So heres the deal...

letsgodowntherabbith

I just complelty don't understand Merit. The more I read and listen to dharma talks on it the more mysterious it becomes.

I'm really "into" it though, I just want to understand it so bad. I want to understand how it works, why things that give good merit do so, and what is the difference betwen having good merit and karma?

Really anything you are willing to teach me about it I want to know. My understanding of it just isn't coming to me as easy as it has with other things. Are there any meditations I can do to help?

caz

Good merit is postive potential karma, good actions equals good effects and so on, all things are karma why that chicken curry i had last night and what it did to my bowels would be bad karma probley for my lack of vegetarianism and the fact that it left the negative potential by my eating it and then i experienced suffering as a result.

Karma is simply action/intention.
Karma is also the results of actions and intention also known as the karmic effect.
Merit is another term for good karma.
Potential karma is action intention created in the past either positive or negative this has the potential to ripen in daily life or at sometime in the future If my intent is to go to the shops i will have some previous potential karma ripening at the time i decide to go to the shops and my experience of going to the shops being the result of previous action and intent is potential karma rippend.

Hope that helped.

letsgodowntherabbith

caz namyaw wrote: »

Good merit is postive potential karma, good actions equals good effects and so on, all things are karma why that chicken curry i had last night and what it did to my bowels would be bad karma probley for my lack of vegetarianism and the fact that it left the negative potential by my eating it and then i experienced suffering as a result.

Karma is simply action/intention.
Karma is also the results of actions and intention also known as the karmic effect.
Merit is another term for good karma.
Potential karma is action intention created in the past either positive or negative this has the potential to ripen in daily life or at sometime in the future If my intent is to go to the shops i will have some previous potential karma ripening at the time i decide to go to the shops and my experience of going to the shops being the result of previous action and intent is potential karma rippend.

Hope that helped.

Ok, first off I promise these are not loaded questions, they are simply honest. I don't mean to make a fool of anyone.

Under your explanation of Karma, does all karma ripen? Can certain karma trump other karma. If going to the shops is the result of previous action and intent is potential karma ripened, would it then be true that not going to the shop because you changed your mind/something else came up/ect be a ripening of your choice of not going while your choice of going never ripens?

these are elementary examples, I know, but I feel I'm at an elementary level in all this.
Sorry if I'm being dense.
How does merit relate to karma? I have read that walking around a certain object can create merit as well as eating a vegetarian meal. I also read that you should dedicate the merit you create so it's not lost. This is where my head starts swimming. I just don't understand it, on the surface merit feels a little like creating good luck which seems to be not based in fact but I know for it to survive and thrive in Buddhism that just can't be true. It is grounded in fact someplace, it has to be, I just can't seem to wrap my mind around it.

caz

All karma eventually ripens if you decide to go to the shops but dont the potential for performing that action is still alive and will eventually result in you making your trip.
As i previously said merit is simply good karma, what you are refering to are virtuous objects possibley a stupa it is said by walking around these objects and viewing them as a buddha's mind we create a good deal of positive potential karma which is otherwise known as merit.
Dedication for example when we create positive potential karma such as feeding the ducks with a virtuous intent this will create merit, we dedicate our merit usually by reciting a short dedication for me i usually say " May by performing this action the karma ripen so all beings may experience pure happiness " or something to that effect anyway, how it works is by creating more positive potential karma the previous merit you have collected by feeding the ducks is imprinted upon ones own mental continuum and by dedicating this to a cause such as the happiness of all living beings the karma from such an activity will become a potential cause of happiness for all beings and thus becomes like a drop in a container when this container is full the karma shall ripen, and the karma may even ripen when the container isnt full but by dedicating these good actions we actually prevent the potential imprints they leave on our own mental continuum from being destroyed by such negative actions as anger and so forth.

What you must understand is friend is that every action of body, speech and mind we create has a potential for us to experience its effects. This is easily demonstratable, if i push this glass off my table i will have created and action and because i have created this action i will soon experience the effect of the glass hitting the floor.
This isnt just some magical good luck thing.

Valtiel

all things are karma why that chicken curry i had last night and what it did to my bowels would be bad karma probley for my lack of vegetarianism and the fact that it left the negative potential by my eating it and then i experienced suffering as a result.

I imagine it had more to do with the curry.

fivebells

letsgodowntherabbithole wrote: »

Really anything you are willing to teach me about it I want to know. My understanding of it just isn't coming to me as easy as it has with other things. Are there any meditations I can do to help?

