PDA

View Full Version : Karma discussion - split topic from 'Unity of Faiths'



soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 08:43
Hi soundtrack,

I have read posts here in which Element has explained well that the intention of such teachings about kamma/karma is the morality aspect, and as you identify this is similar to the Christian intent in describing God's role as the judge and dispenser of punishment ( blessings too, of course !! ) and only He knows the whys and wheres.

In both Christian and Buddhist teachings though there is other understandings - and these sit better with my experiences.

Of course. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of unconventional kamma interpretations. Element knows his shit.

However, that doesn't change the fact that most Buddhists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asia) believe in the good ol' BS version of kamma where the law works like a pissed off bearded man in the sky. People try to get around it all the time by saying things like, "Oh, kamma is totally different, you see, it's a natural law, like gravity, it's not divine punishment!". Ridiculous. Their kamma is institutionalized morality based on what was considered right and wrong in pan-Indian civilization -- a law indeed, but an artificial one, meaning humans created it, not nature. Try telling a scientist a bucket of water will fall on his head because he stole a bicycle last week and see how he reacts.

I remember reading an essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said that individual and collective kamma was responsible for the deaths in the 2004 tsunami. Not even the pope spews BS this extreme anymore.

Personally, I love the sutta (forgot the name) where the Buddha is making fun of people who make these absurd claims of kammic retribution coming from the outside -- if I remember correctly, he finishes by saying something like, "And if you don't listen to good Dhamma talks, you will be reborn stupid!". :biglol:

Aloka
13 Nov 11, 08:57
I remember reading a recent essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said the collective kamma of the Japanese caused a tsunami to kill them

Do you have a link to that, please soundtrack ? I'd like to read it myself.

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 08:58
I guess that for me, soundtrack , what I consider is - does it really matter what most Buddhists think? ( whatever the title Buddhist means - which is a more relevant question to ask to my mind, and one that I am still to find a definitive answer to, which says a lot to me !)

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 09:16
Do you have a link to that, please soundtrack ? I'd like to read it myself.
Sure: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,714,0,0,1,0

Some highlights:


In Buddhism we speak of Cause and Result. We say that we have to bear the consequences of our actions. Still, people ask: "How can children of three or five years old have done such evil acts that they have to lose their parents or their own lives?" How can we explain the law of karma?

Whether we are Christian or Buddhist, this disaster poses questions for us. Christian believers ask: "How can God, who loves mankind, allow things like this to happen?" Buddhists ask: "How could people who have come with the best of intentions to help others and were doing charitable work, or innocent children, have committed such a crime that they should die in this way?"

Some people say that although during this lifetime they had not committed crimes they may have done so in a past life. We try to provide answers like this.


When an aircraft explodes and crashes and nearly all the passengers die but one or two survive, we ask: "Why? Why did they not all die? Why did one or two live?" This shows us that karma has both an individual and collective aspect.

This is insane. And don't tell me he's talking about scientific cause and effect here, i.e., "they chose the wrong seats".

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 09:22
Is it insane or in the realms of " I don't know " - in any event, how much will you, soundtrack, let it matter to you what somebody else wrote in an article? Really, as I say - what you need to determine is, for you, and only you, how important is it ????

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 09:35
I guess that for me, soundtrack , what I consider is - does it really matter what most Buddhists think? ( whatever the title Buddhist means - which is a more relevant question to ask to my mind, and one that I am still to find a definitive answer to, which says a lot to me !)
I see what you're saying. I was just interested in pointing out that a lot of Buddhists believe in a form of moral judgement that is just as wicked as that of the Christians, Jews, whatever.

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 09:43
Is it insane or in the realms of " I don't know " - in any event, how much will you, soundtrack, let it matter to you what somebody else wrote in an article? Really, as I say - what you need to determine is, for you, and only you, how important is it ????
Perhaps you missed post #6 in this thread. I was replying to that guy. I'm not talking about what is or isn't important to believe in. I'm pointing out that mainstream Buddhism is just as brutal as mainstream Abrahamic religions.

Aloka
13 Nov 11, 09:55
I was just interested in pointing out that a lot of Buddhists believe in a form of moral judgement that is just as wicked as that of the Christians, Jews, whatever.

