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.
Questions fired into the Buddhist night.
hi- first post and some questions here:
buddhism as i've experienced it has been mostly great so far, but two theoretical problems i have with it are the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
since there is no rational or scientific evidence for those things AFAIK, isn't accepting these concepts just about the same as the abrahamic religions' heavy reliance on belief & faith?
furthermore, these concepts predated siddhartha AFAIK- so he had the chance to throw off their yokes. in fact, maybe he did. comments?
...
next question, what kinds of lifeforms can become a buddhist?
further, is buddhism meant to be something strictly for humans or is it open to any life form that can grasp it? for example, what if an intelligent carnivore could grasp it... someone whose very life depended on killing? would you ask that species and meta-species to go extinct through ahimsa?
buddhism as i've experienced it has been mostly great so far, but two theoretical problems i have with it are the concepts of reincarnation and karma.
since there is no rational or scientific evidence for those things AFAIK, isn't accepting these concepts just about the same as the abrahamic religions' heavy reliance on belief & faith?
furthermore, these concepts predated siddhartha AFAIK- so he had the chance to throw off their yokes. in fact, maybe he did. comments?
...
next question, what kinds of lifeforms can become a buddhist?
further, is buddhism meant to be something strictly for humans or is it open to any life form that can grasp it? for example, what if an intelligent carnivore could grasp it... someone whose very life depended on killing? would you ask that species and meta-species to go extinct through ahimsa?
0
Comments
The Kalama Sutta states that the Buddha himself said not to blindly accept anything as truth, even his own words, and advised us to experience things for ourselves.
As far as reincarnation goes, I suggest you read these links:
http://buddhaforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=674
http://buddhaforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=728
As far as Kamma goes, well, there is evidence of this. However, different people have different understandings of it. Some people's understandings require the belief in rebirth as well. But at least, on its most basic level, it's the law of cause-and-effect and we can see this to be true in our everyday lives.
Lifeforms? I don't quite understand what you're asking. Like, can a dog be a Buddhist? Well, if a dog could grasp it, then sure. But my dog just spends his days sleeping and licking his butt. He's quite happy as it is.
But if you believe in literal rebirth, then humans are the only ones capable of comprehending and practising the Dhamma. But from this perspective, any being can be reborn as any other being, so...
Vegetarianism isn't a "rule" of Buddhism either. The Buddha ate meat. There's really no black-and-white. There are some Threads on this topic as well.
That is a good question. It shows that you are thinking for yourself, which is the first step towards Buddhist Wisdom, or any wisdom for that matter.
Anything, taken to the extreme would be pretty near impossible in this world. For instance, it is impossible not to kill. Our bodies have little things called T-cells in them, that continually kills anything it detects and judges to be harmful to our body. Without these T-cells, we couldn’t survive.
Or every time we take a breath, many millions of microbes are killed. So should we just stop breathing? I think not. : ^ )
We kill vegetable to make a salad, even if we are vegetarians. So what exactly is a Buddhist to do?
What we are talking about here is the letter of the law vs. the true meaning behind these words.
I believe most Buddhists try to practice what is called “ahimsa,” or are trying not to cause any needless harm to others, or to our selves. This is an effort that could never be 100% because the possiblities for causing harm are far too complex for one person to control. In helping one thing, we may very well hurt another without even realizing it. Sad, but true!
There are many different views about karma and reincarnation. Some take both of these quite fundamentally, again the letter of the law vs. the intent behind it.
Some see both reincarnation and karma more psychological factors, where/as others see them as simply being metaphorical. These are the kinds of ideas that we, our selves, must live with for many years before coming to our own conclusions.
My advice would be, to not just think of these things simply in your head, like they are only concepts, but to rather look around at your own life, and even who you are, and in this way, weigh everything against your own personal experience. In this way, the flower of your own wisdom will bloom.
Kind regards,
S9
Is reincarnation a literal event and is karma a cosmic force or are they useful ways of understanding and considering the world? I'm not sure!
Debated and irrelevant. Lincoln's advice is spot-on.
No, unless and until you see it for yourself ("achieve it"), you consider it, not blindly trust it. Outright denying it is just as bad. This is what the Buddha taught.
