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.
wow...I find this all kinda silly. If someone has a hideous mole on their cheek its because they did negative things in a past life? really?
so the "tree man" guy with that horrible disease must have really done something awful...maybe we should imprison all the uglies...cause we know they are guilty.
seriously, I dont understand how adults can believe in such things.
Ric its a tricky business. Karma is a relative teaching. It is not the absolute nature of reality but its service is to liberate you from wrong views. For example if you believed you could do bad things consequence free the view on karma could uproot such a view. It could also uproot fatalism, determinism, eternalism, nihilsm, and so forth. A lot of teachings in Tibetan buddhism are so you don't waste your time at bars, shopping, playing xbox. Now it wouldn't matter if we devoted half our time to dharma practice. In reality I have a hard time meditating for 15 minutes but I can spend 8 hours playing video games. :hair: Some of these things don't work in teh west such as the hells and new methods will have to be developed for us.
@compassionate_warrior: Or maybe the consciousness does not pass from life to life but arises dependent on the birth of the child, as described in the mahatanhasankhaya sutra.
This is interesting, Fivebells. Clearly, the birth of a child (or sentient being) is a necessary prerequisite for the consciousness to pass to a new life...so...both views are right, or did I misunderstand you?
I checked the sutra. The commentaries say that what the Buddha meant was that consciousness is ever-changing, from one moment to the next. Again, interpretations, commentaries. What do you think? Aren't you a TB practitioner?
DD, there is a consequence for not meditating and karma shows this Repeat that sutra to yourself tough guy. :hair: Meditation is not liberating. Insight is.
Ric its a tricky business. Karma is a relative teaching. It is not the absolute nature of reality but its service is to liberate you from wrong views. For example if you believed you could do bad things consequence free the view on karma could uproot such a view. It could also uproot fatalism, determinism, eternalism, nihilsm, and so forth. A lot of teachings in Tibetan buddhism are so you don't waste your time at bars, shopping, playing xbox. Now it wouldn't matter if we devoted half our time to dharma practice. In reality I have a hard time meditating for 15 minutes but I can spend 8 hours playing video games. :hair: Some of these things don't work in teh west such as the hells and new methods will have to be developed for us.
I personally dont find that going to a bar or playing xbox 360 (although if you still play the old xbox you are wasting your time haha) a waste of time. Ive had great times at bar with friends, some of the best times. These are things that bring enjoyment. Many of us are obssesed by having a good time and that is harmful but I do believe in a harmony that you can find. There is a right time for enjoyment, hard work, contemplation...
If karma is just a kinda "scared straight" program I find it is overreaching when it starts saying ugly people deserve to be ugly. I even find that morally wrong and amazingly ignorant. I agree that actions have consequences and it usually follows that bad action gives bad consequences, and to me that is enough.
and yea I hate meditation....but I keep on trying everyday. Mainly because I want to wake up to life, thats pretty much my sole motivation to meditate.
Ric its not harmful but consider how much time spent not on the dharma. It is a balance and karma can show you that their are in fact consequences. Karma does not show you that going to a bar is bad. You make your own choices.
Ric with the ugliness the point is that you have infinite positive and negative karma. So practicing the dharma might help you in case you are ugly. You would have good karma created that will ripen and prevent the ugliness from hurting you. The karma to come into connection with dharma teachings is also a great benefit. That is why dedicating merit (in the mahayana) and respecting the teachings is important. It strengthens connections to the dharma that later ripen.
i don't think being born ugly is a bad thing. one can be born ugly and cultivate a good personality and a warm heart. whereas one can be born beautiful and only cultivate material gain and shallowness. even people who are born stupid can with effort become very smart individuals. people who are born with great intellects can often be lazy and unmotivated.
That's a good point taiyaki. I think anything can be interpreted like that. Like someone who suffers much, many would interpret that as being a bad thing... even many Buddhists. But who here has become a Buddhist because of their lack of suffering?
Or a very rich person of high status may go through much of his life without much suffering at all, and then for one reason or another, goes through a very difficult transition and is exposed to a very great deal of suffering. Like the Buddha, no?
So I think when a Zen master says something like "Good is not different from bad, bad is not different from good" he/she is not necessarily trying to be sneaky and mysterious, but is just describing the way things are
Well, there are few choices in that underworld. And yes, some are forced. There are many instances of children who are rounded up, made into begging groups, and picked up and dropped off in various locations around Bangkok. I'd say that's forced. There are adults so crippled that they literally crawl on their hands and knees around the city, and have no other options.
Sad as the examples you give are, these people are frightened of the consequences if they do not do the actions you state, or they do them because they will starve if they do not do them, my point is there is no commanding power such as kamma that is making them do it, they still have the ability to decide what actions they do.
200 years ago, 'beauty' is not what it is today, the ideology of what is beautiful always changes. Your karma from the life before does not just determine your next one, it may be that 1,000 lifetimes before this one that the karma ripens. And anyway, in buddhism so what if somebody is 'ugly' ....
Exactly why is ugliness viewed as negative in some of the Buddhist teachings ? Why is even a persons looks relevant to any Buddhist teaching ?
I can only think that these teachings have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to scare lay Buddhists or anyone who would listen to them, that they have to follow the teachings or else this will happen to you.
Comments
Hehehe
so the "tree man" guy with that horrible disease must have really done something awful...maybe we should imprison all the uglies...cause we know they are guilty.
seriously, I dont understand how adults can believe in such things.
The Buddha's teachings about karma & rebirth are not designed to help folks meditate.
:om:
If karma is just a kinda "scared straight" program I find it is overreaching when it starts saying ugly people deserve to be ugly. I even find that morally wrong and amazingly ignorant. I agree that actions have consequences and it usually follows that bad action gives bad consequences, and to me that is enough.
and yea I hate meditation....but I keep on trying everyday. Mainly because I want to wake up to life, thats pretty much my sole motivation to meditate.
Ric with the ugliness the point is that you have infinite positive and negative karma. So practicing the dharma might help you in case you are ugly. You would have good karma created that will ripen and prevent the ugliness from hurting you. The karma to come into connection with dharma teachings is also a great benefit. That is why dedicating merit (in the mahayana) and respecting the teachings is important. It strengthens connections to the dharma that later ripen.
Or a very rich person of high status may go through much of his life without much suffering at all, and then for one reason or another, goes through a very difficult transition and is exposed to a very great deal of suffering. Like the Buddha, no?
So I think when a Zen master says something like "Good is not different from bad, bad is not different from good" he/she is not necessarily trying to be sneaky and mysterious, but is just describing the way things are
With Metta
Why is even a persons looks relevant to any Buddhist teaching ?
I can only think that these teachings have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to scare lay Buddhists or anyone who would listen to them, that they have to follow the teachings or else this will happen to you.
With Metta