Yes, its the idea of punishment karma that some use to explain away tragic events. However the Buddha said:





AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable


"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html




For Mahayana practitioners, there are some short essays on karma which might be helpful. They are by Ken Mcleod, a student of the late Kalu Rinpoche who became a teacher himself.

Here's one called "Karma doesn't Explain anything" (3 small pages)


excerpt:



"Ironically, when we probe deeper into classical treatments of karma, we find that the explanation karma appears to offer isn’t much of an explanation. Traditionally, only a fully awakened being (a buddha) can see exactly how an action develops into a result.

Karma, itself, is a mystery.

I feel that karma as explanation adds very little to our lives. It lulls us into the belief that there is an order to the universe, it allows us to project a universe that we would like to exist, it can be used to justify horrific inequities and rigid moral positions and in the end only replaces one mystery with another."

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/karma-two-approaches/2




:hands:

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 10:03
It is about intention - as Element, who has expressed it, online, here, in the past , far better than I suspect I will ever be able to explain, the Lord Buddha first gave such type of teachings - and as you recognise they do indeed have a moral focus.
The important factor is, that in what ever tradition of Buddhism we chose to practice, it is about our individual experiences.

In the Lonaphala Sutta - The Salt Crystal, the Buddha compared actions of an individual who commits an evil deed with their mind still undeveloped in regards to virtue and discernment to a glass of water. As there's little development in the mind of such an individual, this one act which has some bad effect will be like a salt crystal that's then dropped into that glass of water and subsequently the water becomes undrinkable.

He then compares the actions of another individual who commits the same deed with a mind that is well trained — a mind developed in ability to see virtue, discernment - as I say, that can see the big picture — it is like a river rather than a glass of water.
Due to development in the mind of this individual, that one act is like the same salt crystal being dropped into a big river, rather than the glass of water and subsequently the water doesn't become undrinkable.

The first individual , due to their acumulative actions, goes to a bad destination whereas the later person experiences the resulting pollutant for barely a moment in the here and now - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html.

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 10:14
I like Ken McLeod's articles and I have used them in the past when I was working with woman who were experiencing domestic violence - to use this example there are a lot of people who express abusive behaviours out there and we need to identify them.

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 10:34
Perhaps you missed post #6 in this thread. I was replying to that guy. I'm not talking about what is or isn't important to believe in. I'm pointing out that mainstream Buddhism is just as brutal as mainstream Abrahamic religions.

My point is to die in a plane crash/ to die young is death young/ death in a plane crash - that is what it is, what we think about it is what we think about it. To think that mainstream Buddhism is brutal is what you chose to think about it - my experience is that to be a practising Buddhist, hey I am a TB practitioner, and all !!, it need not be brutal - that is all I am offering ... go well, be my friend

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 11:00
Yes, its the idea of punishment karma that some use to explain away tragic events. However the Buddha said:

Indeed. Too bad Thich Nhat Hahn apparently never read the Acintita Sutta, that would've stopped him from publicly humiliating the friends and families of the tsunami victims.

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 11:20
My point is to die in a plane crash/ to die young is death young/ death in a plane crash - that is what it is, what we think about it is what we think about it. To think that mainstream Buddhism is brutal is what you chose to think about it - my experience is that to be a practicing Buddhist, hey I am a TB practitioner, and all !!, it need not be brutal - that is all I am offering ... go well, be my friend
This is irrelevant to the discussion. The purpose of this thread is to is stimulate the intellect -- we're not discussing what is or isn't relevant to individual Buddhist practice here. BWB is not a meditation hall. If I were interested in certain details of World War II I'd go find a discussion forum for that and look for a thread where I could discuss those specific details of the war, not start talking about how to kill Germans as effectively as possible.

My point is I'm discussing the attitude of mainstream Buddhism versus that of mainstream Abrahamic religions and not whether or not what I "choose to think about" is relevant to practice.

:peace:

Lazy Eye
13 Nov 11, 12:08
Hi Soundtrack.

I had a similar reaction when I first encountered the notion of karma/kamma. And I'm not here to dispute your assessment of it -- but just to add that it's probably best understood within the context of other Indian religions, and also within the context of a belief in rebirth.