And/or you put it aside and focus on the heart of the Dhamma. The Dhamma is true and beneficial regardless of what happens after death.
Such a simple, and yet profound statement:
“The Dhamma is true and beneficial regardless of what happens after death.”
What the Buddha taught is a great way to live, if nothing else. It is purely practical to pay close attention and to live both wisely and with compassion.
We live wisely because we can see what is going on around us, and also who we are. We live with compassion, because we see that life just isn’t easy for so many people, and in seeing this clearly, we are moved to lend a hand.
S9
To people seeking deep inner peace & ending suffering, Buddha taught something else. Reincarnation. Yes. Karma. No. Do you realise people are in prison due to their karma (actions)?
Yes. But why are they yokes? Karma is truth. Do bad, get bad. Do good, get good. Even if karma taught with reincarnation is supertitious, they still encourage people to avoid self-harm.
:buck:
and apologies in advance for offending / complicating / provoking / questioning. that is how it seems to work with me. :S
kamma and reincarnation are yokes because they're human-created concepts that have the potential to go off-target the way all human-created concepts can go off-target. i trust that you know what i'm getting at.
but if someone (or myself at a future date) found these things to be unquestionably defined by nature / natural law then i would be quite interested in sharing that experience.
yet so far, i have neither reasoned nor intuited nor found these concepts in my deepest meditations. so at this time i am left with trying to understand other peoples' POV's on these matters.
and i completely agree with your last sentence. for some people, it is best for their practice to believe in these concepts... just as it's appropriate for me to take on certain concepts that others may find no use for.
re: the idea of kamma being the same as action-consequence,
i only see a degree of overlap, not an equality. we know from nature / natural law that action-consequence is a very evident mechanism of reality. kamma, with its idea of a 'bank account of intentions / behavior" (define it how you will), i'm not so sure about. who has seen or felt this that can describe their insight?
@subjectivity9,
yes, it is impossible to live without killing, but my understanding is that the key difference in buddhism lies in one's intentions. for humans, that is.
with a carnivore, there is no question that the intention must be to kill in order to survive, by eating. there is also no question in my mind that a carnivore cannot accrue 'negative' kamma for these actions. but a carnivore is 'only' an animal, some will say...
still, killing in order to survive is a necessary action for certain people / peoples. we don't like it, but it happens, has happened, and will happen again. it happens in desperate survival situations and among native peoples, to name two examples. life, reality and the cosmos will line up those situations from time to time, so i see no use in describing the killer's actions as unskillful. in fact, the most skillful mindset i know of in those conditions is to do what the buddhas of the native peoples did, which was to have the tribespeople conduct spiritual ceremonies of atonement, identifying with the victim in the deepest way they knew how (i am you and you are i). this even included elevating the victim to the status of god, which i see nothing wrong with.
dogs have good reasons to lick their butts. there are one or two special scent glands near the anus that convey a world of information if you know how to interpret it. they do, certainly, with around 100,000 to one million times our ability to process smells. these facts are directly related to the variety of 'anal' behaviors in dogs. but i digress.
there is a little bit of a paradox in my mind regarding animals... seemingly in the spirit of zen:
on one hand we have the idea that it requires a human, with his large amount of free intelligence, to achieve enlightenment. so we can perhaps see an intelligent extraterrestrial achieving enlightenment, but not animals. not animals, since we perceive them to have less intelligence than we do. although as the evidence continues to roll in, this kind of distinction becomes less and less clear. animals as a group are noted to do all the things that we have customarily thought of as human province, such as having thoughts, emotions, self-awareness, language, tool-invention, problem-solving, ability to grieve for the dead, and so forth. in fact, recently i saw a study about an orangutan that had greater ability to solve pattern-matching tests than the average from a random sampling of about 100 humans. and here we didn't even realise that an orang could mentally outperform a chimp, nevermind human beings.
so where do we draw the line in this business?
(not really expecting an answer, moreso throwing out the question to humanity)
but on the other hand, animals are zen as i perceive them. when they are hungry, they eat. when they are tired, they sleep. etcetera. because without the level of free intelligence we have, animals do not tend towards our level of neurosis, desire and fear. we work to relieve ourselves of these hang ups, but they are already so much more advanced than we, in fact being closer to buddhism, via direct experience with nature, than most of us will ever get. or at least that is what i observe. there's a language difficulty in trying to talk about this stuff with them, you know...
apologies for this incredible ramble! and your replies have indeed given me insight into the questions that i asked. thank you, all.
