Have you asked Buddha into your life?

[red_dragon60]

Well, have you? I could lend some insight to basic questions about Buddhism. I may even be able to debate. Think of this as the "Ask the Buddhist guy!" thread.

Aww, C'mon! I know you have some questions! Shoot! I want to help you be enlightened

[Polycarp]

Enlighten me.

According to the Gospel of John, Jesus is supposed to have wanted people to invite him into their lives, and having done so, to go out and annoy, er, witness to people about it so that they too will invite him in.

Is there a sutra where Gautama the Buddha is said to have done likewise? My impression was that he, well, not wanted people to follow the Eightfold Path, since that would imply a need or urge, which he had overcome, but smiled benefically on them as they tried to follow it. Care to fill me in?

(This post is done in the same gentle, dry humor with which the OP appears to be vested, and is not intended to poke fun at anybody's religion, except maybe the style of evangelical Christian who thinks insulting people in Jesus' name is the way to win Him friends.)

[soulsling]

Is there a sutra where Gautama the Buddha is said to have done likewise? My impression was that he, well, not wanted people to follow the Eightfold Path, since that would imply a need or urge, which he had overcome, but smiled benefically on them as they tried to follow it. Care to fill me in?

No. There is no witnessing in any form of Buddhism. Neither is Buddha supposed to be worshipped as a diety, except that many lay Buddhists in the east have turned the philosophy into much more of a religion than was intended.

Gotta question about Zen Buddhism or Vipassana, feel free to ask me as well, been practicing for some time now.

Peace.

[longhair75]

friend red dragon,

as a novice buddhist, i have more questions than answers. two quotes from buddha:

"we do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience"

and:

"all conditioned things are impermanent. work out yopur own salvation with diligence." (the buddha's last words)

it seems as though the buddha is teaching to look within ourselves for enlightenment; to expand our awareness and open our minds.

i expect the answers to my questions will lead to even more questions, in a never ending search. the journey is the destination.

"we do not receive wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness, which no one can make for us,which no one can spare us,for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world" (marcel proust)

[Scylla]

I would like to sign up to help convert the unbeleivers.

When I become a Budhist I'm wondering what groups I get to hate. I'm hoping it's a big group.

When I convert somebody to Budhism under duress does that count, or should I keep duressing them until they die so that they don't backslide?

When's bingo?

[rngadam]

As buddhist...

Can we force prayer on others in school?

Do we get to say to other people what to do?

Is there any accepted torturing or burning of non-believers?

Can we act racist in the name of god?

Can we interpret a contradictory set of rules as we see fit?

Can we ignore every scientific evidence?

Do we get a free ticket to something good (heaven?) even if we ignore every single rule for now and just ask redemption later?

Do we get to belittle other religions as fake and evil (not the TRUE ONE)?

Hopefully, your reply will be positive to these questions or your religion is not good enough for me! <G>

[Cisco]

All praise Buddah. The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers.

[soulsling]

Cisco, not quite.

mgdam, no, no, no, if you feel like it, sure why not, again if you feel like it, not really, nope, not really important but thanx all the same.

Scylla, the idea is to be mindful and compassionate, no hate for anyone intentionally. Buddhists don't witness, or force Buddhism on others under duress. But that doesn't speak for all people that are Buddhist, just the principles of Buddhism and the five precepts we try to follow.

longhair, as my Zen Master told me once, there will always be more questions than answers, because ultimately there is only one answer. He then slapped his hand hard on the floor and swung his Zen Stick to within an inch or so of my nose. This was the answer. Can't get intellectual when trying to find the answers in Buddhism, it's pretty trancsendant.

"we do not receive wisdom, we must discover it for ourselves, after a journey through the wilderness, which no one can make for us,which no one can spare us,for our wisdom is the point of view from which we come at last to regard the world" (marcel proust)

good quote, stick with it. yes, Gautama Buddha asked that we look withing ourselves that we may find our answers and the salvation we are seeking. Whether we found it in a god, in ourselves, or in whatever force we wanted to call it.

