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 is a mere speculation.
Hi everyone,
Just to let you know that I feel karma is a speculation and we shouldn't waste our time on it so much. All of this concern about the future withdraws us from the focus on living today. Who knows whether our actions will be rewarded in the future? We don't have any experiments to test it with. And doing good doesn't necessairly give you good back...it's a generalization.
Whether there is an afterlife or not, who cares? Focus on being the best person right now and growing as an individual. The process by which you are reborn is unproven.
Just to let you know that I feel karma is a speculation and we shouldn't waste our time on it so much. All of this concern about the future withdraws us from the focus on living today. Who knows whether our actions will be rewarded in the future? We don't have any experiments to test it with. And doing good doesn't necessairly give you good back...it's a generalization.
Whether there is an afterlife or not, who cares? Focus on being the best person right now and growing as an individual. The process by which you are reborn is unproven.
0
Comments
Do not our actions or karma determine the quality of our life?
Karma takes this logic into the moral realm but we have no way of knowning it's 100% true all the time.
Why do good people die and bad people live a good life? without entering karma into consideration, it's by chance. I don't believe in previous lives so my conclusion it is by chance. This is from my direct experience.
But when we meditate, if our mind is, say, angry, can't we feel the interal reactions or vibrations of that anger?
Or if I rob banks, is not that a risky pre-occupation? I may not get caught but then....
:mad:
Someone who studies is more LIKELY to get into university than someone who does not.
A nice person is more LIKELY to be respect than someone who is not.
A hardworking person is more LIKELY to become rich than a lazy bum!
The Buddha's teachings of kamma are not. Fivebells recently linked to the following article that explains kamma as the Buddha taught it and how crucial this understanding is to Buddhist practice (the purpose of which is understanding dukkha, and realising freedom from dukkha):
(note each word is a seperate link)
Yes...?
...Huh?
I take it you did not even briefly peruse the links before you responded. :P
lol just what I thought too.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
The Buddha was a man but was not the Buddha more than just an ordinary man?
I mean, I am just an ordinary man. Would you take an interest in what I say?
Quite.
There is no use in mere speculation.
Which is why the Buddha advised against mere speculation, but encouraged us to examine everything for ourselves, and to live by it, and to experience it, before proclaiming it skilful to our practise, or otherwise.
If you believe that Karma is mere specualtion, then that is what conclusion you have come to.
I'm very happy for you.
Karma is not something to evoke concern about the Future.
Karma is something which should evoke concern about your Present.
This is the only moment you can exist.
Therefore, your only concern should be about Living according to the Eightfold Path, right NOW.
The past is unchangeable, to any disputable extent.
The Future unfathomable, to any precise extent.
As to whether everything the Buddha said was true - what have you found about his teachings, that is a lie?
correct to the understanding so far and no reason to see it will change near future
kamma and kamma vipaka is mental
if you do something with intention now (cause) there is a result (effect) you experience in the next moment or any future time to come
'doing with intention' has to be define again
whatever you do now has intention whether you know it or not unless you are mindfulwith 'whatever you are doing at the moment'
intention may be greed, hate, delusion
you can say i have no greed or hate
but you can not say i have no delusion unless you have 'Right Understanding'
because almost all of us allmost all the time are not with 'Right Understaning' we create kamma and it is inevitable we experience kamma vipaka next moment or future time to come
so scientific 'action and reaction' is completely different to the buddhist 'kamma and kamma vipaka'
I disagree
I completely agree
Your intent is most important, not just the action itself.
Completely agree
And that's why we shouldn't be focusing all our attention on it and worrying whether it exists or not.
I guessed you don't believe in rebirth. You are right, if you don't believe in rebirth then karma also starts to fall apart.
Yes exactly
Yes exactly
Yes, if you believe that shakyamuni was a man then you'd have difficulty believing in the things he said. However, most buddhists believe shakyamuni was a Buddha, an Enlightened One. Therefore, most buddhists have faith that, with practice, we'll be able to understand the things we currently cannot. :cool:
Your argument is conditional on one doing 100% good or 100% bad all of the time, when the truth is most of us do good 50% of the time and bad 50% of the time. In other words, your logic in this argument is 100% flawed because the only way to see a 100% positive karmic reaction is to give 100% positive karmic action all of the time or vice versa. See where I am going.
If I live in a community and I committ to never steal 100% of the time, then no one else in that community will ever have anything stolen from them by me. Everyone, including myself, will benefit from me not stealing. In no way does that mean that your neighbor will not steal from you but it does keep you just and fair to your neighbors and that example will be contagious.
http://www.zen-deshimaru.com/EN/sangha/deshimaru/q-r/0303.htm
It's inevitable, it's always there (good or bad karma), everything you do: Karma is there... everthing you think: Karma is there... Everytime you meditate: Karma is there...
It keeps coming to the surface, and where are constantly creating Karma.
It's not about speculation, it's about action and living
Well, if you want my opinion...
Palzang
Then don't, that would certainly be understandable. Spend your time living your life and being happy, my friend.
Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Kamma or intention and its effects are highly complicated and not readily predicted. Like the chaos theory in the physical world nothing is truly random.
Imagine the Buddha speaking about the origin of the Universe 2500 years ago and the current endless scientific attempts to "discover" the origins ie Big Bang, multiverse etc.
But if you see it as I think the buddha intended, as moral/mental causation it becomes really very clear:)
You might like my essay What is Karma? Here
Thanks
Mat
Palzang
You do not know what he encouraged or taught, simply, thats the fact:) We can all only speculate on that.
Do not forget, it was 500 years and fifteen hundred miles between what he taught and what was first written down. You have absolutely no way to suggest otherwise, unless there is some secret text I don't know about?
Palzang
This really isn't about my ego:) Another arrow in the quiver. If someone is in disagremnet call them ignorant. If that isn't the case then blame their ego:)
Essentially:
You told me I could not speculate on the suttras.
I answered that in fact all we can do is specualte on the suttras because of teh reasons (there are more) stated.
The suttras cannot possibly be beyond speculation, it is that simple.
This is not about ego.
This is a claim I am stating as fact for you to either ignore, show wrong or accept.
If you think you can silence me by patronising that I am merely wrong, I will keep seeking your clarification.
That's called being reasonable not egotistical:)
To talk about Rational Buddhism and hopefully further my understating of it whilst at the same time continually working on my own theories:)
Its really quite a shame that you would even ask this question. Do you really think I would spend so much time debating here, or working hard for Dharma, if my intentions were not positive?
Frankly, the lack of tolerance I am showed here is astounding, considering this is a Buddhist forum:)
I try hard to always be polite (sometimes I fail, I admit) yet the fact I don't agree with people here, seems to have me branded with a very negative brush.
I shall continue being involved here so I simply suggest you don't read my essays and comments:) You simply will never persuade me whilst relying on any aspect of the Suttras because, as I have argued really convincingly on salted.net, they are completely questionable.
Show me wrong or kindly ignore me:)
Peace:)
Mat
So what, you like to question the sutras. I think we all should. Just because someone sneaks some crap into a bunch of holy texts doesn't change how wrong it is. Props for you.
From a rational point of view though, having irrational beliefs can be the rational thing to do. Our main goal is to go through life with less or no suffering, that is quite an objective truth, right? Our mind evolves to, our beliefs are centered in what makes us cope better with life. Now, our coping skills not always reflect the reality we are in, do you agree? In fact, whenever we attribute meaning to something, be it a person, a concept, an object...that evaluation process comes solely from us, and not by nature of reality itself, which doesn't have a tag on everything saying "this is good, this is bad, this is acceptable, this is not", that is the reason why you might come across as offensive, no matter how polite you might seem, because you are fundamentally attacking what makes a given person tick, what makes them carry on with their business.
I don't agree with all you say, but I am open to you and I accept the uneasiness you cause as a gift. Thank you.
2) If you want to work on your theories, don't work by telling everyone else you're right and everyone else is wrong. As a Moderator, it's my job to establish these things. Your motives are not as important to me as you think. What matters is your attitude. And it seems intransigent and fixed.
You want lack of tolerance? try posting your opinions on Biblical texts on a Christian forum. That will show you what intolerance is.
We're not intolerant. We're merely frustrated that you seem so stuck in the view that everything is to be doubted, that you don't seem to have any room for manoeuvre where you'd permit yourself to be convinced by something.
No, you've done that. we're merely observing the work of Art.
Sorry. it's my job. And if you don't like being challenged, why don't you go try this elsewhere? Salted.net is your own creation. No wonder you think you have a convincing argument....
If you won't be convinced, then I ask you again - Why are you here?
because you sure as heck aren't convincing us.
You're just being tiresome.
I see you joined this website in November, but have posted nothing.
Why is that?
I might almost think that the high quantity of well-versed Dhamma experts there, are putting you off posting your theories because you know you'd be shot down in flames pretty quickly.
or am I wrong?
May I offer my 2 cents. I don't think the problem is with your theories. It is fine that you have divergent beliefs from mainstream buddhism. But what I noticed in talking to you that I felt frustrated that I wasn't listened to. It was as if you had a huge agenda to convert souls to matism. The point is to have a sharing dialogue. If you make some bold statements about how so and so is wrong (or look at my website for example) its not going to accomplish anything.
On the other hand if you sincerely with curiousity ask others about their beliefs and ask them polite questions. Then they re-examine their beliefs. Not to change them but just to see more clearly what their beliefs are. In that respect you may have a dialogue.
Also keep in mind that to some extent there is a mandala with buddhist principles as accepted by the mainstream. By challenging that mandala you are going to confront the 'guardians' of the mandala. They are just being protective.
Try to find some positive way to exchange energy (with mutual benefit and respect) with this mandala (without evangelizing) or you will probably be perma banned. Which would make me sad.