How would a dog benefit from enlightenment? What would change? Can you imagine a typical, well-cared for dog being any happier with his life? I can't.
Of course, we too are merely animals. A human life is considered favorable because we have the mental acuity to recognize our plight and work towards change. It is precisely that intellect, however, that causes us all our troubles. In many ways, intelligence is our curse. It is a necessary adaptation, and an extraordinarily useful tool, but it is also prone to much trouble. The more complicated the machinery, the more it breaks down. Our capability for causing destruction and suffering points to the extent of the damage. If there is one species in need of help, it is us.
Aside from our intelligence, and all the good and bad that arise with it, we are not very different from any other animals on the planet. We are still driven by exactly the same, basic needs: Food, water, and sex. Everything else is just an offshoot of those needs. We like to think of ourselves as great beings, caretakers of the earth, or whatever. I say hogwash. We're just smart, hairless apes, doing what smart, hairless apes do. We can think astounding thoughts, and do amazing things. Our potential for compassion is as boundless as our ability to destroy. Throughout it all, however, we are still just flesh-and-blood creatures.
Perhaps there is something inside us that goes on when we die. Maybe we are reincarnated, just as many Buddhists and Hindus believe. Perhaps the serene entity we become aware of through meditation is that indestructible part of ourselves that transcends our animal existence and carries on throughout infinity. Do you know? I don't. I enjoy certain beliefs, but I carry them lightly and try not to take them too seriously. Meditation and contemplation have given me all I really need to know. Anything else is purely entertainment.
"Our theories of the eternal are as valuable as are those which a chick which has not broken its way through its shell might form of the outside world." ~ Buddha
Wow ... very well described ... yes, there are many perhapses, maybes and as I often say to my children in answer to their many questions
" Don't know, but love talking to you about it "
Luckily there are good proofs, for example ones which show that the brain is not the mind. If you can soundly accept such reasonings then rebirth isn't such a strange thing. In fact it would stranger to say physical matter has the capacity of awareness.
I should probably believe in reincarnation, because I have had many times during my life where I have flashed back on previous incarnations. I am also someone who is not overly concerned with reincarnation, or previous lives, so that in its self might have convinced me that they were real, and there was so much detail included in these flashbacks.
But, let me share with you; what I am thinking in this area. I have no idea what part of these flashbacks is pure imagination, a little bit like a dream. The mind is a fascinating instrument that is capable of many things, things that we little understand.
So, I do not get caught up in anything that could easily be pure fantasy, or even something useful but misdiagnosed; such as a flashback on a previous incarnation. Lets face it, I might actually only be getting in touch with parts of my present day self that has either been ignored, or gone unused for too long.
Every one of these flashbacks did show me something that seemed to be incorporate in my present self, however they may originally have come about.
And:
Truth be told, we have plenty enough in our present day life to keep us busy with just trying to understand it, and thereby gaining the wisdom, which it holds out to us quite abundantly.
A small aside:
I had a cat named Melvin; that I used to call my Guru. I said this with a straight face, because I was quite serious. He was quite my superior in many ways.
I think the antropomorphizing of God has made our human heads swell way out of proportion. It is a wonder that we don't all suffer from excruciating headaches.
S9
Ok... I... think you totally missed my point. My dog doesn't actually do this. I'm also familiar with... that. But this is all irellevant.
Basically, what Arietta said is what I was getting at: "How would a dog benefit from enlightenment? What would change? Can you imagine a typical, well-cared for dog being any happier with his life? I can't."
Let's talk about something other than dog butt glands, ok?
Intention goes much deeper than this. A carnivorous animal kills with the intention of sustaining its life, not to cause death or harm or out of greed. There are people who live a similar lifestyle due to geographic locations, so this isn't limited to just animals.
All we can do is try to cause as little suffering as possible. Eating only greens still results in indirect suffering/deaths. By our existing, death is inevitable.
A dog's mind ultimately works the same way ours does. But there is a big road block in that we have no way of communicating the Dhamma to them.