Karma is contrasted with two alternate points of view -- one, that what happens to us is the product of random accident; and two, that it reflects some act of willpower on the part of a deity. The "given" here is that beings are reborn again and again, cycling through samsara. But what drives that process? The traditional Buddhist perspective is that we do, through our volitional actions. So yes, whatever we experience represents the ripening of some karmic seed or another. But the flip side of this view is that we have a degree of control over our future destiny.

When we argue that karma is a brutal philosophy that blames innocent people for their suffering, there is an implicit rejection of rebirth. Because if rebirth is true, there is no such thing as "innocence" -- we don't come into the world with a blank slate. But there is also no such thing as a "guilty" person, in the sense of some permanent identity. All beings are heirs to their karma. Those who enjoy fortunate circumstances now may be rapidly exhausting the results of prior good kamma. Those who are suffering now may enjoy fortunate circumstances in the future. Devas (heavenly beings) inevitably fall from the celestial realms sooner or later; those stuck in hells (metaphorical or literal) can find a way out.

I agree that if you take rebirth and the samsaric cycle out of the picture, karma as a moral law makes very little sense -- though it might still function as a kind of general principle ("what goes round comes around"). I'd also agree that using karma to explain away specific instances of suffering is tacky and hurtful, and not consistent with the Buddha's words in the Acintita Sutta.

One last thing -- my understanding is that karma-vipaka refers more to our experience of events as opposed to the events themselves. The latter provide an occasion for karma to ripen, but it is the experiential/mental aspect which counts.

Aloka
13 Nov 11, 13:01
I could speculate endlessly about my kamma in imagined past or future lives - but its all tied up in personality belief, creating and solidifying "my" identity.



.
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/dazz/av_me-mine.jpg

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 13:17
I agree that if you take rebirth and the samsaric cycle out of the picture, karma as a moral law makes very little sense -- though it might still function as a kind of general principle ("what goes round comes around"). I'd also agree that using karma to explain away specific instances of suffering is tacky and hurtful, and not consistent with the Buddha's words in the Acintita Sutta.

Well said.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2003/10/24/dogbush.jpg

Esho
13 Nov 11, 13:45
I could speculate endlessly about my kamma in imagined past or future lives - but its all tied up in personality belief, creating and solidifying "my" identity.

Yes Aloka. Seems that the believe in rebirth/reincarnation and Karma as its fuel is grounded in the need of "something" to endure: from the coarse self for reincarnation to a kind of "ether" for rebirth. It is the special charm New Age spirituality has. The promise of something that endures.

The teachings of Buddha are not so appealing, maybe, because its practice is about the letting go -this sort of post modern- greed, crave and the wandering of mind -endlessly looking for more- which is stressed in a civilization governed by such mind poisons.

People still needs to have and accumulate... and in a highly technological society, believes are very appealing now.

;D

Lazy Eye
13 Nov 11, 14:09
Yes Aloka. Seems that the believe in rebirth/reincarnation and Karma as its fuel is grounded in the need of "something" to endure: from the coarse self for reincarnation to a kind of "ether" for rebirth. It is the special charm New Age spirituality has. The promise of something that endures.

With respect, Kaarine, I would describe that as speculation. And generalization -- you are psychoanalyzing and making assumptions about the collective motives of countless Buddhists who you have never met!

I'd also question whether the point of rebirth is that "something endures". At least from my reading of the suttas, the point seems to be that nothing we are endures: whatever you have gained during this lifetime will slip from your hands, whatever you see as your identity is subject to change, any fortune you enjoy can turn to misfortune; even one's status as a human can change. In other words, it seems to me rebirth is to be understood within the context of impermanence, anatta and dukkha. It's not a promise of everlasting happiness or a soul that endures -- from the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is bad news...an aspect of samsara.

Yuan
13 Nov 11, 14:09
In general, it is useless to speculate about the mis-deeds of your or other people' past lives.

First of all, the nidānas of a person's karma and encounters are a very complicated matter. It is not easy to say 'this' happens because of 'that'. Buddhists, of all people, should know not to judge. Plus, sometimes, bad things happen to a "good person" because "bad people" were simply stronger than the "good person." Not because the "good person" did anything in particular in his/her past lives.