[red_dragon60]

Polycarp- While I am not vastly knowledgeable on the sutras, I will attempt to answer your question. When a person asks about Zen, the first time they are only curious and do not really care about it. The second time, they are just attempting to start a conversation. The third time, they are genuinely interested. Then they can be filled in on Zen, as they have the desire to learn. It is felt that someone will truly feel the need to realign their karma when it happens. We Buddhists are a patient bunch.

Longhair75- Your first quote tells me that the Buddha is saying "you will learn by your thirst for knowledge, not by what is presented to you." Hope that de-mystifies the first quote.

On the second, I believe that the Buddha is saying "Nothing lasts forever, so work while you can to reach your spiritual enlightenment."

Scylla- You have a dry wit. I love that. Hate is an emotion that will lead you nowhere except away from where you want to go.

Soulsling- thanks for the help.

mgadam- You are also very witty. We do not force our religion on anybody. It creates dischord.

Cisco- I believe you have mistaken this for the "Ask Satan!" thread. Down the hall, on your left.

Remember, everyone- There is no road to peace, peace is the road.

[Bassguy]

I can't resist. . .

What did the Buddist master say to the hot dog vendor?

Make me one with everything.




I'm sorry, I'll be quiet now.

[Liberal]

Red Dragon

Wonderful thread! Thanks for opening it!

I once heard a story, and want to know whether it is true, and if you don't know, whether it is conveivably true or obviously false for some reason. A student shares a few moments with his Zen Master:

Student: "Do you believe that Jesus is God?"

Master: "Yes".

Sudent: [surprised] "Why?"

Master: "Because he said he is."

Student: [dumbfounded] "But, Master! Anyone can make such a claim. If I say that I am God, will you believe that I am?"

Master: "No."

Student: [incredulous] "And why not?"

Master: "Because you are not."

[red_dragon60]

Libertarian- Thanks for asking! Although I have not heard of this, a discussion like it could or might have taken place. On e of the priniples of Buddhism is to lead by example. Jesus led a truthful life and never lied, therefore making everyone believe that He always tells the truth. Thus, when He said He was God, the Zen Master was able to trust his character and say yes. The master knew that his student, in his foolishness, had betrayed his non-God-liness.

[longhair75]

there is no fire like greed,
no crime like hatred,
no sorrow like separation,
no sickness like hunger of heart,
and no joy like the joy of freedom.

health, contentment and trust
are you greatest possessions,
and freedom your greatest joy.

look within.
be still.
free from fear and attachment,
know the sweet joy of living in the way.

(from the dhammapada, translated by thomas byrom)

[andros]

What did the Buddist master say to the hot dog vendor?

Make me one with everything.

So the vendor does, and says, "That'll be a buck fifty."

The Buddist master gives him a fifty, which the vendor pockets. The master says, "Hey, what about my change?"

Then vendor replies, "Change must come from within."

[The Asbestos Mango]

I gave away my copy of the Dhammapada.

I recall reading a passage in it, or maybe it was from another Bhuddist scripture or sutra that went something like-

Do not follow any religion or philosophy that is contradicted by reason or by your own experience.

I followed this teaching and wound up Catholic.


I told a friend of mine who is into Eastern religion and philosophy that I was following the Tao by being Catholic. He looked mystified and said, "Did you hear what you just said?"

After a moment's thought, he realized what I meant.

[soulsling]

agisofia, I have nothing but smiles for you.

red_dragon60, My pleasure. How long have you been practicing, and what particular practice? Just curiosity.

andros, nice one

[RTFirefly]

One day while walking down the road, I asked Buddha into my life. And sure enough, the Buddha appeared before me on the road.

You know what I had to do next.

[red_dragon60]

Soulsling- I have been practicing my own particular blend of buddhism for about a year now. For every practicioner there is a different practice. I took Satan's religion test, and I believe I came up as Mayahara (sp?). I follow the Buddhist beliefs and codes. I am trying to be a better person.

[tradesilicon]

I am trying to be a better person.

Better than what?

Since peace is the road, and time is limited, do you continue to try to be better for all the time you have, or is there some point when you realize you are better, and stop to enjoy the improvement?