But like I said, in certain traditions there are different realms of rebirth. Animals and humans are seperate. No being but a human, in these traditions, can attain Enlightenment. The Deva's are considered to be in a higher realm than humans, and yet they too cannot achieve Enlightenment. Both a worm and a god must wait to be reborn as a human before there is a possibility of attaining Enlightenment.
But of course, as I explained, rebirth is not necessary to Buddhism, anyway. And you came to these conclusions yourself already, so...
Aaki,
I read once, that because there is no time that every birth, whether past or present, no matter, is actually happening simultaneously in the Here and Now. In this case than, every possible birth all/together in one single block, would be actually one single event.
Now, I will share something more personal. One day I looked into the eyes of a grasshopper and saw myself looking back at me. Okay. I know. Get the net. : ^ )
On thinking about this later, however, what I realized was looking back at me, and connecting with me, was this little animal's strong presence of which he interpreted as being his me, which was central to his universe and that by default everything else was outside of himself. But isn’t that what we do? So now what are we humans going to have to do, share our throne of special-ness with the insects? ; ^ )
S9
In the text by Dharmakirti there are, I don't know, maybe about 40 main logical syllogisms establishing various assertions about the mind and refuting people who come and disagree. Essentially every argument that a person might make.
The definition is "that which is clear and knowing", or sometimes translated as, "clarity and awareness".
"Recognizing Mere Clarity and Awareness
It is quite difficult to recognize what mere clarity and mere awareness actually refer to. We all learned this definition of mind in the early stages of our Buddhist education when we studied lorig, ways of knowing, and dura, collected topics. Something rough comes to mind as to what it means when we think about the division of non-static, or "impermanent" phenomena into those that are forms of physical phenomena, those that are ways of being aware of something and those affecting variables that are neither – in other words, forms, minds and neither. But it is quite difficult to recognize the meaning of clarity and awareness on the basis of experience."
"It is not something we can know simply from reading books. We can only recognize it by extensively investigating internally ourselves, researching our own experience of mind from many points of view."
"Mere clarity and awareness refers to the fact that mind is something that, when it meets with the proper circumstances, can, without obstruction, give rise to an appearance of anything as something that is known. In this respect, mind is somewhat similar to a mirror that, on an external, noncognitive level, unobstructively also gives rise to appearances of objects. No matter what aspect of what external object we encounter – its sight, sound, smell, taste or tactile or physical sensation – clarity is that which allows for a corresponding aspect to arise or appear unobstructedly. Awareness is an engaging with or pervading of an object in such a way as to render it something that is known, unobstructedly, in one way or another. Thus, from another point of view, clarity and awareness are absences of obstruction that would prevent anything from arising as something that is known. This is mind's nature of being mere clarity and awareness."
A small summary to your 2nd question is that mind can only be produced by a previous moment of mind. In the same way that your current experience is linked with your mind of 5 minutes ago.
I sometimes get the impression that when people explain both clarity and awareness of the mind that they are actually speaking about the capacities of our physical brains.
Then they go on to say things like “clarity and awareness are difficult to understand," the word comprehend might be better, that once again they are using the brain, or even the conceptual mind to examine these events. Therefore, they are not looking directly.
Is this the case with you? Or can you show me what you are truly saying that is different from what I am picking up from your words?
Thanks,
S9
What are you refering to? Where/what are these texts? You've read the 10,000 pages and understood them through personal experience, directly? Logic is subjective.
So how is this proof of rebirth? You said: "A small summary to your 2nd question is that mind can only be produced by a previous moment of mind. In the same way that your current experience is linked with your mind of 5 minutes ago." But this is still speculation, when it comes to rebirth.
I strongly disagree with the idea that one should not rely heavily on the conceptual mind. If a person, over time, replaces their bad concepts with good concepts then these will directly produce direct insight (with a little meditation thrown in).
There are other types of students who are more suited for meditation and solitude and they make their progress through hard years in meditation. However, entering real vipashyana is the same. Their conception of what they are investigating is extremely clear, and they are extremely responsive to logic and instruction. Both types of students have fearless discrimination of reality.
:banghead:
Since subjects can't exist without objects, correct logic is therefore realistic and bad logic is confusion.
