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.
@vinlyn said:
Oops. You guys read into the real incident something that wasn't there. She didn't throw the stick at the other kid. She simply threw the stick. It happened to hit him in the face.
Ohh, ok. If that is the case then it would seem to me that karma made from that would not be as bad as deliberately throwing it at a person.
I think actions are more important than intentions.
I dunno. How can they be separated off from each other completely? I mean, in order for an action by an agent to take place, surely there has to be something in mind, some intent. It's not like walking by something and knocking it over by accident with your protruding elbow; in which case you'd fairly be able to say that it was your elbow that did it, not you.
I think that, in many ways, these ideas about karma are bound up with the ego, the agent we're supposedly in charge of. Our actions, therefore, are the outpourings of who we are; and should we enter upon paths hurtful to others, we do it by intent. But that intent can only be effected by our actions. Thus, intentions precede all our meaningful actions.
The situation in the link from the Opening Post puts the agent (Robert Bates) in a dilemma not unlike someone who injures or kills someone in a car wreck when he could have taken more steps to avoid the crash. Neither is blameless, but neither is one more culpable than the other.
The real problem is in ourselves, not in our stars. We can either give in to anguish or despair or just accept that things are the way they are and just don't happen as we'd like. Hell, life is wondrous and agonizing, too. Our job is just not to drown in the bad waters, but to jump on a good raft.
I, for one, refuse to worry about karma in the metaphysical sense. The Lord Buddha, I believe, taught about it in moral terms only: As you sow, so shall you reap! As far as is in your power, do no harm; take the bad with the good. Own your actions, but be not owned by them.
1
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@SpinyNorman said:
silver said: OMG, every once in a blue moon, my grandma used to say that phrase (road to hell paved...) and it used to drive me crazy because it made me feel guilty because gosh - what normal person doesn't have good intentions, so I did a double-take - my mind did spin on that one because even now, I hear it and think it's devilish to even say it out loud! It still is driving me bats.
It's an odd saying really, because presumably the road to heaven is also paved with good intentions. I suppose it means that having good intentions isn't enough?
As a kid hearing dear old grandma say something like that (and to me, she was a bit mysterious because she didn't say a lot, just worked a lot), I eventually figured she was a hard-bitten woman (whom I loved a lot), but it just smacked of angriness and that saying never made sense to me, even now. It sounds like the kind of thing someone says to get back at someone or life itself. IYKWIM...
@silver -- I agree with you, it does sound a bit snarky and vengeful ... something a British wit or wag might coin.
But it I think it is worth investigating for its simple truth as well. The saying does not necessarily impugn all good intention. It merely suggests keeping a close eye on it ... at least from where I sit.
I always thought that it simply meant that we were less likely to critically assess the unfolding consequences of an action that had us feeling good about ourselves than any other action.
Good intentions, are not the problem. Being attached, or identifying with a good intention to the degree that one is not able to question the true results of that intention...is a potential hell in the making.
Non harming in the company of hell, samsara or office politics is a hard call.
The intention is key because [surprise spoiler] few of us are aware of the consequences of our actions, non actions and behavour, despite the personal preferences. Usually we are only aware just as it effects our immediate experience and self esteem.
Are we attached to being a good Buddhist? A non harming door mat? A catalytic converter?
Things are not as simple as being aware and able to understand the karmic ripples through the realms ... The essence of good intention AND letting go of surprise consequences is why we focus on wise and mature intentions, one of which is ahimsa as @SpinyNorman mentioned but do not dwell in why they may fail when applied ...
And now back to the intended ...
0
silverIn the beginning there was nothing, and then it exploded.USA, Left coast.Veteran
@genkaku said:
silver -- I agree with you, it does sound a bit snarky and vengeful ... something a British wit or wag might coin.
But it I think it is worth investigating for its simple truth as well. The saying does not necessarily impugn all good intention. It merely suggests keeping a close eye on it ... at least from where I sit.
Thanks, yeah....when it's not just printed words and you hear the tone of voice, it makes a bit of difference. It came out sounding mean, and I didn't want my granny to sound mean...or hurt. As a young one, it left an impression.
^ Yeah. Indeed it can be read as impious. Good intentions don't necessarily come naturally. There is quite often the selfish beast within that needs a lot of inculcation with noble sentiments and good wishes. The bodhisattva mind is built with many profound labors.
