Questions on Buddhism

[Invincible Summer]

Note: Edited this thread to allow for a general discussion about Buddhism, not just karma & reincarnation specifically



Each individual is wholly responsible for his or her present condition and will have exactly the future he or she is now creating. Most people are not willing to admit this. They prefer... to locate the source of their difficulties outside themselves. This, say the Hindus, is immature. Everybody gets exactly what is deserved - we have made our beds and must lie in them.

To what extent does the concept of karma take into account social circumstances? I mean, I'm sure that Hindus and Buddhists don't blame the poor for their situation... but this is what is suggested here in the chapter on Hinduism and other places I've read on the Internet.

How do "progressive" Hindus and Buddhists explain this?



Also, to what extent is the concept of reincarnation just a metaphor? I've read different answers from different schools of Buddhism - some say it's just a metaphor for mental states, some say that people having past lives is "a scientific fact."

[Weezer]

Though I'm no longer a Buddhist, in defense of Buddhism, Hinduism has a caste system, while Buddhism does not have a caste system and has philosophically opposed it.

Just saying. Also in defense of Buddhism: http://www.suanmokkh.org/ds/dhamsoc.htm

[Adi Shankara]

To what extent does the concept of karma take into account social circumstances? I mean, I'm sure that Hindus and Buddhists don't blame the poor for their situation... but this is what is suggested here in the chapter on Hinduism and other places I've read on the Internet.

How do "progressive" Hindus and Buddhists explain this?

See, I don't like the way the author put that quote into context, as it's kind've misleading.

yes, Hinduism and Buddhism believe that we make our beds and sleep in them--but a higher or lower karmic life isn't always based on material well-being.

take for example, the Devas that inhabit heaven (again, mostly metaphor, remind you); they live in bliss for millenia, have every material pleasure available, and never have to suffer pain. yet they are considered lower karma than humans, since only humans alone (in Vajrayana Tantric buddhism and Tantric hinduism) can find Moksha and Nirvana. since the Devas rarely acquire good karma, they often fall to the realm of hell (metaphor for a really really bad position in life).

It's quite similar in Hinduism. Sadhus have very little material goods, and sometimes are starving; Brahmin priests are often living in poverty, but they both have higher karma than the wealthiest of people.

I hope that clarifies it a bit for you; it is subject to interpretation, yes, but this is explained very well by Sogyal Rinpoche and Swami Vivekananda.

Generally, reincarnation isn't seen as a metaphor; sometimes, people do not believe that one can remember anything of one's past life, but reincarnation is justified in belief because of the way the world works in cycles, and nothing is ever really a straight line when it comes to nature.

[Widerstand]

To what extent does the concept of karma take into account social circumstances? I mean, I'm sure that Hindus and Buddhists don't blame the poor for their situation... but this is what is suggested here in the chapter on Hinduism and other places I've read on the Internet.

How do "progressive" Hindus and Buddhists explain this?

I like to go with an interpretation that's also regularly used by a variety of self-help gurus; that one should never just place blame on others and get self-absorbed in feelings of being unjustly treat, since thinking that way disempowers the individual - one isn't an actor, but merely a ball pushed around by circumstances or external factors. As such, I'd say it's an empowering belief. It doesn't blame anyone for their situation, but rather suggests they try overcome it. It can - and that's the most popular interpretation of Karma in Western societies, as far as I'm aware - also be used as a synonym of the golden rule.



Also, to what extent is the concept of reincarnation just a metaphor? I've read different answers from different schools of Buddhism - some say it's just a metaphor for mental states, some say that people having past lives is "a scientific fact."

I would say that calling it a scientific fact is utter bullshit. State of mind, maybe. I don't care about that part of Buddhism too much. As far as I know, the Zen school even rejected, or at least neglected, the concept of reincarnation.

[Dimentio]

*cough*

Hey! I'm a reincarnation of Nero! :lol:

[Invincible Summer]

take for example, the Devas that inhabit heaven (again, mostly metaphor, remind you); they live in bliss for millenia, have every material pleasure available, and never have to suffer pain. yet they are considered lower karma than humans, since only humans alone (in Vajrayana Tantric buddhism and Tantric hinduism) can find Moksha and Nirvana. since the Devas rarely acquire good karma, they often fall to the realm of hell (metaphor for a really really bad position in life).

It's quite similar in Hinduism. Sadhus have very little material goods, and sometimes are starving; Brahmin priests are often living in poverty, but they both have higher karma than the wealthiest of people.
So karma is really more in relation to mental/metaphysical/spiritual things than material then. Sounds legit.

But when you talk about "acquiring karma," this sounds like Buddhist/Hindu beliefs are sort of like a meritocracy - you have to work to get to higher stages of godliness or whatever the term is. What about for people whose social and material conditions do not allow them to easily practice deeds that help them acquire good karma? Are they just s.o.l.?




Generally, reincarnation isn't seen as a metaphor; sometimes, people do not believe that one can remember anything of one's past life, but reincarnation is justified in belief because of the way the world works in cycles, and nothing is ever really a straight line when it comes to nature.
So would Hindus/Buddhists suggest that poor people are that way because in their past life they were a shitty person?


I like to go with an interpretation that's also regularly used by a variety of self-help gurus; that one should never just place blame on others and get self-absorbed in feelings of being unjustly treat, since thinking that way disempowers the individual - one isn't an actor, but merely a ball pushed around by circumstances or external factors. As such, I'd say it's an empowering belief. It doesn't blame anyone for their situation, but rather suggests they try overcome it.