Overview of the Gelug Monastic Education System
Life in Sera Jhe Monastery
It's not, it's the answer to your question "what is the definition of mind".
Perhaps because it's a tiny summary and not a full debate? Even so, if you agree that the present moment of consciousness was produced (mainly) by the previous moment of consciousness acting as a material cause, it is hard to then assert that the first moment of consciousness in this lifetime was not produced by the last moment of consciousnes in the previous lifetime.
If it is logical for you to believe in rebirth, and you benefit from this, then by all means. I'm not at all saying you should do one thing or the other. But as you said, the conceptual mind is constantly changing. What seems logical one moments, can seem ridiculous the next. Rebirth is still a concept. So we shouldn't present it as truth or fact.
Calm down there. It seems extremely logical to a Christian that we either go to Heaven or Hell after death. It seems extremely logical to an atheist that we just rot in the dirt. It seems extremely logical to a Buddhist that we're reincarnated.
All based on logic. All just speculation and belief. Unless and until I see direct proof of it myself (i.e. "correct logic")...
Why are you getting upset? You asserted that people should believe in rebirth because there are "good proofs" of it. I haven't seen any yet.
This is not proof of anything though. With your theory, may I ask, where did consciousness begin then? Where did my stream of consciousness start? If it started somewhere, then I can argue that it was in this life, can I not? Why is it more rational for it to have started a trillion years ago in a previous life?
If you have hard evidence, I'm more than willing to hear it with an open mind. But pointing to texts that I cannot possibly access without ordaining (I doubt Amazon carries copies of monastary curriculum such as "Abhidharma Kosha by Basubandu" XD) as proof isn't helpful to anyone.
Faith plays a role in Buddhism as well. Yes, the Buddha had a "try it yourself" approach, but even in the Kalama Sutta (who is not a call to solipsism that people sometimes preach it to be) he says to praise the word of the wise. The Kalamas were NOT his followers. Also it is not like you should interpret things just by one sutta, anyways.
I don't know what you mean by "throw off their yokes"
Faith plays no role in Buddhism. This does not mean to outright deny rebirth or anything else. It means to not blindly accept anything as truth or fact. This means to consider the possibility of rebirth, and the possibility of no rebirth. It also means to consider how important knowing either way is to your practice. This is what the Kalama Sutta teaches.
The Kalama Sutta does not say "praise the words of the wise." I think this is what you're refering to:
This is quite different from what you said and has nothing to do with solipsism. "Wise" to one person is not "wise" to another. So how can we know what/who is wise? By knowing truth directly.
I imagine that would hurt and bring about a lot of suffering to those you love, though, so.... I mean, if you'd rather be dead than end your suffering in your current life and live in peace, then I guess that's your choice.
I could argue that since there is no self, and the "me" in the next life won't be the "me" in this one, that in order to end what I perceive as MY suffering, I might as well just throw myself off a bridge.
Basically what you're saying is that, the point of Buddhism is solely to end the cycle of literal rebirth... i.e. throw yourself off the proverbial bridge. Not really any different then, is it?
In that case, I daresay you're missing the entire point. Buddhism is about living in true happiness and without suffering, here and now, REGARDLESS of what happens after death. In the Kalama Sutta itself the Buddha explains this:
The Buddha, after attaining Enlightenment, still aged, got sick, and died like the rest of us, and yet he had already freed himself from suffering:
i had previously decided not to continue defending my propositions re: animal intelligence but have been following the strand of the discussion with interest. if the time is right, i may publish a little 'compare and contrast' project regarding animals and humans. ...which may or may not be of use to anyone, heh.
re: faith in buddhism,
quite simply, why would i need faith when i have experience?
re: no rebirth = no need for buddhism,
i've found plenty of use for buddhism without needing to believe in such concepts that predated it. for all i know, siddhartha realised that he needed to prolong the ideas of rebirth and karma in order for people in his part of the world to accept his message, and so being a master of pragmaticism, decided to make the compromise.
to me, buddhism is strongly linked to nature / natural law. if i do not perceive karma / rebirth in nature AND have no direct experience with them, then i see no reason at this time to believe in them. (entertain, yes. believe, no.)
btw, i am certainly not denying act - consequence, which i do not equate with karma. neither does it mean i can't see the metaphor of reincarnation, because as metaphors go, it's dandy and in fact nearly universal in all religions.