(serious question, not poking fun)

[soulsling]

RTFirefly, you killed him.

red_dragon60, there isn't really anything so much to follow per se except what is in your heart in Buddhism. The Five Precepts are the same throughout all practices, and what you are doing is quite common, though eventually, people tend to pick a particular style of practice because it allows them to practice and learn with a sangha. Good luck. Don't try, just be. That's what the Buddhist masters and monks would say.

tradesilicon, Better than one one already is, as in more compassionate, more mindful and aware.

Since peace is the road, and time is limited, do you continue to try to be better for all the time you have, or is there some point when you realize you are better, and stop to enjoy the improvement?

Time is never limited, only our lives are. (some Zen Masters would argue that we are only limited if we believe that...) Trying to be a good, or better person is relative to how they are presently, and there is no point at which the aim is to stop. We continuously enjoy the being better as best we can, even if already "enlightened" or "awakened".

[tradesilicon]

kool.

[aenea]

There is more than one Buddah is there not? Gautama Budda and Sidhartha Buddah are the two that come to mind easily. (It's been many a year since I read the Bagavagita (sp). Can you explain why there is more than one, and what the different Buddahs teach?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Hi, aenea,

I can answer that. There's only one Buddha. He's referred to by a few different names, however: Sakayamuni ("from the tribe of the Sakyas) is his "tribal" name. His father was the king of the Sakayas, and the Buddha was born to be their prince. His family name is Gautama (or Gotama in Pali), hence "Gautama Buddha"; and his own real name, before he achieved enlightenment, was Siddhartha.

On the other hand, your question has a deeper metaphysical significance that I hesitate to touch upon (although I will). Sometimes in the Mahayana tradition monks pray to "all the Buddhas" and so forth, meaning all who have achieved enlightenment. Stream-winners, who practice the eight-fold path, will all eventually acheive that status and thus become "Buddhas." Some branches of the faith claim that the Buddha manifests every so often; the next manifestion will be called "Maiyatria" (spelling very approximate), and is usually depicted as fat bald dude with a big grin and a bunch of kids crawling all over him. In his right hand he holds a bag (as a monk once explained to me, "Empty bag -- contains everything." Zen humor. Go figure.)

In addition, at the deepest level (which I don't even pretend to understand), all of us are the Buddha. So in one sense, technically, there are lots of Buddhas, only they're all only one Buddha, since the apprehension of difference between things is only an illusion created by sense experience....

By the way, I've heard a rumor that a monk in Burma has actually achieved enlightenment. They're all Theravadans over there, however, and tend to be pretty tight-lipped about these things.

Finally, all Buddhas teach only one thing, because, according to the Buddha, there is only one truth. "Becoming a Buddha" is merely another way of saying that the person in question has fully understood and accepted that truth.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Damn, how embarressing. Correct that first misspelling above from "Sakayamuni" to "Sakyamuni." The correct clan name is "Sakya," not "Sakaya".

Sorry about that.

[ren]

Better than what?

Paradoxically, part of getting better is realizing there's no such thing as better. And trying to be something can get in the way of just being. Obviously words and thought fail at some point. That's why there's a tradition of learning through direct experience rather than intellectual understanding.

A lot of teachers will try to remove the emphasis from self-improvement, since (especially in the West) we tend to be obsessed with getting "better" and somehow think we'll earn some sort of reward (enlightenment?) that way. Instead they'll try and reframe the quest as one of relaxing into what one already is rather than trying to be something. "Relaxing" is probably not quite right either, since this can require intense effort...trying not to try...oh heck, words fail me

[oldscratch]

Here's a question for ya bucko.

Ok. As we all know enlightment must come from within. hence all problems also come from within. How do you feel about blaming child abuse on the child? Personally, that is my major problem with Buddhism.

[Mr. Svinlesha]

First off, hiya, oldscratch !! I've been reading your posts in other threads (concerning socialism) and they've been...er, well, most "enlightening." And thanks for the link to Marx on the Web. Shame the thread died out, I had lots of questions....

However, I think you're a bit off on this child abuse thing. I don't really know where you got that from. Nobody in their right mind would blame a child for being abused by a parent, as far as know, not even a -- "gasp" -- Buddhist. Remember, one of the central messages in Buddhism is compassion.

