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
newtech
Veteran
hello.
if karma means trends of the mind/that leades to consequences. why its the only thing that remains after the death of the body?. i mean what principle/logic says: only the tendences of the mind transmigrate, not the visual memories, or the affect to a single person, etc.
thank you!
if karma means trends of the mind/that leades to consequences. why its the only thing that remains after the death of the body?. i mean what principle/logic says: only the tendences of the mind transmigrate, not the visual memories, or the affect to a single person, etc.
thank you!
0
Comments
The simple answer is, it doesn't; that's simply a misunderstanding of what kamma is and how it works. There's nothing that "transmigrates" in Buddhism, there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life.
Karma is in truth the totality of all conditionality within the universe, all one and together. That is why sometimes your karma does not come back to you within a lifetime, yet it still is a part of the totality and still has the potential for change in the future.
The totality of karma is processed by the mechanism of Dependent Origination. That is, all appropriate conditions lead to change, which becomes the plateau of new conditions for future growth. We are in Buddhism concerned with "our karma", which we take to mean our intentional/volitional actions, because it is through correct understanding of how our actions affect change that we can make the correct decisions to lead us to a goal many moves in advance.
There are always deeper meanings. Come to understand how everything fits together, not just within ourselves but for the entire universe, and you will feel the life that is all-pervasive as a characteristic of its existence.
Where has the Buddha said that something remains after the death of the physical body?
So to answer the OPs question in order for karma to transmit between lives it would have to be 'mysterious' and operate outside of space and time.
* For example The Jewel Ornament of Liberation which is a basic Lam Rim text for practice in the kagyu lineage claims that karma conditions future lives
Edit: As far as visual memories those don't even transmigrate within your life. At least I don't have good visual memories. Maybe others do? I didn't know what you meant by 'affect to a single person', though we do form karmic connections to people. That is part of the basis of the paramitas of a bodhisattva. One wisdom paramita is to enlighten. The other 5 support the wisdom paramita but they also make teh bodhisattva more attractive to other beings so that the bodhisattva can form karmic connections with them.
from http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_The_Danger_of_I.htm
your next life is the next moment, as oppose to being re-borned in the future after your death, in another physical body.
in this context, makes alot more sense, at least when dealing with our current situations.
Yes Tibetan Buddhism. Death is thoroughly discussed in that tradition. Its believed deaths occur between thoughts and you go through a bardo though you don't notice in which you have a chance to see the clear light of mind (buddha nature/emptiness). But this also clearly and explicitly extends to the death ie termination of the body.
While not as familiar with Tibetan Buddhism, in Theravada the literal interpretation of rebirth is viewed as an instantaneous process whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness—kind of like "spooky action at a distance," where two entangled particles seemingly communicate with each other instantaneously, even over great distances.
I'm not as studied in Tibetan tradition as you are the Therevadan! I just recall my teacher explaining that karma connections were mysterious and that they would have to go outside of space and time. That sounds interesting about how the particles communicate.
We want to believe we are special somehow. But special to what? To whom? Apparently to ourselves, and we all know that the self of the mind is mind-made; at least if we understand the concept of Non-Self. If not to ourselves, then to some god or gods. We either judge ourselves or find judgment from a higher power. I find it all fascinating.
I've struggled my entire life, or at least since 13ish, to understand the hows, the whys of reality. To identify which religion, which philosophy, which science held truth. We are a myriad species of mind-boggling imagination, hopes and dreams; nightmares. It turns out that Buddhism is the closest thing we have, but it's not the perfect solution yet. Perhaps if we keep working at it, we'll restore what the Buddha must have truly taught.
I think we may find that 90% of the totality is in accord with his teachings at-the-time and with reality as it stands. I'm sure we'd all disagree, but wouldn't it be grand if we took up the task? No one individual, and no one tradition, could do it. Together... we could. Until then, all schools of Buddhism teach of the cessation of suffering; all lead to liberation, given that the conditions are right.