I think it's important to go back to the suttas for this. A lot of people have a lot of ideas on Kamma but the Buddhist view is very unique. In the context of Buddhism Kamma isn't simply "if you stick your hand in a fire, you will get burnt," nor is it "if you do something bad, you will be reborn as a mule."
There is much more to this sutta but this is enough to serve as an example. Read it with the understanding that we are reborn in every moment, with every action/"process." An understanding of Anatta/D.O. is necessary. The entire sutta, which explains the four types of Kamma, can be seen here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.057.nymo.html
The fourth kind of Kamma (exhaustion of Kamma) is synonymous with Nibbana (in which Anatta is fully realized and the "self/ego" that arises through D.O. is permanently extinguished) - consider why that might be. How is it a Buddha has no Kamma, and generates no new Kamma? If you understand this then I believe you'll understand what Kamma is in this context.
The Buddhist teachings on Kamma are not very mystical at all. If you read the suttas you'll find that you can in fact see this Kamma in every moment of our lives. The type of Kamma you're probably thinking about is not the same.
Perhaps I was painting with too big a brush, when I gave the impression that I thoughts or the brain/concepts were not useful. I think that is where we all start; in other words you have to start where you are in your thoughts.
But after meditating for a while, and even using what I call contemplation, (or looking directly at Aware and asking it questions, (like, "what are you?") we begin to see that thoughts are not the whole ball game. Thoughts are the impermanent part of what IS.
I am not against using reason. But, I am against becoming just an armchair philosopher, if you will. Thoughts can weave some mighty fine stories, but we must extricate our self from thought in order to examine what is behind thought, or investigate Awareness directly. It has its own flavor with no need of our wordy definitions.
S9,
Ignorance is the fact that this goes on continuously, everyday, right before our eyes, and we do not see it.
Someone once said, "Insanity is doing something that turns out badly, and thinking if you do it again it will turn out differently," and so you continue to do it.
I have seen a person walk into a room with a glum look on their face, day after day, and then ask me why no one seems to like them. This my friends, is instant karma.
S9
It's also true that when you're beginning (and perhaps for some time after) what you really need to focus on is meditation and developing compassion. Everything else is somewhat irrelevant until you can get grounded in those practices. Until you do, try being nice to each other and stop being so "right".
Palzang
It's been a friendly enough debate.
Indeed:
:eek2:
Indeed x2:
:eek2:
...
That's why I said to simply refer to and study the suttas, and most importantly, practice meditation to come to direct and experiential understandings, rather than listen to ANY "Buddha Dhamma hearsay," including mine.
that's marvelous insight and truly useful to me. i will study on the link a bit as i continue to slowly open myself to buddhism...
My point is that one doesn't need to ordain. There are teachers teaching these things right now, even in online lectures.
You might disagree with the idea that people should be referred to texts that are the foundation of a buddhist education, but it gives people a more accurate impression of what buddhism is.
Yes, the topic comes up in debates. Understanding rebirth is based on already having dismantled such arguments.
Rebirth is what the word 'rebirth' refers to. Buddhism 101.
Palzang
Very often, what we see as faults in others, if examined very closely, come right back home to live on our very own doorstep.
Ask your self this, “What part, of what I am so easily blaming others for, is also in me?
My grandmother used to say, “If you want the world to be a cleaner place, start first by washing your own doorsteps.” Grandma wisdom can often be very practical.
S9
Like everyone, including us. Logic and concepts are useful tools right now, but in the end, they don't matter, and are necessary to abandon.
Where did anyone here deny it?
The two references you provided seemed to be about texts studied within a monastary? If these texts are available online, or the lectures are, I again would be happy to take a look if you refer me to them. Searching Google for the first referenced text directs me to the site you already refered me too. If I missed something, please let me know.
Aaki, there's nothing to be getting upset over, but you seem to be taking this really personally? I'm not sure why, but I'm sorry. If you look through this Thread you'll see I don't disagree at all and have in fact suggested refering directly to the suttas for study. The suttas give a great idea of what it's all about; texts written by others give a great idea of what others understand it to be all about. Both are useful, but in the end, the suttas are probably best.