Second, we are not in any position to deal with the mis-deeds of our past lives, because we cannot see our past lives. It is more important to take care of this life first.

Personally, I believe that Buddha taught us Karma for only one reason: to let us know that every action has unavoidable consequences. We better be prepared to handle the consequences of our actions, whether it is "good" or "bad."

Aloka
13 Nov 11, 16:41
from the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is bad news...an aspect of samsara.

I remembered something from Ajahn Sumedho's book 'Don't take your life personally' and so I looked it up........

"Hardly ever are we fully appreciative or tuned in to the reality of life as we are experiencing it; and during the ending of something we usually start planning our next move so we don't fully experience ending and separating.

This is the samsaric (round of rebirth) tendency of attachment. When you become bored - and you don't observe boredom unless you are practising mindfulness - you seek something interesting or exciting, or at least something to attract your attention from the boredom of the present moment. Life is a process of searching for rebirth in this way, a continuous sense of being reborn again into some new thing, something that interests you."

AND

"The word rebirth doesn't necessarily mean physical rebirth - being born again in the next life - it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don't even notice them. As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else."


:hands:

Esho
13 Nov 11, 16:59
"The word rebirth doesn't necessarily mean physical rebirth - being born again in the next life - it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don't even notice them. As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else."

Yes.

As far as my understanding goes, what is taught by Buddha is birth of "conceit", "I-making" and "mine-making", as a discrete event -here & now- and thus, the cessation of such mind outcome: "this is mine", "this I am" and "this is my self" that happens in an unaware mind.

Further elaborations, honestly, seems to be highly speculative and useless to crave into in accordance to the frame of what Buddha taught.

;D

Esho
13 Nov 11, 19:38
[...] it seems to me rebirth is to be understood within the context of impermanence, anatta and dukkha.

Isn't Dukkha what has to be understood in terms of anicca and anatta?


"What I have revealed is: 'This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, and this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.' And why, monks, have I revealed it?

"Because this is related to the goal, fundamental to the holy life, conduces to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbaana, therefore I have revealed it.

"Therefore, monks, your task is to learn: 'This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.' That is your task."

Simsapa Sutta (http://http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.wlsh.html)



If Dukkha is understood, crave and cling of mind ceases, and ceases Dukkha.

Where is the need of "re-birth"?

;D

andyrobyn
13 Nov 11, 20:06
Sure: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,714,0,0,1,0

Some highlights:





This is insane. And don't tell me he's talking about scientific cause and effect here, i.e., "they chose the wrong seats".

My impression from the article is that it seeks to discuss, at a time of tragedy on a large scale, which touched many people from all different beliefs and faiths, search for meaning.

Element
13 Nov 11, 20:22
My impression from the article is that it seeks to discuss, at a time of tragedy on a large scale, which touched many people from all different beliefs and faiths, search for meaning.
My impression was the same ;D

Element
13 Nov 11, 20:40
Their kamma is institutionalized morality based on what was considered right and wrong in pan-Indian civilization -- a law indeed, but an artificial one, meaning humans created it, not nature.
karma in buddhism is based in natural law. the five precepts are based in natural law, i.e., human neurological psychology

similarly, the Ten Commandments are based in natural law (even though they use the word 'God' for 'natural law')


I remember reading an essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said that individual and collective kamma was responsible for the deaths in the 2004 tsunami.
i did not gain the impression Thich Nhat Hanh said this (here (http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index.php?id=8,714,0,0,1,0))

however, Thich Nhat Hanh's manner of speech was certainly not overt & clear and thus easily subject to misinterpretation

after reading it a few times, Thich Nhat Hanh seemed to be saying it is "collective karma" that creates the mental suffering & the sense of "disaster" in those who do not die & are left behind to mourn & ponder

it seems Thich Nhat Hanh was teaching his 'interbeing' as 'no self'

Thich Nhat Hanh was expressing the Mahayana notion of 'emptiness' as 'interbeing'


When an aircraft explodes and crashes and nearly all the passengers die but one or two survive, we ask: "Why? Why did they not all die? Why did one or two live?" This shows us that karma has both an individual and collective aspect. When we discover the principle of individual and collective, we have begun to resolve a significant part of the matter already. If we continue in the direction of the insight of no-self, we shall gradually discover answers closer to the truth.