Of course. I am not saying there is something wrong in belief in rebirth or non-belief in rebirth. An individual's belief is just that, an individual's belief. The Buddha never gave answers to questions like "what will happen after death", "what will be the beginning of the universe" etc. At least the suttas do not seem to give any information about such in detail.
The essence of the Buddha's teachings are verifiable here and now. They are not conceptualizations or speculations.
And what is wrong view?That things occur by chance. There is no result of actions. For one born with a birth defect or struck down by illness or accident, it is a matter of being in the wrong place, wrong time or having the wrong parents. There is no one with answers. One with this view cannot escape suffering.
Here there is a ray of hope that gives rise to faith and reduces suffering. One acquires merit or a place in heaven. There is hope in the future. This is no different from other religions. Without faith there is no 1st step.
Here the transcendent right view emerges from direct meditative experience. Truth emerges that suffering results from attachment to greed, hatred and delusion [of permanence, attractiveness of things and a self]. End of suffering[nibbana] can be realized here and now.
There is no thought, no action, that is not conditioned. We can choose to think that the choice is ours, that the will is ours, but there is no 'self' to make such claims. There is no doer of the deed, only the engine of Dependent Origination that drives forth the universe and all of its component parts.
There are results to actions, but no one that acts. And these results are yet further conditions. We must fully understand both Non-Self and Dependent Origination to bring into view the correct understanding of this truth. To speak of one without the other in mind, when it comes to statements of who may or may not find release from suffering, is not final Right View; only a misguided initial Right View, as the first part of the path rather than the last that it is meant to represent.
One who by conditions suffers, by conditions seeks release from suffering, by conditions finds the teachings of the Buddha and by conditions properly follows the path so that the "right" conditions for awakening occur... finds freedom. That is the way, and it is not you; you are not it. You are empty of any true identity, and are driven forth by the same guiding principle, the same base functionality, as everything else that exists. Nothing more, nothing less.
Whew. And here I haven't slept all night. Go figure.
~
Care to elaborate?
~
It's true that there are no suttas that give a detailed explanation of this process, and none that suggest "something" is reborn, but there are suttas that imply such a process and provide imagery to illustrate it. In SN 44.9, for example, the Buddha uses a simile in which, it can be argued, he compares the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death to illustrate how craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births. Nevertheless, the detailed workings of this process are to be found in the Abhidhamma and Pali commentaries, not the suttas.
While many people reject the Abhidhamma and commentaries as a reliable source of information regarding what the Buddha taught, I don't think the views of the Buddha and the ancient commentators such as Buddhaghosa are necessarily mutually exclusive. It's true, for example, that the Pali term "patisandhi-citta" (re-linking consciousness) — which is used to explain the process of rebirth in detail — is only found in the commentarial literature; but one can just as easily argue that such a "re-linking" consciousness is implied in places like SN 44.9, where the Buddha states that, "... when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time."
Of course, one can just as easily re-interpret such statements, or to be more precise, translations, in such a way as to support a single-life presentation of dependent co-arising and non-postmortem rebirth (i.e., keeping solely within the framework of what I'd call psychological processes), which I have no problem with personally. That's why I prefer to leave it up to the individual to decide what interpretation or model they find more useful in their approach to the study and practice of the Dhamma.
I can relate to this, Stephen. In Vedanta, karma primarily means the work that emanates from within, whether mental, physical, or emotional. Samskaras are the mental "rivulets" (or "scars" if negative) that in large part determine our karma, our work, if we do not apply ourselves to new life.
I write this just in case anyone else sees a lot of this talk on karma leading, in many cases, to no good end. "As you sow, so shall you reap" is the Western idea of karma, but really it goes much deeper.
I prefer to go by what is verifiable here and now just like the Buddha would have taught it
This is a matter of opinion.
Its actually the opinion that holds the onus of defense in the "rebirth debate".
Not the other way around.