On the other hand, the suffering that such a child experiences as a result of being abused is his or her own responsiblity. I think Buddha might say something like that. This is an inescapeable fact of life, because nobody else can deal with that suffering or take it away. The child or the adult he/she becomes is trapped with it and must find some way to overcome it on his/her own. That's a very unpleasant truth, but then again, another of the central messages of Buddhism is honesty.

In a nutshell, you could say that Buddhism (like all religions) expresses an existential dilemma and then provides for its solution. In this case, the dilemma is suffering (such as is experienced by your child). The solution is, of course, escape from suffering, ie, Nirvana, achieved by diligently following the eight-fold path. Blame is actually irrelevant here (probably), because regardless of who's to blame, you still have suffering and the job of allieviating it, which really is the central focus of Buddhism.

[red_dragon60]

Wow everyone, nice turnout! Great questions!

Better than what?

I am trying to view things from other perspectives, let people live the way they want to, and become a mindful person.

Oldscratch- The child is not responsible in this case. The child is not being punished for bad karma. The abuser is racking up very bad karma here., and will probably come back as a newt. Svinlesha hit it right on the head there. You must remember that one of the Four Truths is that there is always suffering. The child is suffering, through no fault of his/her own. The child must find a way to get rid of that suffering, else s/he will become the very thing they dread.

Anyone heard any good Koans lately?

[oldscratch]

so why is it happening to the child?

[lastgasp]

Here's a question pertaining to karma. If it takes a sufficient positive amount of karma to be reincarnated into a human being, then it would stand to reason that our world would be tantamount to paradise, as its inhabitants would be in the moral and spiritual elite. How then are we so obviously capable of atrocities and hate and harmfulness (bad karma) that are clearly contrary to the eightfold path?

The obvious answer is that humanity is cursed, but is this consistent with Buddhist belief?

[longhair75]

joshu once asked nansen, "what is the way?" Nansen answered, "ordinary mind is the way." "then should we direct ourselves toward it or not?" asked joshu. "if you direct yourself toward it, you go away from it.' answered nansen. Joshu continued, "if we do not try, how can we know that it is the way?" nansen replied, "the way does not belong to knowing or not-knowing. knowing is illusion; not-knowing is blankness. if you really attain to the way of no-doubt, it is like the great void, so vast and boundless. how, then, can there be right and wrong in the tao?" at these words, joshu was suddenly enlightened.

mumon's poem

hundreds of flowers in spring, the moon in autumn,
a cool breeze in summer, and snow in winter;
if there is no vain cloud in your mind
for you it is a good season.

(from the mumonkan, translated by sumiko kudo)

longhair75, (who loves zen poetry)

[soulsling]

oldscratch, it's happening to the child for various reasons. If you're looking for the Buddhist perspective on Karma, Karma is not singular to just this life, but all previous lives, and lives of our ancestors, so this is Karma for the child. In this life, the child will/or must learn to overcome this suffering by understanding it first. This does not make it ok that the child is suffering, but it is the honest answer of a Buddhist.

Svinlesha, welcome aboard.

lastgasp, someone else might like to answer this as well I'm sure. Your perception on Karma is very flawed. There really is no definite good or bad Karma, just Karma. The bad things done will make more bad things, the good things will make more good things. Simple logic for understanding Karma. Do good, and it will continue good, do bad, and it will continue bad. There is nothing about curses in Buddhism. According to Buddhism, this world is a world of suffering, and full of suffering. The eightfold path is the way to the cessation of suffering, but before we can truly follow the eightfold path, we must understand what that suffering is, then understand that we need to end that suffering, then understand why we need to end that suffering. The four noble truths come first in this respect, and as part of the five precepts, if we can understand the noble truths, then we can rightly follow the eightfold path.

longhair75, very nice. Don't make right, don't make wrong. Take away all opposites. You already know. Just this. This is the way. Words are bad.

red_dragon60, this thread is getting more hits then Tricycles website and boards.