It is very clear that when someone we love dies, the person who dies suffers less than those who outlive him. Therefore suffering is a collective and not an individual matter.

Victor Hugo also found that human destiny is a collective destiny, and he caught a glimpse of the no-self nature of all that is. If any accident happens to one member of our family, the whole family suffers. When an accident happens to a part of our nation, it happens to the whole nation. When an accident happens to a part of the planet Earth it happens to the whole planet, and together we bear it.

When we see that their suffering is our own suffering, and their death is our death, we have begun to see the no-self nature. When I light incense and pray for those who died in the tsunami disaster, I see clearly that I am not only praying for those who have died; I am also praying for myself because I, too, am a victim of that earthquake.

All of us, to some extent, have contributed to the collective karma. A disaster that happens to any part of our planet earth or the human species is something for which we all have to bear responsibility to some extent. When others die, we die; when others suffer, we suffer. When others are in despair, we are in despair. That is the insight of no-self.
instead of saying: "we all have to bear responsibility to some extent", Thich Nhat Hanh probably should have said: "we all have to bear the impact to some extent"

we are not responsible for natural disasters as they (for the most part) do not follow the law of karma

kind regards ;D



The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:

1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.

2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.

4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."

5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching: P. A. Payutto (http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm#law)

Lazy Eye
13 Nov 11, 21:09
Where is the need of "re-birth"?

;D

Kaarine,

I guess my approach to this question is "since the Buddha appears to have taught karma and rebirth, what was his reason for doing so?"

It's not that I'm a gung-ho advocate of these particular teachings, insisting that everyone must accept them or be kicked out of Buddhism. When I first started investigating the dharma, rebirth and karma were big obstacles for me. I would have been happy to find evidence in the Canon that the Buddha didn't teach in this way.

What I saw in the suttas, however, seemed to show clearly that he did. Which returns us to your question -- why? What is the need?

I think even fairly conservative/orthodox teachers -- at least in Theravada -- might agree that rebirth/karma are not the knowledge that leads to liberation. Basically it was what the Buddha saw "during the second watch of the night". The Four Noble Truths came on the third watch.

Doesn't seem to me, though, that karma and rebirth contradict dukkha or the 4NT. It's more that the former represent a partial glimpse and the latter represent the full view. In Mahayana, also, when sunyata is fully and directly realized, karma is no longer an issue.

Lazy Eye
13 Nov 11, 21:15
I remembered something from Ajahn Sumedho's book 'Don't take your life personally' and so I looked it up........

"Hardly ever are we fully appreciative or tuned in to the reality of life as we are experiencing it; and during the ending of something we usually start planning our next move so we don't fully experience ending and separating.

This is the samsaric (round of rebirth) tendency of attachment. When you become bored - and you don't observe boredom unless you are practising mindfulness - you seek something interesting or exciting, or at least something to attract your attention from the boredom of the present moment. Life is a process of searching for rebirth in this way, a continuous sense of being reborn again into some new thing, something that interests you."


Wise words, Aloka! I struggle with this every day.

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 21:34
karma in buddhism is based in natural law. the five precepts are based in natural law, i.e., human neurological psychology
This is a very interesting idea, but right now I think what you're saying is only partly true. I'm still not convinced that the actions considered more or less inherently negative by Buddhists, and that are said to always generate some bad kamma, are not based on social customs. I have a really hard time believing there is a standard universal moral system inherent in human psychology.

For example, if you're raised in a group/society where theft (like shoplifting) is actively encouraged (maybe your mom is an anarchist and you live in a hippie village), I have a really hard time believing you're going to experience a lot of negative "mental" kammic retribution just because you spend your days stealing, totally convinved you're doing the right thing based on the customs of your society. I know the Buddha taught about intention, but there still seems to be a general conviction that certain acts (like stealing) will always cause you some kammic suffering, unless you're totally unaware of what you're doing (like when you step on an ant in a field of grass).