Thanks for your comments:) I agree, people don't need to be on the same side to walk the same path:)
Yes, though that is a pessimistic expression of the goal. It seems all religions over time pessimise things. I see it more to go through life increasing peace, truth and happiness. But yes, same coin, different sides:)
>>>Now, our coping skills not always reflect the reality we are in, do you agree?
There is a profound difference between what something represents and what something is instantiated in. Our skills and views may not represent reality, often they don't. However they are completely conditioned by the underlying truths of that reality.
>>In fact, whenever we attribute meaning to something, be it a person, a concept, an object...that evaluation process comes solely from us, and not by nature of reality itself, which doesn't have a tag on everything saying "this is good, this is bad, this is acceptable, this is not"...
I disagree:) I think the dharmic truths show why things are good or bad:) Compassion is good because it propagates more good effects, and for other reasons to.
Equally to believe something as certain (as many scriptiual literalists do) when clearly it is not certain is bad method. It propagates more falsehood into the world.
>>>...that is the reason why you might come across as offensive, no matter how polite you might seem, because you are fundamentally attacking what makes a given person tick, what makes them carry on with their business.
Sure, I appreciate that. Equally my certainty that there is no anthopcentric god goes against Christian sensibilities. That doesn't mean i should not have these thoughts or write them down to be discussed.
I appreciate you are not saying I shouldn't do this, just that I should expect the responce:) If someone has spent the life reading the suttras as litteral and i raise doubts about that litterality, well, sorry, thats not my fault, nor is that bad. Simply, isn't wrong view to believe them as orthodox because we can never know either way:)
I wish you well:)
Mat
If a response relies on premises I reject, ie, scriptual authenticity or Buddhist othodoxy, then I am not going to focus on this in any thoughts or reply.
>>>It was as if you had a huge agenda to convert souls to matism.
Not at all. I dont know why people say this:) I posted my essays and responded to the criticism. I think the non rational Buddhists are irrational, but that doesn't mean there is anything i want to convert them to. Reason, Truth and History clearly shows the way to signifigant questions about the accuracy of Buddhism:)
>>>Also keep in mind that to some extent there is a mandala with buddhist principles as accepted by the mainstream. By challenging that mandala you are going to confront the 'guardians' of the mandala. They are just being protective.
There should be no guardians, really. The Buddha says as much:) Let's not forget we are told he left no instruction on who or what should be done with Dharma. That in istelf speaks loads to me, how about you?
Be well:)
Mat
You can believe whatever you like, but you haven't provided one single proof of why we shouldn't believe that the sutras are exactly what the Buddha said. The proof is in the pudding, and the proof is that the method works. What other proof could you possibly expect? I also find it interesting how you avoid acknowledging this point while claiming to be interested in having a dialogue.
Palzang
Palzang
You did say this:
>>The Buddha did not engage in speculation. He taught from his own direct experience. If you choose not to believe what he taught, that's your business, but don't call it speculation because it's not.
That is pretty clear to me:)
>>>You can believe whatever you like, but you haven't provided one single proof of why we shouldn't believe that the sutras are exactly what the Buddha said.
I think I have:) Can you tell me where I am wrong here?
>>>The proof is in the pudding, and the proof is that the method works.
I agree the method works!:) That is not what is in debate:) What is in debate, for me, is why the method is the case. IE what are the prior realisations that lead to the 4NT etc:)
>>>What other proof could you possibly expect? I also find it interesting how you avoid acknowledging this point while claiming to be interested in having a dialogue.
I have acknowelged it, the prove is that which is indubitable, which for me is core dharma, ie, annica, antaman, dukka, magga...
Mat
Palzang
I care:) I don't care if you care:) I do care if you say you don't care and then tell me I cannot care or that I am mistaken in caring in what I care about:)
Unto each their own:) Be your own light, I'll be mine, and maybe we will have some interesting chats along the way:)
Peace
That is an interesting and inspiring story.
Mat,
With all respect your method is illogical. You claim that the method works and that is not in question, right? But you want to know how the fundamentals came to be. If the methods work, then isn't that proof that we are following the truths the Buddha taught?
Palzang
Yes, it is. I knew her well, and I'm so happy she "made it". It shows that liberation is attainable in this life, which should be good news for everybody.
Palzang
No:) Again you miss my point.
I am saying:
1) Try to Doubt Everything as the KS says
2) Ascertain What cannot be doubted: for me , Annica , Dukka, Magga etc
3) Discard that which can be doubted: for me, rebirth, the supernatural etc.
What is illogical about that?
How do you know what is important? Where do you get that from? How can you say my ontological explorations in dhrama are mental clutter?
Do you not see how arrogant your statement is and patronising you sound?
Are you enlightened?
What is supernatural for some is easily understood by others, the Earth being round was thought to be superstition. What gets complicated is how we understand our experience on Earth because we are so easily persuaded by our perceptions of reality. It is easy to say, I don't get it so it is wrong. As a seeker of truth I say, I don't get it, let me try every reasonable method to test the theory before I claim it as false.
Peace unto you my friend!!!