[oldscratch]

Hey I didn't say it was ok for the child to be suffering. I understand that. In fact, that's one of the things I respect about Buddhism, you guys are consistent. However, it is the souls fault/choice/whatever to be in the body of that abused child. It is a challenge, a way to build up spiritual brownie points, but again it comes back to the fact that you are basicly justifying it.

[ren]

it is the souls fault/choice/whatever to be in the body of that abused child.

Ummm, I don't suppose you could tell us where you got this impression of the Dharma, could you? I'd really be interested in knowing your sources. I don't mean this at all to be facetious. As with all other major religions/philosophies, there have developed offshoots and interpretations of the core teachings that don't seem too consistent with the original intent. There are, for instance, Buddhist sects that pray to dead spiritual leaders as though they were saints to whom one could pray for intercession. There has even been religious warfare and murder between different Buddhist sects. All of which seems quite obviously to contradict the central teachings.

I guess I'm trying to say that you may have received an impression of Buddhism that is valid, in the sense that it may have been given you by a bona fide, active, Buddhist person or teacher, but nevertheless, it may contradict the core teachings. So maybe knowing more about how you came to this understanding could help clear the air.

As to your question:

The quote above seems to imply you think that somehow we choose to suffer. It's already been said that it's not so much a choice, but just a fact that things happen that cause suffering. You also asked "why is this happening to the child", and I take that to mean you are either looking for the mechanism by which, or already believe that, Buddhism justifies child abuse.

I don't believe there's anything in the core teachings that "justifies" suffering in the sense you mean (it IS justified in the sense that sometimes we need to be disciplined or experience suffering to learn, but I can't see how child abuse teaches a useful lesson, so I don't think that that applies here. More rambling on that later.)

It seems to me that a more orthodox Buddhist reading of child abuse would be that it is a violent act perpetrated on an innocent subject. If there is a blame, it most definitely lies with the perpetrator of the violence, who has clearly done wrong - this sort of violence is simply not justifiable. I would go so far as to say that any reading of the Dharma that attempts to either justify the action of the perpetrator, or claim that the recipient "deserved" it, is a perversion of the core Dharma.

Of course, that still leaves the question of how to deal with the scars that violence leaves behind. As has been stated before, the Buddhist approach is generally to deal with oneself irrespective of the other parties involved. So it would still be the victim's responsibility to work through the aftermath.

More detailed rambling, in case that didn't get it:

There IS a concept of "right action" which sometimes justifies actions which are in some sense "violent" (there is, for instance, the story of the teacher who cuts his student's finger off). But these actions are justified by the fact that A) there is an implicit relationship between the actor and the recipient where the action might be allowed (in this example, there is a student-teacher relationship, and one could argue that the student has bound himself to allow the teacher to use "any means necessary" to help achieve understanding) and B) the action serves to communicate a lesson that is vital, and which perhaps cannot be communicated in an easier way.

Now, this justification revolves around the idea that some vital lesson is being communicated. It seems to me that you might have concluded that Buddhism therefore allows for any violence, so long as a lesson is intended. But I think that oversimplifies. I don't think that one can expect a child to get any sort of useful "lesson" out of abuse, and furthermore, if the point of the violence is purportedly discipline (often used as an excuse) there are better ways to discipline a child.

In sum I just can't see how child abuse is justified.

---

On another note, there is also a lot of talk about Karma being a system of racking up points for salvation, and reincarnation as reward or punishment, but I think that this again represents an oversimplification. (Though there are certainly sects who abide by the whole brownie-points scheme). I'm more with soulsling's thinking....

[rottenbrain138]

im interested in learning about buddhism and possibly one day practicing it. where do i start? is there a book i should begin with? did you know the beastie boys are buddhist?

[CheapBastid]

I can not say it any better than the Masters:

...always taking things as they come
Tends to make you forget to put anything in.
The longer you dwell the more it's like hell
You sit by the well just making a wish.
It would be a shame to take too much blame
Look we're all the same
It's only a game.
Ackee 1 2 3...