Good works lead to a good state of mind, in which it's easier to let things go. There's not really much more to it than that.

prajnamind

Simply, Karma is our bodily and verbal actions done. These then will (definitely) brings results or consequences. These results we can call merits, if they are the good and positive ones.

Next, we have meditation help? Personally, I don't think meditation can help in the cessation of "karma". For beginners, meditation can give your mind a chance to relax and not stress it out too much.

Valtiel

Next, we have meditation help? Personally, I don't think meditation can help in the cessation of "karma".

How would you propose one goes about the cessation of kamma then? o_O

Only with the realization of anatta (Nibbana), only with ending Delusion, can there be "no kamma." "No kamma" (the last of the four types of kamma) as defined by the Buddha is synonymous with Nibbana. Meditation is absolutely necessary for this.

Welcome btw.

letsgodowntherabbith

It's midnight and I just read these post. Thank you guys so much for helping me with this. As of right now, I still am not understand but a good nights sleep may clear my mind. I am starting to see that this topic can only be truly understood through living it I think though. That may be the lack of sleep talking though

Thank you guys again, you are great!

caz

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

I imagine it had more to do with the curry.

Yup i wouldnt disagree

prajnamind

At least not in the way modern meditation practices are mean to be, it is not the objectives of meditation. Ending delusion (through realizing No-self or Emptiness) will end karma - sure. And to end delusion, one has to practise the three learnings, and not just one or two but all three. Meditation, per se, is just one part of this process.

caz

prajnamind wrote: »

At least not in the way modern meditation practices are mean to be, it is not the objectives of meditation. Ending delusion (through realizing No-self or Emptiness) will end karma - sure. And to end delusion, one has to practise the three learnings, and not just one or two but all three. Meditation, per se, is just one part of this process.

Ah will it end karma though ? seeing as karma is simply action/intention ?

prajnamind

This is a very good question. Even very realized Bodhisattvas and Arhats (except Buddhas) still peform karma, but only pure and wholesome ones. So how do we stop karma - or do we? This is beyond the present Beginners' Buddhism.

So, therefore, to give a general and simple beginners' answer will be that we can't stop karma with meditation practices or understanding Non-self and Emptiness. "Sad".

pegembara

Read this

Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching

The work presented here is based on a single chapter from Buddhadhamma, by Venerable P. A. Payutto. Buddhadhamma is perhaps the author's most formal and ambitious book to date, a volume of over one thousand pages dealing with the whole of the Buddha's teaching. Although the work is scholarly in approach, it renders the Buddhist themes so often misunderstood or considered beyond the scope of the ordinary layman more approachable in practical terms.

The venerable author is one of the foremost Buddhist scholars in Thailand today.

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma.htm

caz

prajnamind wrote: »

This is a very good question. Even very realized Bodhisattvas and Arhats (except Buddhas) still peform karma, but only pure and wholesome ones. So how do we stop karma - or do we? This is beyond the present Beginners' Buddhism.

So, therefore, to give a general and simple beginners' answer will be that we can't stop karma with meditation practices or understanding Non-self and Emptiness. "Sad".

Why except buddha's ?

Valtiel

Ah will it end karma though ? seeing as karma is simply action/intention ?

Kamma is not simply cause/effect (which of course would continue...). Kamma is mental and a result of acting under the false assumption of a "self," a result of seeing the world through the tainted view of "self" and acting on it. For a Buddha, anatta is reality.

caz

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

Kamma is not simply cause/effect (which of course would continue...). Kamma is mental and a result of acting under the false assumption of a "self," a result of seeing the world through the tainted view of "self" and acting on it. For a Buddha, anatta is reality.

LOL but even anatta possess anatta

Valtiel

Anatta possesses anatta...? Anatta is a thing which is capable of possession...?

caz

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

Anatta possesses anatta...?

No-self possess no-self, self and no-self are illusory

Valtiel

Anatta doesn't mean "no self." If it did, I would agree, because the view of "no self" is ironically bound up in self-view. Anatta means "not-self" and is not a view/belief and is a core teaching of the Buddha's.