You keep saying there are all of these "proofs"... but that's as far as you go. You apparently see that my argument is flawed; if so, please dismantle my argument then or provide a text that does so, rather than just saying that it would be possible to do so. I do enjoy learning. Otherwise, this is absolutely pointless and unhelpful to anyone viewing this Thread.
I'm going to be honest: I have absolutely no idea what your response has to do with what I said there.
Palzang,
Please try to get the simple concept that we are not here to push our version of the Dharma. Who cares? We are simply reflecting what has been taught to us by our teachers, including the Buddha himself who I hear is also an Enlightened being, and presenting our own thoughts and understandings so that we can learn further from each other.
Palzang
I'm not blaming anybody for anything. I'm simply pointing out what I'm seeing. This board is rapidly becoming another e-sangha, and I don't like the argumentative nature of it. It's why I left e-sangha after only a brief stay. Too many know-it-alls who knew nothing. I have to agree with Brian; if people can't play by the rules of the house, then leave it.
Palzang
Palzang, you're creating conflict in this Thread. If the Moderators have an issue with something in this Thread, they'll let us know. But I think all us kiddos who "know-it-all" but "know nothing" are doing fine, and enjoying a nice, friendly debate. If we and our opinions are boring and below you, you do not have to read them. But I really don't think it's harming anyone.
"Ask your self this, “What part, of what I am so easily blaming others for, is also in me?" > "Ask your self this, “What part, of what I am so easily accusing others of/seeing in others, is also in me?" - I think this is what Subjectivity was getting at.
Crap! It terrifies me when KevinSolway is right about even the smallest things.
I, or my conception of I, have not been able to conceive of nothing. I am aware that what I do know is miniscule, though.
Those who truly know nothing have achieved something quite astounding.
My beliefs are irrelevant, whether or not any of them agree with yours. Beliefs are fantasies we create to imagine a reality we have no direct experience of. The Buddha, himself, advised us to put his words to the scrutiny of our own reason and personal experience, yet you expect us to accept your words on pure faith? I hope you won't take this personally, but not bloody likely.
Instead of concerning yourself so much with what others believe or don't believe, why not share some of that colorful mythology and wisdom that makes Tibetan Buddhism such a beautiful, powerful religion?
Namaste,
Arietta
Sounds good. Sounds reasonable.
This too.
::checks profile to see if it's the same poster as before::
:wtf:
:eek2:
I think Christmas has come early this year.
Great post. Thanks for this. That makes a lot of sense to me, and is as sound an explanation of karma as I've ever heard.
Instant karma is the best kind. For example, if I get angry with somebody and say something unkind, I might turn a corner and stub my toe. I love it when it happens, because then I know my debt is paid, and my lesson learned.
Thanx, : ^ )
The thing about Buddhism that I love, no one of the things that I love, is that it is at least practical and reasonable.
If nothing else, Buddhism is one of the greatest understandings of psychology ever. This is because we watch our mind, and our own behavior, up close and on a personal level. That in its self takes ALL of the hocus pocus right out of it. Our knowledge becomes living and breathing knowledge on a very intimate level.
Looking even deeper with time and true vigilance the Buddhist method of directly seeking within your own person will eventually tell you everything you need. It is not so much a discovery, but more an unveiling of your original treasure.
Warm regards,
S9
Gossip is such an ugly word, though. I prefer the term "biographical data."
Rawr. But indeed. The key difference is that some people understand that they only think so, and are open to hearing other opinions and even considering them.
But then it was decided unilaterally that a friendly debate and difference in opinions was not acceptable and should cease immediately. Why, this member, who is not a Moderator, even felt that he should decide what topics are and aren't acceptable to debate, and told us to leave if we didn't like it. (THIS sounds like e-sangha). The funny thing is, most people here weren't pushing an opinion on the literal rebirth/Kamma debate at all, but, rather, were saying they didn't even hold one. Ironically, the person who seems to hold the strongest position, the "I'm right, you're wrong" position, is the one who started complaining about others supposedly doing this in the first place.
Let's just get back to the topic... which actually, despite what someone thought, turned out to benefit a good number of people, including myself. Fantastic.
I just said I was included ("indeed")? Calm down? My god? Nice flaming in the last few posts btw...