[soulsling]

rottenbrain138, There are lots of books you can read to learn more about Buddhism and the different practices. There are also lots of good websites. My favorite is Buddhanet. The site will help you find locations as well if you choose to practice or study some. Tricycle is pretty helpful in finding locations, and they have a buddhist message board where your'e better off asking questions if you are seriously interested. Most centers or temples have a day for introduction for beginners.

[Lemur866]

I've always liked this:

Before one studies Zen, the mountains are merely mountains and the clouds are merely clouds.

When one studies Zen, the mountains are no longer mountains, the clouds are no longer clouds.

When one achieves mastery of Zen, the mountains are again mountains, and the clouds are again clouds.


I think I'll take the easy way. Since I think the mountains are mountains and the clouds are clouds I claim I am a Zen master.

[rottenbrain138]

thanks a lot!

[Mr. Svinlesha]

Evenin', all.

First off, thanks Soulsling. You're only the second person to welcome me to SMDB, and I was beginning to think nobody loved me anymore. Or maybe I wear the wrong deoderant?

Secondly, I was just about to answer rottenbrain's question, but you beat me to it, so never mind.

Thirdly, it looks like we've got us a debate about karma going on here. That's a sticky topic and I'm really not an expert, but here's my 2 cents anyway.

However much I appreciate your compliment about buddhistic consistency, oldscratch, as a one-time practitioner I don't know if I fully agree with you. I sensed that you were trying to make the point that bad actions(karma) lead to bad results with your first post; thus, one could argue that a man who in a former life beat his children might, for example, be reincarnated as child who is then beaten -- and therefore, the blame for being beaten would appear to lie with the child, who is merely reaping the fruits of his previous bad actions. I assumed that's what you were trying to get at, and so I carefully tried to sidestep the issue. (Although truth to tell, it really is more a philisophical question than one pertaining to the essence of Buddhism, which centers on practice.)

Finally, ren, you probably know more about this subject than I do, so I'll direct this question towards you (but anyone else who likes, please feel free to jump in). Karmic Law, as I've come to understand the concept, implies a basic moral structure to the universe. It's like the law of cause and effect, but it takes into account our moral actions, and categorizes them as "good" or "bad". What we receive in our next "experience", be it in the next second or in our next rebirth, is thus conditioned by what has gone before. Buddha claims that bad actions follow us like our own shadow; and while arguably this doesn't imply anything with regard to what we may or may not deserve, it does kinda lay the "blame" for suffering squarely at the feet of the sufferer. Even worse, it would appear to imply that people who have good fortune in life are reaping the benefits of their good actions, and that seems patently untrue to me. I don't have any sources or such to back this up by the way, I'm simply presenting it as my (quite possibly misstaken) understanding of Karmic Law.

Taken from that angle, I understand oldscratch's question a little better. It's always seemed to me to be a problem with the idea of Karma. So what say ye, fellow Buddhists? Where have I gone wrong in my reasoning?

[eponymous]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but there is a difference between reincarnation (the transmigration of an individual soul from life to life) and the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth.

As I understand it (and those better versed in Buddhism, please jump in) what is passed on is not those features that one would associate with a soul (a permanent identity/ego), but the collection of past actions/events (karma).

To clarify, the Buddha likened rebirth to that of a flame being passed from one candle to another. A flame (or soul) isn't a "thing", but rather a pattern of events/actions that give rise to its existence and to its continuation.

[CheapBastid]

I am far from an expert, but on the 'child abuse' question/example:

This is all assuming there is someone/something that is giving a lesson. Buddhism doesn't postulate that there is this thing that is 'giving a lesson'. Karma is not a Lording-Over-You-Deity, it is one expression/explanation of interconnection and causality. You are what you are. Things happen. How you re-act to them dictates your level of contentment and contributes heartily to shaping your life (or lives).

[soulsling]

The laws of cause and effect more or less are what Karma can be defined as best IMO. But keeping in mind, that this trancends the physical realm we see and know now, as well as this life. It's too simple an explanation, but the belief is that this is what keeps Samsara going mainly. The causing of suffering. Hence, the four noble truths, to abolish this suffering, and end samsara all together by not being reborn/reincarnated again. Also keep in mind, the western way of thinking, is for the most part, much more physically bound than the eastern ways of thinking. So westerners must let go of these "attachments", these ideas implanted in thier minds for so long, so they can open the way for all the new ideas and concepts of the east to come in. This way it would be easier for them to understand Samsara and Karma. Karma deals with levels of existence, reality, truth, time and the "I".
ren? any words?

eponymous,

As I understand it (and those better versed in Buddhism, please jump in) what is passed on is not those features that one would associate with a soul (a permanent identity/ego), but the collection of past actions/events (karma).

