of all the things and circumstances that befall us only ONE causal factor is kamma/karma.
And the Buddha advised strongly against trying to discern which of the factors were operative for ourselves or others in any given situation..
The essence of emptiness is that one cause is never enough to bring about an effect. All things are neither identical to, nor entirely different from one another. The circumstances of duality or multiplicity are merely the end result of various activities of aggregation being observed by the mind under the influence of multiple causes and conditions. In other words, we could say the our present condition is being influenced by our preceding kamma but it should not be taken in as a single or direct source. We shall realise that everything in the cosmos attributed to the existence of our kamma-vipaka; without it, our kamma-vipaka would be impossible.
IMO, this is a forward looking teaching, not a backward looking one. To look at it backwards is...to look at it backwards... and miss the point IMO.
What he is really saying is "don't do unwholesome acts now, and you wont make bad karma that you will have to suffer thru in the future." It's just another way of saying "Bad actions make bad karma", which is true.
To look at a situation and try to trace it back to karma, is to view the teaching completely backwards IMO. The whole point of it is to say "Do good acts now and make good karma, don't do bad acts now and make bad karma" because both kinds of actions have consequences.
In other words, "good actions have good consequences, bad actions have bad consequences. Therefore, do good and not bad." That is what should be taken from this IMO.
@SpinyNorman
I recommend the Alan Watts commentary on THE SECRET OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER, in which he discusses the 'social hypnosis' that culture creates and how disciplines found in Buddhism and Daoism make it possible, for those with the will and determination, to be set free from this hypnosis.
Watts considers systems of cosmology involving forms of cosmic justice (Karma, Heaven & Hell) to be mere extensions of an illusory game-like cultural paradigm.
In the commentary Watts cites Carl Jung's observation that Western adoption of Eastern disciplines can be problematic, as Westerners often miss out on essential context. Watts argues that Western Buddhists' adoption of literal belief in Karma and rebirth is a mistake, and totally misses the point of what the Buddha was trying to reveal.
Aside from this,
It seems apparent to me, from reading the records of his oral teachings, that one of Buddha's aims was to impart on his followers aspects of his enlightened perspective on the world, or more specifically on the Hindu dominated society that surrounded them.
What Buddha delivered to his followers, in the form of a path and methods of meditation, were means of liberation from the entrenched worldview of Indian (and Chinese) culture at that time. Which of course included the traditional conception of cosmology.
Buddha avoided being antagonistic to the established paradigm that surrounded him (endangering his mission) by outwardly incorporating elements of its cosmology and philosophy, and by being sufficiently esoteric as to unveil his deepest truths only to those who would take the time to really understand.
Buddha's teachings were geared towards freeing minds from illusion and allowing people to see the world as it really is. I don't think this could include the obviously fabricated and impractical system of Karma and rebirth, which when subjected to the slightest degree of scrutiny is shown to make no sense at all.
Bearing in mind that the ultimate aim of Buddhism is release from the revolving door of Samsara, it seems to me that Karma and rebirth in the Buddha's teachings are symbolic of Maya. They are an illusory construct to be mentally disassembled on the route to enlightenment.
@Simon, Watts was a populist who did much to introduce Buddhadharma to a western readership, but as a reliable guide to the Dharma of the Buddha ?...No, I am afraid not.
As another Teacher observed, " By their fruits you will know them "..well if that is true what are we to make of the fact that Watts drank himself to death aged 58 ?
There are good and reliable guides to interpretations of Buddhist teachings that provide an alternative to a literalist belief. But citing Alan Watts as an authority does not aid your cause.
I do not read Watts' material so I cannot speak to whether I find his writings useful in my practice. I do, however, find Trungpa's teachings to be invaluable to my understanding. They are quite complementary to what my teacher teaches. All due respect, but Trungpa had quite a basket of rotten fruit
Obviously as a student of his, @Citta, I know you know that. I just found it strange you chose to single out Watts because he drank himself to death when Trungpa did the same thing and yet you found value in his teachings. Perhaps there are many reason Watts' writings shouldn't be taken as serious Buddhist authority, but I'm not sure that reason is a strong enough one to discount what he says.