Not that there is anything wrong with that opinion. Its valuable and produces results, but we cant definitively state one way or the other as absolute fact.
Of the Buddha
Of course, we can't. Most importantly it's irrelevant to Nibbana
ha, on that opinion I would disagree completely.:)
Yes, depending on the context, the Pali term kaya, which here is translated as "body," can refer to both the physical body (rupa-kaya) and the mental body (nama-kaya). In this case, I think that it can be reasonably interpreted both ways considering Vaccha's initial question.
My point, however, wasn't to suggest that one interpretation is the only correct way to read this sutta, it was simply to demonstrate there are suttas that provide imagery to illustrate the process of rebirth. Depending on how you want to interpret this sutta, both interpretations can be supported, and traditionally, Theravada has taken a literalist approach. I don't care which people prefer, I'm just sharing what I know.
Here's the Pali for anyone that's interested:
‘‘Purimāni , bho gotama , divasāni purimatarāni sambahulānaṃ nānātitthiyānaṃ samaṇabrāhmaṇānaṃ paribbājakānaṃ kutūhalasālāyaṃ sannisinnānaṃ sannipatitānaṃ ayamantarākathā udapādi – ‘ayaṃ kho pūraṇo kassapo saṅghī ceva gaṇī ca gaṇācariyo ca ñāto yasassī titthakaro sādhusammato bahujanassa. Sopi sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’ti. Yopissa sāvako uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto tampi sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’’’ti.
‘‘Ayampi kho makkhali gosālo…pe… ayampi kho nigaṇṭho nāṭaputto…pe… ayampi kho sañcayo [sañjayo (sī. syā. kaṃ. pī.)] belaṭṭhaputto…pe… ayampi kho pakudho [pakuddho (pī.)] kaccāno…pe… ayampi kho ajito kesakambalo saṅghī ceva gaṇī ca gaṇācariyo ca ñāto yasassī titthakaro sādhusammato bahujanassa. Sopi sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’ti. Yopissa sāvako uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto tampi sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’’’ti.
‘‘Ayampi kho samaṇo gotamo saṅghī ceva gaṇī ca gaṇācariyo ca ñāto yasassī titthakaro sādhusammato bahujanassa. Sopi sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’ti. Yopissa [yo ca khvassa (pī.)] sāvako uttamapuriso paramapuriso paramapattipatto tañca sāvakaṃ abbhatītaṃ kālaṅkataṃ upapattīsu na byākaroti – ‘asu amutra upapanno, asu amutra upapanno’ti. Api ca kho naṃ evaṃ byākaroti – ‘acchecchi taṇhaṃ, vivattayi saṃyojanaṃ, sammā mānābhisamayā antamakāsi dukkhassā’ti. Tassa mayhaṃ, bho gotama, ahu deva kaṅkhā, ahu vicikicchā – ‘kathaṃ nāma [kathañhi nāma (syā. kaṃ. pī. ka.) kathaṃ kathaṃ nāma (chakkaṅguttare pañcamavagge dutiyasutte)] samaṇassa gotamassa dhammo abhiññeyyo’’’ti [dhammābhiññeyyāti (pī. ka.) dhammo… aññeyyo (chakkaṅguttare)]?
‘‘Alañhi te, vaccha, kaṅkhituṃ, alaṃ vicikicchituṃ. Kaṅkhanīye ca pana te ṭhāne vicikicchā uppannā. Saupādānassa khvāhaṃ, vaccha, upapattiṃ paññāpemi no anupādānassa. Seyyathāpi , vaccha, aggi saupādāno jalati, no anupādāno; evameva khvāhaṃ, vaccha, saupādānassa upapattiṃ paññāpemi, no anupādānassā’’ti.