Yes. This. The I is simply "stuff" made from the same "stuff" that all "stuff" is made from... for lack of a better word, in Buddhism.

Lemur866,

Since I think the mountains are mountains and the clouds are clouds I claim I am a Zen master.

Cute, but no cigar. The lesson there is that we drop the "I", and not "think" the mountains or clouds are anything at all. We "KNOW". In Zen, words mess things up, so its more the concept of, rather than the words themselves (in quotation) that matter here. A Zen Master might tell you upon hearing this, that you are attached to yourself, and are a blind dog. While he, is a wide eyed Buddha.

[red_dragon60]

Hey soulsling, I'm on the tricycle boards also, as evidenced by my recent post in General Discussions about Kung Fu.

Wow, I am still amazed by the interest in this thread!

[eponymous]

It also helps to understand karma in the context that there does not exist a permanent self/ego. To me, at least, once an individual realizes the intrinsic emptiness of his/her nature (that there is no permanent self/ego), then karma becomes much less personal.

As an aside - anyone read "The Three Pillars of Zen" by Philip Kapleau? I've just started it, and so far, I've been impressed.

[ren]

Holy cow, I wasn't even gone to lunch that long, and look what develops....

Before I share personal opinion/experience, I wanna state again that there are a lot of 'takes' on what Karmic Law involves. I know there are sects that take the whole idea in exceedingly literal, simplistic detail, and who really believe that A) there is such a thing as objective moral good and bad B) you get positive and negative points for good and bad things C) You need a "clean slate" to achieve enlightenment D) you keep being reborn (or your soul, or some near equivalent, which is in and of itself a whole discussion) until you reach enlightenment. There are also sects who pretty much dispense with Karma as a tool used to train weak minds who can't understand the "real thing".

I don't want to claim that I have the sole correct interpretation and that all these other takes are hooey. I can relate ways in which I've witnessed these things interpreted, and I can relate how they speak to me.

That being said:

The whole good/bad thing, I think, often misses the point about causes and effects propagate, and how that relates to our entrapment in samsara, and how we can get out, which is the stuff I really focused in on, and which really spoke to me.

Here are some experiences that illustrate my take on this better than a straight explanation:

I grew up being very afraid of failure. It wasn't until my late 20's, with the help of counseling, that I started to find my way out of the hole I dug for myself, and now I find myself much happier etc etc. I think my fears came from parents that were terrified of seeing their kids fail. This was never communicated verbally, but it certainly came across in their actions. I eventually talked with them about it, and we explored where they acquired this nervousness about their kids. That took us to the grandparents. Then we asked the grandparents.

Cut to the chase: things happened to my grandparents and great-grandparents when they were young, and those things resulted in the development of certain ways of dealing with the world, and personality traits. When they raised their kids, these traits (expressions of fear from life experiences) worked their way into their kids. Then some of them worked their way into me.

So, in a roundabout way, it's not really a stretch to say that the reason I may have had a hard time trusting someone is because of something that happened to my grandparents.

And so the wheel turns.


Building on that:

During the period of time where I was digging up my past, I was mulling over an exchange that took place between my mother and I when I was young, something that really scarred me. I was trying to tell her something about myself and I felt like she really insulted me. A lot of insecurity was built on top of that event.

It occurred to me one day that it was entirely possible that I misheard her, and that she had never actually said what I thought she did.

So then, here I am in therapy, rooting around trying to picture this whole cause-and-effect chain that led me to where I am, and I realize that the event that might have kicked the whole thing off might actually be imaginary (now there's a real slap-in-the-face type shunyata experience!).

So, perhaps if I'd heard correctly, a large part of the reason I was doling out money to a shrink might be non-existant! (Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but I think you get the point).

