Reasons to be good

cranreuch

Imagine some act which first provides some benefit or pleasure but then later delivers a negative consequence -- suffering, pain, delay in reaching enlightenment, whatever. Consider the following four scenarios:

1. The negative consequence happens in the current life of the actor (the person committing the act) and it happens to the actor.

2. The negative consequence happens in the actor's current life, but to someone the actor cares about and not to the actor.

3. The negative consequence happens after the actor's current life, but to someone the future idea of which the actor cares about. For example, this could be the actor damaging the environment in some way for some short term gain, but in such a way that their great-great-grandchildren suffer the negative consequences.

and then finally:

4. The negative consequence happens after the actor's current life, but it happens to the actor in a future "incarnation" (not meant in any way precisely)

So, I'm wondering, for each scenario, about the extent to which, or even just why, the prospect of the negative consequence is a deterrent from committing the act. Why, in each case, would we choose to forgo the benefit/pleasure?

Scenarios 1 and 2, I have no difficulty with. I doubt many would. We may not always decide to heed the negative consequence, but it *is* a factor.

Scenario 3 is slightly harder, but not too much. Clearly (ignoring Buddhism for a second) "I" won't care about my great-great-grandchildren suffering the negative consequence when it actually happens. But I do care *now* about the prospect of that happening. So, still a factor.

But now let Buddhism kick in. It's Scenario 4 I'm really interested in.

Why do I care that an action now will cause me suffering in a future incarnation? Even if I found myself believing in rebirth (or whatever it is), it still strikes me as difficult to take into account the prospect of some suffering, or increase in "karmic debt", in "future" lives.

So, if you do actually allow that to affect your actions *now*, could you explain some? Is it just the same as Scenario 3? Or something different?

thanks.

federica

If you think about it, every positive action you intentionally go through, has a negative consequence somewhere.

But the important - nay vital - point, is your intention, now, at the moment.
Your intention is good, and that's all that counts.

Kamma is not something that can decide the different permutations of everything, and neither can you.
Focus on your present compassionate, skilful and Mindful intention.
Key: Present Intention.

Daozen

Buddha warned against karmic calculations - they'll drive you nuts.

Do good now, with the best of intentions. That's all you can do.

cranreuch

Holy Mother Of All That Is Good And Pure. It was a pretty well-defined question. I'm new to Buddhism, but I'm not new to abstruse concepts and heavy abstractions. I know what I'm doing people, so stop pontificating about how questioners are supposed to live their lives. Either answer the question or shhhh! The pretend depth and grade school philosophizing is boring and childish, and harmful to those less pachydermatous then me.

Good grief, I lived among evangelical Christians for twenty years and I never faced there anything *like* the self-important advice-giving bollox I've seen on here.

As MindGate eloquently said, Fuck.

federica

Listen:
You're new to Buddhism.
Some of us are not. We're answering questions from a Buddhist perspective because your questions are posed on a Buddhist forum, and we're using what we have discovered and learnt of Buddhism, to answer your questions in a Buddhist way.
if you want a breakdown of your questions in a non-buddhist manner, post them on a non-buddhist forum.

we're not pontificating.
we're merely giving you the responses a Buddhist will give, based on the teachings and lessons of the Buddha.

if you don't like that, or cannot accept that this is the way it is, here, then perhaps you've made an error of judgement.

SherabDorje

cran- I just found the question(s) far too complex to be answered in this format. I think I get lost in your style of writing. If you were to pose the questions one at a time, in more concise terms, maybe that would help. I know it would help me.

cranreuch

Listen:
You're new to Buddhism.

How do you know that? Because I said it? Maybe it's some kind of enigmatic way of saying I was enlightened last Friday.

When you speak the way you do, language itself breaks down and communication becomes impossible.

And since when did you get to decide that "this is the way it is here"? You're a moderator. Best case *we* the forum members decide. Worst case, the "owner" of the forum does. From what I see, Lincoln is not taking that autocratic approach, and good for him. Seems he has a better grasp of the Buddha's injunction to test things than you do.

cranreuch

cran- I just found the question(s) far too complex to be answered in this format. I think I get lost in your style of writing. If you were to pose the questions one at a time, in more concise terms, maybe that would help. I know it would help me.

No problem Sherab. Silence is fine. And yes, I get very wordy. It's partly because so many caveats and conditionals are required on here to stop the flow of nonsense from some people.

SherabDorje

Well, cran, you have no doubt read at least once on this site that there are some topics/questions that the Buddha himself remained silent on, just declining to answer either way. The way I think I read your scenarios is that they are so theoretical, at the risk of being redundant, "staged", which is what scenarios are, that the Buddha may have remained silent on precisely the questions/scenarios you present. So when you get a reply that appears to you to be too cryptic or just "hot air", that may be an attempt on the writer's part to intimate that the subject is something that the Buddha would have remained silent about.

I myself have not read any Wittgenstein, but I have read a fair amount of R.D. Laing, and he pushes the limits of language pretty hard too. He himself admits that language is often reduced to the scale of "fingers pointing at the moon". Try this one on for size:

"The range of what we think and do is limited by what we fail to notice. And because we fail to notice that we fail to notice there is little we can do to change, until we notice how failing to notice affects our thoughts and deeds."

So until we notice how failing to notice affects our thoughts and deeds, sometimes it's better to remain silent.


Laing was a Scot, by the way.

And remember-

No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Cloud

Closing this as the thread poster is no longer on the site.