A fair point @karasti. Lets just say I met them both..and leave it there.
But you are correct , my critique of Watt's critique should not have been centred around his drinking.
In many ways that is the least of it.
The real problem of his lack of grasp of some vital issues in Dharma.
For an informed alternative to the " Three Lives " model I would recommend the works of Ajahn Buddhadasa.
@Citta
Totally get your point about quoting an intellectual as authority. Are there some 'good and reliable guides to interpretations of Buddhist teachings that provide an alternative to a literalist belief' that you can recommend?
Also, I'd be interested to here your take on the place of Karma and rebirth in the Buddha's teachings
I'll definitely look up Ajahn Buddhadasa
Strongly recommended...@Simon.
You will almost certainly come across critiques of Ajahn Buddhadasa saying that he is advocating a position which identifies karma and rebirth as ' psychological ' only.
This is a basic misunderstanding of his teaching.
He is actually saying that all phenomena arise dependently... including time.
Therefore to impose a linear structure on phenomena first this, then that, distorts what the Buddha himself said about the nature of the Unborn, Unmade, and Unmanifest..
Which is always the case..a- priori to all phenomena.
The nidanas are a model, not descriptions of ontological reality.
Hi:
My understanding is that according to Buddhist teachings, each of us has been generating all kinds of karma/kamma since the inconceivable beginnings of samsara. Karma ripens at different times and in different circumstances. Only an enlightened Buddha could really know for sure what caused a particular result to happen in this lifetime.
According to Buddhist teachings, samsara is full of suffering and we all have to endure pain, sorrow and illness at some point or another. This is part of the reason to seek the way out of samsara (through following the Buddha's teachings).
If someone endures a misfortune in this life, it might be due to some past karma, but that doesn't mean the person was "bad" or "deserved to suffer". As I said, everyone is making karma all the time, and it comes to fruition one way or another. We're all in this boat together. The Buddha did not instruct us to judge people or look down on them because of some setback; he taught us to cultivate compassion and wisdom.
In the Buddhist worldview, things don't happen by pure chance. We have some control over the process. Maybe karmic factors resulted in some misfortune this time around, but we have the ability to sow the seeds for happiness in the future.
Another point to consider: if a person suffers misfortune due to some past karma, that means they have used up that bad karma and it will not bother them again. So they may meet with longevity during their next life. Likewise, people who are experiencing fortune in this life may be using up their good karma, and may experience setbacks in the next life. This is generally the nature of samsara according to Buddhism.
Generally, Buddha encouraged us to cultivate equanimity about things that happen to us. We can't change the past, so it is better to focus on the present and the future. If accidents happen by pure chance, then it is hard to accept that reality. We always find ourselves asking "why me"? If accidents happen due to the will of some God, then we have to wonder why God punished us. In the Buddhist view, we have control over our own destinies.
I hope some of the above is helpful. I don't pretend to be an expert on kamma, but I have read some of the Chinese books you mention, and I have been troubled by similar questions, and have asked about them on discussion forums like this one. My response reflects the answers that I have received over the years.
That's a good point. I will have to think about it. I am just pointing out what Buddha said about right speech. You are free to find your own truth as needed in your life. But yes mostly the truth is an aid to the mind. I am not sure it has to do with freedom however.
Please note I was talking about freedom of thought.
How can one make valid decisions if the truth is hidden from them?
Yes, vinlyn. That's a good point. I don't see how not telling someone their cancer was caused by karma affects the freedom of thought. I doubt you were saying that.
Is it okay if your government lies to you when they think it's the right decision?
Is it okay if your doctor lies to you when he thinks it's the right decision?
Is it okay if your wife lies to you when she has an affair if she thinks it's the right decision?
I don't want anybody else deciding if I can handle the truth. It's my decision.
yes part of what buddha said is you can tell someone the truth if it will benefit them even if it is not pleasant. But it is important how and when you tell them.
My question is: who gives you the right to tell someone when they are allowed to be told the truth?