Clearly, my reaction, and the way that reaction subsequently set up a large chunk of my life, was based on my perception of reality (not necessarily what really happened) and my expectations (if I had not been predisposed to expecting a negative response, I might have heard correctly. Or, if I had not cared about the response, I might not have been hurt so deeply. Etc.)


Putting two and two together:

Let's say I had kids, and like my parents and grandparents before me the little traits and neuroses of my life get handed down.

Should I have reacted differently to my mom, perhaps by being more circumspect about my expectations (and I'm not trying to get into a "I should've done this" trip - it seems like a lot to expect a child to be so circumspect!) I might have a lot fewer neuroses about perfection and failure and that sort of thing. That might lead to a different environment for my hypothetical kids.

And so the cycle is broken.


To summarize, regardless of what one takes to be right or wrong, all our actions send ripples that have profound effects on ourselves and those around us (butterflies creating thunderstorms and all that).

Our actions are normally based on reflexive emotional reactions to the things that impact us, and rarely circumspect. The law of Karma is simply that these actions cause such habitual reactions, and propagate. As for the chickens coming home to roost, my life experience does show me that these ripples do flow back on oneself. You live in the environment you build for yourself. The generation of Karma is, to my understanding, both a conscious and unconscious process of reacting in this immediate, emotional manner, without stopping to consider the limits that our perceptions and expectations impose on us.

More fundamentally, as in the first anecdote above, actions and reactions become our personalities.

"Right Thought" and "Right Action" can break us out of the cycle by which these actions are perpertuated. We gain an understanding of how the web of Karmic Law works, and can make choices to act in ways that increase compassion and all that other good stuff. Ultimately, by transcending our attachment to the cycle, we escape samsara entirely.

A final thought: I have often mused that in many ways reincarnation can be interpreted as the passing of these characteristics: I.e., if I adopt behaviors that had their roots in reactions that my grandfather had to events that happened to him, the energy of that encounter, the decisions made and the personality of my grandfather, are in some sense reincarnated in me. That's just a personal idea I've been exploring.

[oldscratch]

Ok. I'm getting a little vague and over my head with this one so correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going to go speak to my friend Jack this weekend and clear up some stuff (he works at Green Gulch Zen Center). Anyway. Buddhism states that through self activity you can overcome all pain and suffering. Lack of activity will allow the pain and suffering to continue. IF the soul of the child had acheived enlightment or was working towards it the abuse would not happen or affect the child. Is this correct, more or less? That's always been my understanding.

[jab1]

And, frankly, I have seen nothing here that would change that. (Reincarnation? Karma? Ya gotta be kiddin' me.)

My definition of an atheist is not just someone who does not believe the Biblical God exists. IMHO, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of souls or supernatural forces or gods and devils or angels and demons or enlightenment or magic or mysticism or Karma or...

You get the picture, I hope. Buddhism, to me, is no more grounded in reality than any other belief system that claims the existence of the supernatural.

Skeptically yours,

jab1

P.S. Before reading this thread, I thought Dharma was just the name of a funny woman on TV.

[eponymous]

Originally posted by jab1

My definition of an atheist is not just someone who does not believe the Biblical God exists. IMHO, an atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of souls or supernatural forces or gods and devils or angels and demons or enlightenment or magic or mysticism or Karma or...

Well, a lot of Buddhists would agree with you except for the last (depending on your view of what karma is). Some Buddhists see karma as nothing more than simple cause and effect. You do beleive that if you jump out of an airplane at 30,000 feet without a parachute, the chances of you surviving the fall are practically zero?

[CheapBastid]

Originally posted by jab1
Buddhism, to me, is no more grounded in reality than any other belief system that claims the existence of the supernatural.

Buddhism, to me - a skeptic and an agnostic (I don't claim to know the answers) is a wonderful system of ethics that (the way I see and approach it) doesn't rely on dogma or fantastical claims.

Focusing on your connection with things outside yourself to build your compassion
Using your suffering as a tool to build compassion
Using your compassion to connect with other living things
Seeking happiness in a way that is lasting

This all sound good to me.

=)