Karma/Kamma….What’s your take on it ?

Shoshin

Kia Ora,

Are we just a product of karma ?

Was it Karma that brought you to the Dharma ?

Metta Shoshin

Jeffrey

Who is the we who are products of karma? Can you find that in your meditation? Where is we?

Toraldris

If karma is action, we're definitely the result of certain "actions" our parents took.  

Shoshin

Kia Ora @Jeffery,

"We" makes up the elusive "I" (as in the five aggregates being more that one thing hence "we" the "plural" of "I") But then "I" have been known to be wrong at times...- _

Metta Shoshin

Earthninja

I started studying Buddhism very spontaneously. Just one spark ignited me onto the path.

Makes you wonder!

Great post

lobster

@Shoshin said:
Was it Karma that brought you to the Dharma ?

They offer a door to door service by kar? I think I am getting dharma and dumber . . . :vimp: . . . oh sorry dharma, not door . . .

Good question. I believe it was kismat
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/kismet
or possibly the will of Odin . . .

No reason here. I will ask HH Dalai Cushion . . .

federica

Excellent quotation given by @jll here....

It's important first to be absolutely certain for yourself that you are equipped with the correct definition of Kamma.....

MeisterBob

@Shoshin said:
Kia Ora,

Are we just a product of karma ?

Was it Karma that brought you to the Dharma ?

Metta Shoshin

1) Don't know. I do not believe,I do not disbelieve.(at least in past life stuff)
2) Definitely. (as in past actions in this life)

Chaz

My take is that my karma sux. After all, I have a family of feral Puja Tables squating in my crawl space. Venerable Fabian The Frisky Prawn sez that this is due to karma generated when I pee'd in a Bhramin's Wheaties whilst engaged as a camp follower in Alexander the Great's army.

Jeffrey

The aggregates are definitely a product of karma. But Buddha said we are not the aggregates.

Toraldris

@Jeffrey said:
The aggregates are definitely a product of karma. But Buddha said we are not the aggregates.

I don't think the Buddha said that exactly. You are what you are, and the five aggregates describes what you are. That the Buddha taught each of these as not-self doesn't mean not-you, it means not permanent, not independent, not a source of happiness through craving and clinging.

IMO, that is, and for @federica this means "in my opinion".  

Buddhadragon

Beyond all metaphysical debate, I stick by Thanissaro Bhikku's quotation, as transcribed by @Jll.
I accept that certain past actions have led me where I am today and I assume responsibility that my present actions will take me where I'll be tomorrow.

wangchuey

@Shoshin said:
Kia Ora,

Are we just a product of karma ?

Was it Karma that brought you to the Dharma ?

Metta Shoshin

I am one of the belief that karma is our past, present, and future actions, as well as the causes and conditions that make up our thoughts and impulses etc.

Karma is the cause for everything even my interest in the Dharma.

Jeffrey

@AldrisTorvalds said:
IMO, that is, and for federica this means "in my opinion".  

No Buddha said that we are not the aggregates. It is in the heart sutra.

Jeffrey

I couldn't find it online, but Khenpo Gyamtso Tsultrim Rinpoche wrote a book about the various views of emptiness. The shravaka is the most course view and it is that view that the skhandas are empty. His book is called "progressive stages of meditation on emptiness".

Jeffrey

Although this is called the Shravaka stage because it represents the heart of the Shravaka vehicle, one should not assume that it is not unimportant in the other vehicles of Buddhism. Milarepa, the great Vajrayana master, taught his disciple, the shepherd boy, the Shravaka meditation on not-self after the boy had shown signs of having a great natural meditation ability. It is said that on being told to meditate on the small image of the Buddha he went straight into meditative absorption (samadhi) for a week without noticing the time. When he came out of samadhi it seemed to him he had only been meditating a few seconds.

At this stage one does not consider emptiness of all the phenomena but only the emptiness or lack of self in the person. The importance of this is that it is clinging to the idea that one has a single, permanent, independent, truly existing self that is the root cause of all one's suffering. One does not need to have an explicit or clearly formulated idea of self in order to act as if one had one. 'Self' here means the implied self which might also be regarded as implied in the behaviour of animals. Animals, just like us, identify themselves with their bodies and minds and are constantly seeking physical and mental comfort as they try to avoid discomfort and assuage pain. Both animals and humans act as if they have a self to protect and preserve and one regards this behaviour as automatic and instinctive as well as normal. When pain or discomfort arise the automatic response is to try and remove it. It is extraneous to the self and the implications of the self would naturally be happy if all pain and suffering were removed.

Sometimes the resistance to the realization takes the form of irritation. One is used to being able to explain things to oneself rationally. Experience of the 'self' is so direct and in a sense so obvious, there seems to be no reason to include it in one's rational explanation of things. On the other hand, when one does try to explain it to oneself, the whole thing is so irritatingly subjective it seems one could never reach any satisfactory conclusion. Instead of letting the mind rest in the actual experience of the paradox, one gets frustrated and irritated at not being able to form a water-tight explanation of what the 'self' is. It is important to notice that and be aware of it. If one tries to just push that irritation out of one's mind, one will never have a deep realization of not-self.

Jeffrey

part 2

Clinging to the idea of self is like clinging to the idea that a piece of rope in the dark is a snake. When the light is turned on and one sees that there is no snake there, one's fear and suffering that arose from clinging to it as real dissolve. The snake never existed in the first place, so it was simply one's clinging to that idea that caused the suffering and nothing else. The wisdom that realizes not-self is like the light that revealed the rope is not a snake.

