Have you asked Buddha into your life?

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.

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).

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,

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,

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. :wink: While he, is a wide eyed Buddha.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

=)

Gautama Buddha

(I have this written down but didn’t think to note which text it’s from…)

That’s a direct cause and effect. You can even make the connection that if I treat others badly as a general rule, I will eventually be treated badly by others who know this – and that’s a direct cause and effect. But one understanding of karma holds that there is a hidden cause and effect relationship – people who have no knowledge of my past bad acts cause bad things to happen to me, or what seems like random good or bad fate are really a direct result of my previous actions. Worse, when one experiences “bad karma” and can’t identify the cause in this life, the fallback in some interpretations is that it must have been a previous life that led to current suffering. Since we can’t identify this previous existence or verify what actions actually directly led to the current karma we experience, I think Jab1 is right to lump “karma” in with other supernatural events that he rejects.

I’m not very familiar with Buddhism, so I don’t know how central a belief in karma is. To me, karma is a meaningless after-the-fact explanation of events, like saying someone is lucky. Meaningless, because it has no predictive value. You are said to be lucky, or to be experiencing “good karma” based on what has happened to you – like finding a $20 bill in the street. But you’re no more likely to find another $20 bill, or any less likely to get hit by a bus – and when you do get hit by a bus, we’ll say that you were unlucky, or that you did something to earn this bad karma.

Karma just seems like another way of turning to the mysterious to explain or make sense of the world’s unfairness.

Well, I myself find this explanation of karma to be difficult to swallow as well. But hopefully the other Buddhists can chime in to supply a cogent response.

Actually (and again, someone correct me if I’m wrong), the Buddha shunned metaphysical speculations and rarely discussed aspects of karma (he only did so rather reluctantly - it was much later after the death of the Buddha that aspects of karma were discussed/elaborated upon by his adherents/followers). What the Buddha was most concerned about was the HERE and NOW - dealing with the inherent unfairness of the world (suffering).

good evening friend,

friend eponymous wrote:

i agree.

master dogen said:

truth is perfect and complete in itself. it is not newly discovered; it has always existed. truth is not far away; it is ever present it is not something to be attained since not one of your steps leads away from it.

do not follow the ideas of others, but learn to listen to the voice within yourself. your body and mind will become clear and you will realize the unity of all things.

the slightest movement of your dualistic thought will prevent you from entering the palace of meditation and wisdom.

the buddha meditated for six years, bodidharma for nine. the practice of meditation is not a method for the attainment of realization–it is enlightenment itself.

your search among books, word upon word, may lead you to depths of knowledge, but it is not the way to receive the reflection of your true self.

when you have thrown off your ideas as to mind and body, the original truth will fully appear. zen is simply the expression of truth; therefore longing and striving are not true attitudes of zen.

  (adapted from the fukanzazengi translated by senzuki and mccandless)

as in the ocean’s midmost depth no wave is born, but all is still, so let the practitioners be still, be motionless, and nowhere should they swell.

  (from the sutta - nipata  translated by dines anderson and helmer smith)

If by “overcome” you mean you will never feel pain, I’d say I don’t read the Dharma that way. If you mean, learn not to let it interfere with your peace of mind, I’ll buy that. Since suffering is considered a mental state born of our entanglement with our thoughta and feelings, I’s also say I agree you can get to a point when you no longer suffer - which is not the same as saying you no longer have thoughts and feelings, just that you don’t get tangled up in them.

The abuse would not happen? Don’t think I’d go that far, since the ability to prevent the abuse may be beyond the capacity of a child, from a purely physical perspective. As for affecting the child, if you mean that the child would be able to survive the experience without being emotionally damaged, I guess that would be possible. In principle the child might still have feelings of fear or whatever, but these feelings would simply be let go of instead of tormenting the child in the future.

IOW, just because you’re enlightened doesn’t mean you no longer have the thoughts and feelings, you’re just no longer caught up in them.

But this is far different from the original proposition that the child was somehow to blame…

Bodhisattva, come and take me by the hand,
Bodhisattva, come and take me by the hand,
Come and show me
The shine in your Japan,
The sparkle in your China,
Bodhisattva, gonna sell my house in town
Bodhisattva, gonna sell my house in town
Gonna be
The shine in your Japan
The sparkle in your China
Bodhisattva, bodhisattva…

Just a few quick observations:

Thanks, ren, for your post. I work as a psychotherapist myself, and it’s nice to hear someone claim that it has helped them every now and again. In addition, you come to within a millimeter of implying that therapy can be a way to break out of the cycle of Karma, which is something I’ve never heard before, nor even thought about. (I’m often struck by the similarities between Buddhism and psychoanalytic theory, as well as some of the differences.)

It comes as no suprise at all to me to hear that things that have happened to your grandparents affect you. Over here we say that it takes 3 generations of traumatic events to “create” a schizophrenic.

On the other hand, my understanding of Karma as such has always been that a subject, personally responsible for his intentions and the actions thus generated by them, will suffer the the “Vipaka” (fruits) of his Karma (actions). The karma of relatives and such do not play a large role in my own karma. I have to agree with Keenan on that. I quote a passage from “The Theory of Karma” by “the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw”:

"Question: Do the Karmas of parents determine or affect the Karmas of their children?

"Answer: Physically, the Karma of children is generally determined by the Karma of their parents. Thus, healthy parents usually have healthy offspring, and unhealthy parents have unhealthy children. On the effect or how the Karma of their children is determined: the child’s Karma is a thing apart of itself – it forms the child’s individuality, the sum-total of its merits and demerits accumulated in innumerable past existences. For example, the Karma of the Buddha-to-be, Prince Siddhattha was certainly not influenced by the joint Karma of his parents, King Suddhodana and Queen Maya. The glorious and powerful Karma of our Buddha-to-be transcended the Karma of his parents which jointly were more potent than his own. " (I’m not sure I understand that last statement.)

Otherwise, excellent thread all around. Longhair, where did you get that sig?

I think it was either Tricycle or Shambala Sun that recently (within the last year) dedicated an entire issue to exploring the overlap between psychotherapy and Buddhist practice. There are apparently many who are practitioners in both. I couldn’t find it online, but you might wanna track that down in a library or something. This could be an entire thread of its own…

As for me, nowadays I tend to think of psychotherapy as a tool that can be incorporated into practice, but is a subset of it. (I guess if one were not Buddhist one might think of thinks the other way around!)

I would agree entirely. Regardless of how one comes to act a certain way, one is still responsible for one’s actions.

My illustration was not intended to suggest that one is responsible for someone else’s Karma, but to shed light on how our actions propagate into the environment around us, and come back to us. (Opening a small window on the larger subject.) The fruits of our actions are manifest in our interactions with those around us. I’m not sure I was all that coherent.

I suppose do believe it’s not a matter of simple “good” or “bad” but of mindful action rather than automatic reaction, that breaks the cycle of samsara. But hey, that’s just me…

Thanks for starting this one, red_dragon60. This is one of my most favorite threads in the meager few months that I’ve been posting.

friend svinlesha,

you asked about my signature quote. it was the quote of the day for june 28 on my little zen desk calendar. i have not found out more about chogyam trungpa, but the search continues as time permits.

Trungpa Rinpoche is the late founder of the Shambhala organization in the US. As you might have figured, they are the publishers of the Shambhala Sun. He also founded Naropa University in Colorado.

I highly recommend his book “Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism”, available at your local bookstore in the Buddhist / Eastern Religions section.