To elaborate on my LOL-worthy post :

Kamma and Not-Self: The question of kamma and not-self is confusing and difficult to understand for various reasons. A monk once asked the Buddha, "How does kamma done by not-self give results for self?" This question arose because of the teaching on not-self that points out how the "actor" is merely a mind-body process void of self. After an action (kamma) is done by a selfless mind-body, how could it have any results for a "self" who is the "doer" who intentionally did that deed. The new concept of not-self contradicts the old concept of self. There is a self that claims to be not-self and does things in the name of not-self, but the sense of self still exists to receive the results of the deeds. Hence, this monk’s question. If we see it rightly, we will understand that when the mind-body is not-self, the results of its actions will happen to a selfless mind-body, also. However, if that mind-body is full of a sense of self, the results of its actions will always happen to this apparent self If kamma is not-self, its result will be not-self, and what occurs in accordance with kamma will be not-self. The things, whether human or animal, that we conventionally speak of as "actors (doers of kamma)" will also be not-self. The facts of kamma and not-self are never separate and never oppose each other.

...

Kamma in Buddhism is that kamma (action) which leads to the end of all kamma so that life is above and beyond kamma. Far from despicable, it is something to be understood and fully integrated into our lives. "Living beyond kamma" is something to be realized and attained.


Mokkhabalarama, Chaiya
April 7, 1988

Kamma is done by the illusion of "self" and is received by the illusion of "self." Anatta (which once again does not mean "no self" or whatever) actualized is the ending of kamma as taught by the Buddha. Kamma is not simply cause-and-effect, and does not simply mean "if you eat curry, you'll pay for it all night long."

Edit-

Oops, missed this response:

At least not in the way modern meditation practices are mean to be, it is not the objectives of meditation. Ending delusion (through realizing No-self or Emptiness) will end karma - sure. And to end delusion, one has to practise the three learnings, and not just one or two but all three. Meditation, per se, is just one part of this process.

Truly ending delusion ends greed and hatred.

prajnamind

Probably because I think only Buddhas has or can stop all subtle thoughts. Thus no thoughts equal no intention, which according to Ven Payutto is "kamma".

Perhaps you have a better opinion on this??

prajnamind

Yes, I prefer your view that "kamma" is not just cause and effect. It goes beyond this. Which could mean that Arhat, though having ended the cycle of birth and death has your ideas of Kamma as referred or hinted here by you? Which, in turn may mean the kamma of a Buddha and Arhat are differrent in subtle ways?

prajnamind

o0Mundus-Vult-Decipi0o wrote: »

Anatta doesn't mean "no self." If it did, I would agree, because the view of "no self" is ironically bound up in self-view. Anatta means "not-self" and is not a view/belief and is a core teaching of the Buddha's.

To elaborate on my LOL-worthy post :

Oops! I do mean Non-self and not No-self. Sorry for the typing errors.

Kamma is done by the illusion of "self" and is received by the illusion of "self." Anatta (which once again does not mean "no self" or whatever) actualized is the ending of kamma as taught by the Buddha. Kamma is not simply cause-and-effect, and does not simply mean "if you eat curry, you'll pay for it all night long."

If realizing Anatta itself is the ending of kamma, then the Buddha and his arhats would not have committed any kamma. But the Buddha had taught and acted and intent (as in intention, which is Kamma as define by Ven. Payutto)
The Arhats disciples as well also act and perform deeds which has kamma. These various deeds, in its physical planes are still done by the self, and not the Non-self which they all have realized.

Unless, Ven. Payutto or yourself has a better resolve for this cause of events and activities, I am still incline to think that kamma (of the Self and Non-self kinds) does not end kamma (of the ultimate kind).

Edit-

Oops, missed this response:



Truly ending delusion ends greed and hatred.

Delusion can ends greed and hatred, but not kamma - yet.

LOL.

Valtiel

Delusion can ends greed and hatred, but not kamma - yet.

I didn't say delusion can end greed and hatred. It cannot. But you seem to think so? O_o It's contradictory.

The three poisons are inseparable. When you wear away one, you wear away the others. You cannot fully eradicate just one of them.

By what method did the Buddha attain Nibbana? You said, "meditation cannot end kamma," yet the "ending of kamma" is synonymous with Nibbana.

LOL.

Oops! I do mean Non-self and not No-self. Sorry for the typing errors.

So one of the core doctrines of Buddhism is an illusion? What are you talking about? What does "anatta has an anatta, and anatta is an illusion" mean?

Edit - wait, I quoted Caz there, not you. Caz said "anatta has an anatta, and anatta is an illusion."