‘‘Yasmiṃ , bho gotama, samaye acci vātena khittā dūrampi gacchati, imassa pana bhavaṃ gotamo kiṃ upādānasmiṃ paññāpetī’’ti? ‘‘Yasmiṃ kho, vaccha, samaye acci vātena khittā dūrampi gacchati, tamahaṃ vātūpādānaṃ paññāpemi. Vāto hissa, vaccha, tasmiṃ samaye upādānaṃ hotī’’ti. ‘‘Yasmiñca pana, bho gotama, samaye imañca kāyaṃ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṃ kāyaṃ anupapanno hoti, imassa pana bhavaṃ gotamo kiṃ upādānasmiṃ paññāpetī’’ti? ‘‘Yasmiṃ kho, vaccha, samaye imañca kāyaṃ nikkhipati, satto ca aññataraṃ kāyaṃ anupapanno hoti, tamahaṃ taṇhūpādānaṃ vadāmi. Taṇhā hissa, vaccha, tasmiṃ samaye upādānaṃ hotī’’ti [hotīti…pe… (ka.)]. Navamaṃ.
Matter of opinion
There should be a "like" button on here like they have on Buttbook.
:crazy:
Are both interpretations verifiable?
So what do you think that exists with craving as a sustenance?
Above all, the Lord Buddha's idea of karma was an ethical one, not a metaphysical one. Buddha eschewed metaphysical arguments.
That is a matter of which there is much proof.
How did you make that judgment without giving a rat's ear?
In either interpretation, rebirth is the continuation of a process — nothing "remains," nothing "transmigrates," etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life. The only difference I see is that one side believes this process ceases at death, regardless of whether there's still craving present in the mind, and the other doesn't.
Beyond that, I'm not interesting in getting into a debate with you about rebirth. You've obviously made up your mind about where you stand, and seeing as how I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, I see little point in going any further.
Sorry, Nirvy. Personally, I think it's useful up to a certain point. For example, I think it's important that people who are new to Buddhism are presented with each side. That way they can decide for themselves what's more helpful to their practice. Sometimes people simply find the teachings on rebirth useful, and it's not for me to judge whether they are right or wrong in doing so. Buddhism is flexible like that.
My issue is with the headstrong discussions.
There is no right answer. It's analagous to whether it's more correct to prefer peaches or to prefer mangoes.
They are both correct choices for the discriminating eater.
The Buddha taught harmony, not discursiveness.
In the end religions can tend to make people a bit crazy and, as a result, they lose sight of the essentials, I am afraid.
anyone who think "peaches" is clearly ignorant and should be regarded as lesser human beings. Not even worth arguing with.
The Buddha taught suffering and the cessation of suffering.
Besides you are implying a disharmony here which is not present.
The only difference is there is no explanation as to how this process continues at death.
I have not made up my mind on rebirth. I don't know what is reborn and how it is reborn. But I do know that it is not in the least relevant to the attainment of Nibbana. Also, the Buddha would not teach something in his essential teachings that would be unverifiable in this lifetime so that people just have to blindly believe in what he says.
Of course there is; it's detailed in the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Pali commentaries. The question isn't whether there's an explanation, it's whether you accept the source.
So, what's your point?
This, a response to my point above that the Lord Buddha taught his disciples not to argue pointless subjects amongst themselves?
We are all inheritors, like it or not, of the dharma of all the religions of the world, in that we have to cohabit space with people influenced by such teachings. Let us not be so narrow as to be keenly insistent on any one-ponted "essence" of any one religion.
I believe that you have to look at the life —as a whole— of the religious teacher in order better to interpret what is to be stressed.
I, for one, do not find following the Noble Eightfold Path in any way contradicting the idea of harmony. Discursiveness, on the other hand, tends towards partisanship, digressing from one thought to another.
First you are implying a discursiveness which is not present.
Second, you are implying a disharmony which is not present. (In fact you seem to be the one shouting the most
Third, the discussion which you call pointless is not pointless
Fourth, you said you wouldn't give a rat's ear but you are still here?
So, what is your point?
Often the debates splinter off into other subjects that can lead to fruitful conversation.
That is, if we all avoid clinging to views.