Actions and Intentions cannot really be separated, except mentally. But that is quite a piece of work. Neither intentions or actions amount to much, the Hindus teach, if you don't surrender their hold on you. They belong to you, not you to them. It is the cultivating of good intentions and compassion for our fellow beings that is the primary action. An intention is not a dead thing and neither does an action contain in itself more energy than the intention that propels it.
Karma is work. The word literally means "work." It is our work on our intentions that needs the greater scrutiny. Unfortunate things will always happen, but it is only the cynic who would say that having a good heart in spite of this unpleasant fact is a waste of time.
Comments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa
Ohh, ok. If that is the case then it would seem to me that karma made from that would not be as bad as deliberately throwing it at a person.
Zen teachers deliberately hit their students with sticks but that's OK.
I dunno. How can they be separated off from each other completely? I mean, in order for an action by an agent to take place, surely there has to be something in mind, some intent. It's not like walking by something and knocking it over by accident with your protruding elbow; in which case you'd fairly be able to say that it was your elbow that did it, not you.
I think that, in many ways, these ideas about karma are bound up with the ego, the agent we're supposedly in charge of. Our actions, therefore, are the outpourings of who we are; and should we enter upon paths hurtful to others, we do it by intent. But that intent can only be effected by our actions. Thus, intentions precede all our meaningful actions.
The situation in the link from the Opening Post puts the agent (Robert Bates) in a dilemma not unlike someone who injures or kills someone in a car wreck when he could have taken more steps to avoid the crash. Neither is blameless, but neither is one more culpable than the other.
The real problem is in ourselves, not in our stars. We can either give in to anguish or despair or just accept that things are the way they are and just don't happen as we'd like. Hell, life is wondrous and agonizing, too. Our job is just not to drown in the bad waters, but to jump on a good raft.
I, for one, refuse to worry about karma in the metaphysical sense. The Lord Buddha, I believe, taught about it in moral terms only: As you sow, so shall you reap! As far as is in your power, do no harm; take the bad with the good. Own your actions, but be not owned by them.
As a kid hearing dear old grandma say something like that (and to me, she was a bit mysterious because she didn't say a lot, just worked a lot), I eventually figured she was a hard-bitten woman (whom I loved a lot), but it just smacked of angriness and that saying never made sense to me, even now. It sounds like the kind of thing someone says to get back at someone or life itself. IYKWIM...
@silver -- I agree with you, it does sound a bit snarky and vengeful ... something a British wit or wag might coin.
But it I think it is worth investigating for its simple truth as well. The saying does not necessarily impugn all good intention. It merely suggests keeping a close eye on it ... at least from where I sit.
The road to hell.....
I always thought that it simply meant that we were less likely to critically assess the unfolding consequences of an action that had us feeling good about ourselves than any other action.
Good intentions, are not the problem. Being attached, or identifying with a good intention to the degree that one is not able to question the true results of that intention...is a potential hell in the making.
well said @how,
Non harming in the company of hell, samsara or office politics is a hard call.
The intention is key because [surprise spoiler] few of us are aware of the consequences of our actions, non actions and behavour, despite the personal preferences. Usually we are only aware just as it effects our immediate experience and self esteem.
Are we attached to being a good Buddhist? A non harming door mat? A catalytic converter?
Things are not as simple as being aware and able to understand the karmic ripples through the realms ... The essence of good intention AND letting go of surprise consequences is why we focus on wise and mature intentions, one of which is ahimsa as @SpinyNorman mentioned but do not dwell in why they may fail when applied ...
And now back to the intended ...
Thanks, yeah....when it's not just printed words and you hear the tone of voice, it makes a bit of difference. It came out sounding mean, and I didn't want my granny to sound mean...or hurt. As a young one, it left an impression.
^ Yeah. Indeed it can be read as impious. Good intentions don't necessarily come naturally. There is quite often the selfish beast within that needs a lot of inculcation with noble sentiments and good wishes. The bodhisattva mind is built with many profound labors.
Actions and Intentions cannot really be separated, except mentally. But that is quite a piece of work. Neither intentions or actions amount to much, the Hindus teach, if you don't surrender their hold on you. They belong to you, not you to them. It is the cultivating of good intentions and compassion for our fellow beings that is the primary action. An intention is not a dead thing and neither does an action contain in itself more energy than the intention that propels it.
Karma is work. The word literally means "work." It is our work on our intentions that needs the greater scrutiny. Unfortunate things will always happen, but it is only the cynic who would say that having a good heart in spite of this unpleasant fact is a waste of time.