Clearly in order to end one's own suffering, there is nothing more important than to realize that when one acts as if the body and mind constituted lasting, separate, independent self, one unthinkingly attributes to them qualities which they simply do not have. Nothing in the whole stream of mental and physical phenomena that constitute one's experience of body and mind has the quality of separate, independent, lasting experience. It is all change and impermanence, moment by moment and so none of it can be 'self' and it it one's persistent effort to treat it as if it were, that makes a constant steam of suffering. Realizing not-self is the first step to realizing the empty nature of all phenomena. That is why the first teachings of Buddha concern the Three Marks of Existence ie suffering, impermanence, and not-self.

Jeffrey

part 3, the Dream Example

The Buddha often used the example of a dream to illustrate his teachings on emptiness and this example can be applied with increasing subtlety at each stage of the mediation progression on emptiness. It is a good example for showing how the two truths, relative and absolute, work together. In a dream there is a sense of being a person with a body and mind living in a world of things to which one feels attracted to or averse depending on how they appear. As long as one does not realize it is just a dream, one takes all these things as real and one feels happy or sad on account of them.

For example, one may dream of being eaten by a tiger or being burnt in a fire. In the absolute truth no-one is being eaten or burnt, but still in the terms of the dream one might really suffer as one had been. The suffering arises simply by virtue of the fact that one identifies oneself with the person in the dream. As soon as one becomes aware that it is only a dream, even if the dream does not stop, one is nonetheless free to think, "it does not matter; it is only a dream. It is not really happening to me". The person that was suffering in the dream only arose as a temporary manifestation dependent on the condition of one's not being aware that it was only a dream. It had no separate, indepenendent, lasting 'self' of its own.

Understanding this intellectually is not enough to free oneself from the strongly ingrained habit of clinging to one's mind and body as a separate, independedent, lasting self. One has to exaine the stream of one's mental and physical experience again and again, reflecting on what one does or does not find until one reaches conviction and certainty. Having become convinced of what is the case, one then has to meditate, resting the mind in this new-found knowledge until the veils caused by one's habitual patterns of thought have finally dissolved. At his point direct, unmistakable realization of not-self arises and it is this genuine experience that actually liberates one from suffeirng.

Jeffrey

Method of Investigation

Instinctively we identify ourselves with our bodies and minds. We have a very strong emotional attachment to them even though our whole idea of self and mine is very vague and confused. For example, when we are sick we sometimes say, "I am sick", and yet in the very next breath we may say, "because I have a headache". What do we mean? Do we mean the 'I' is one thing and the head is another? Or doe we mean that the head is the I? One should begin one's investigation with these very common sense notions of 'I' and 'I' the doer or 'I, the experiencer'.

One could think for example of having one's limbs and organs removed or transplanted. If one were given another man's heart would it really affect the 'I'? We naturally thank that 'I' (the experiencer or doer) has now received a new heart. One does not think that one is grafting a new heart into the 'I' as such. How far can one go with this process? With limbs and organs it seems quite clear that the 'I' is a separate entity, but what about the brain? Suppose one had another man's brain implanted into one's skull? Would that effect the 'I'? One might find oneself wondering 'I' (the experiencer the doer) could actually use another man's brain and yet still be the same person. One might wonder if one might find some actions governeed by the 'I' of the person from whom the brain was taken. Of course one cannot know what the result of a transplant would be, but instinctively one feels it is important to know whether the 'I' would be affected or not.

Jeffrey

Although this seems so important, we are still very unclear about what this 'I' might be. We may wonder if it is, perhaps, just a small vital part of the brain. However, when one thinks about it, one is not emotionally attached to a minute mechanism in one's grey matter. If that were all one's emotional attachment were about, it would be easy enough to remove and all the suffering with it. Life would not need to have any meaning, nor human life any particular value. There would be no need to go on struggling in a life full of suffering and frustration. However, such a view strikes us as totally nihilistic and demeaning. The 'I' feels it is more important than that.

The 'I' that we are emotionally attached to seems to step back and look on life, evaluating experience and wishing to avoid suffering. We do not experience or treat it the way we would a physical object like a brain. We know from general knowledge gleaned from other people that the brain is in the skull. It can be physically located, touched and measured. It has some relation to the mind because, when our mental state changes, a change can often be detected in the brain. However, whatever scientists may find out about the brain, they will only be able to tell us the relationship between mind and brain in more detail. They can look and probe and measure to find facts about what the brain is doing, but how will they know what the mind is experiencing as they do it? They may, for example, be able to say that htere is a lot of activity in such and such a region of the brain when a person thinks of red. But how do they know the person is experiencing red? The person himself knows for sure the nature of his experience. He may not. He may call it anything. He will never know if anyone else experiences anything else in the way he does, even if everyone agrees to call the experience they have by the same name. Who can know how anything is experienced other than the experiencer? A scientist can say the brain is acting as if it were experiencing red because the brain is doing what it always does when people are experiencing red. Who will know if they are right in a particular case or not? Only the experiencer can know for sure. The scientist relies on well-informed guess-work. Certain theories are taken to be true because they seem to explain events very well.

to be continued.

Jeffrey

It is too long (don't read).. But if you want to read the book it is very good.

Buddhadragon

"My deeds are my riches, my deeds are my inheritance, my deeds are the womb which bore me. My deeds are the race to which I belong, my deeds are my refuge."
(Anguttara Nikaya-translation by Alexandra David-Néel)