I guess what I'm saying is I've never been a hardcore fan of the idea that human beings are 100% morally hardwired. Moral relativism always made a lot of sense to me, or at least "relative" moral relativism. :lol: I think it's possible to make some generalizations about human morality for sure, but there is some obvious variation.

I guess this makes me the anti-Buddha or something.

Any thoughts?

Element
13 Nov 11, 21:43
...if you're raised in a group/society where theft (like shoplifting) is actively encouraged (maybe your mom is an anarchist and you live in a hippie village), I have a really hard time believing you're going to experience a lot of negative "mental" kammic retribution just because you spend your days stealing....
so do thieves live happy & peaceful lives, without internal fear & worry, accruing no external enemies & retribution?

what about this? Melbourne gangland killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_gangland_killings) :confused:


The Melbourne gangland killings were the murders in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia of 36 criminal figures or partners between 16 January 1998 and 13 August 2010. The murders were in a series of retributional murders involving various underworld groups. The deaths caused a sustained power vacuum within Melbourne's criminal community, as various factions fought for control and influence.
also, the Buddha's views on moral relativism the can be found in the Veludvareyya Sutta (http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1.5-Veludvareyya-S-s55.7-piya.pdf)


Furthermore, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:

‘If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to steal from me, that would not be desirable nor agreeable to me. Now, if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to steal from him, that would not be desirable nor agreeable to him, too.

What is undesirable and disagreeable to me is undesirable and disagreeable to others, too. How can I inflict upon another what is undesirable and disagreeable to me?’

Having reflected thus, he himself refrains from taking the not-given, exhorts others to refrain from taking the not-given and speaks in praise of refraining from taking the not-given.

regards

;D

soundtrack
13 Nov 11, 21:58
so do thieves live happy & peaceful lives, without internal fear & worry, accruing no external enemies & retribution?
If they're convinced they're doing the right thing, sure, why not? I don't see why they would be overly anxious about it. They could definitely experience internal fear for practical reasons (like an NFL football player), but that doesn't mean their fear is a form of kammic punishment or whatever.

The enemies don't really have anything to do with mental kammic retribution. Of course actions have consequences, but I wouldn't say the fact someone is possibly going to get pissed off because you steal from them is a natural law. ;D

Element
13 Nov 11, 22:04
If they're convinced they're doing the right thing, sure, why not? I don't see why they would be overly anxious about it.

when men go to war, they are convinced they're doing the right thing. then they return with PTSD for the rest of their lives :neutral:

of course enemies have everything to do with mental kammic retribution. if theft did not create external retribution, how could internal fear & worry arise?

:confused:

Buddha suggested theft is against our internal nature because we do not want others to steal from us. to steal harms psychological normality

similarly, as you personally do not want others to steal from you, your promoting stealing goes against your own internal views

;D

soundtrack
14 Nov 11, 07:37
Thanks for mentioning the Veludvareyya Sutta, Element. I always come back to that one.

Any comments on Ven. Yogavacara Rahula's definition below? I took it from his free PDF book "One Night's Shelter".


This word means action or conscious volition. Karma begins in the mind and is expressed through the body and speech. Conscious actions leave a residual impression in the nervous system and subconscious mind which will be capable of producing or bringing effects of the same likeness back to us. The nature of karmic action can be wholesome or unwholesome and they bring pleasant or unpleasant results respectively. Unwholesome actions are those performed under the influence of ignorance, greed and hatred while wholesome actions stem out of wisdom, non-attachment and friendliness/love. These actions with their potential for future manifestation represent the energy which will shape the destiny for each person and will be the fuel for generating rebirth.

Is this Yogacara (not Yogavacara!) thought?

andyrobyn
14 Nov 11, 20:06
Hi soundtrack, I do not have much time to discuss right now , you are referring to " mind only " theory and different levels of conciousness? My understanding of this view of karma is that our intentional actions plant seeds in one section of our consciousness and as these ripen they then drive and influence our decisions about future actions. Once a seed fruits it's karma is then extinguished. The continuity of an individual personality after death, or the human body's apparent unconsciousness, is unrippened karma which still exists in a level of subtle conciousness which is drawn back into existance.

Ken Mcleod's articles present a different understanding for Tibetan buddhists.