Wow I never thought about it that way. Very interesting. But can't this lead to a sort of selfish behaviour?



I would say that calling it a scientific fact is utter bullshit. State of mind, maybe. I don't care about that part of Buddhism too much. As far as I know, the Zen school even rejected, or at least neglected, the concept of reincarnation.
Funny, because it was on a website about Zen Buddhism that said it was scientific fact: http://www.zenguide.com/principles/karma_and_reincarnation.cfm


In recent years, evidence has been collected and documented which confirms that rebirth is a fact. There have been cases of people who have been able to recollect their experience of previous lives. Their description of places and persons of the past were confirmed after thorough investigations.

[Widerstand]

Wow I never thought about it that way. Very interesting. But can't this lead to a sort of selfish behaviour?

It certainly can, but I wouldn't say it has to. Just like autonomy can lead to selfish actions and a rejection of community, but doesn't necessarily. I guess the key is to find something that improves YOUR situation without worsening other's, or, in the best case, that improves the situation of you and others.




Funny, because it was on a website about Zen Buddhism that said it was scientific fact: http://www.zenguide.com/principles/karma_and_reincarnation.cfm

x_x Ah well, maybe I was misinformed.

[Dude]

So karma is really more in relation to mental/metaphysical/spiritual things than material then. Sounds legit.

But when you talk about "acquiring karma," this sounds like Buddhist/Hindu beliefs are sort of like a meritocracy - you have to work to get to higher stages of godliness or whatever the term is. What about for people whose social and material conditions do not allow them to easily practice deeds that help them acquire good karma? Are they just s.o.l.?

It depends on what school of buddhism. The original buddhist schools rely heavily on self effort so having a wrong livelihood such as a butcher is not conducive to enlightenment and the escape from samsara (circle of birth and death) because it creates bad karma. In Pure Land Buddhism however even butchers and prostitutes can attain Nirvana because they rely on the compassion of the Buddhas specifically Amida Buddha. By Buddha rememberance one is born in a Pure Land after death and is able to practice there with the guidance of Buddhas until the being attains Nirvana there and becomes a Buddha him/herself since it is said we are living in a degenerate era where it is very hard to become enlightened on earth. Everyone is able to attain birth in the Pure Land regardless of their good or bad karma according to this school. This is the most popular form of buddhism practiced in china, taiwan, and japan.



So would Hindus/Buddhists suggest that poor people are that way because in their past life they were a shitty person?According to Buddhism all samsara is bullshit (cycle of birth and death) even if you are wealthy because nothing in this world is permanent. We all get old, sick, and die. Everything you can possibly imagine in this world is impermanent. But beings get attached to this world easily which continues the birth/death process until Nirvana which is eternal bliss.

hope this helps.

[Invincible Summer]

It depends on what school of buddhism. The original buddhist schools rely heavily on self effort so having a wrong livelihood such as a butcher is not conducive to enlightenment and the escape from samsara (circle of birth and death) because it creates bad karma. In Pure Land Buddhism however even butchers and prostitutes can attain Nirvana because they rely on the compassion of the Buddhas specifically Amida Buddha. By Buddha rememberance one is born in a Pure Land after death and is able to practice there with the guidance of Buddhas until the being attains Nirvana there and becomes a Buddha him/herself since it is said we are living in a degenerate era where it is very hard to become enlightened on earth. Everyone is able to attain birth in the Pure Land regardless of their good or bad karma according to this school. This is the most popular form of buddhism practiced in china, taiwan, and japan.


Pure Land sounds like an Eastern take on the meritocratic Judeo-Christian religion... worship _____ well enough and you get to go to heaven where things are dandy.

I thought Mahayana Buddhism (which Pure Land is) talked about the elimination of samsara?

[Dude]

Pure Land sounds like an Eastern take on the meritocratic Judeo-Christian religion... worship _____ well enough and you get to go to heaven where things are dandy.

Not really. A Pure Land is not a heaven. It's more of an optimum place to practice until Buddhahood. One can also practice here but there it is easier there since you have the guidance of other Buddhas.


I thought Mahayana Buddhism (which Pure Land is) talked about the elimination of samsara?You're right. Once you become a Buddha in Pure Land the mission is not over. You have to keep coming back to samsara to help other beings gain enlightenment until it is empty of sentient beings. And thats why Mahayana is known as the "greater vehicle" in Buddhism because you have to work for the salvation of all not just yourself.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Even if reincarnation were true, the problem with the karma theory would still persist: nobody knows for sure what they did in the 'past life' and how that's guiding their 'present life'. So the whole thing becomes meaningless, for, if you don't even know what you were and what you did in the previous life, how is it going to help you learn from your mistakes and become a better person in his life?:confused:

At least, purgatory makes sense (even if you don't believe) in that you know you're being cleansed of your sins. Karma makes no sense because you don't even know why things are happening in your life and to what end.

[Invincible Summer]

Not really. A Pure Land is not a heaven. It's more of an optimum place to practice until Buddhahood. One can also practice here but there it is easier there since you have the guidance of other Buddhas.

When you say "one if born in Pure Land after death" due to "the compassion of Amida Buddha," are you saying that pretty much anyone who practices Pure Land will be born in Pure Land? What about Therevadin Buddhists? Why doesn't Amida Buddha's compassion apply to them? Also, I thought that Buddhists didn't worship anyone.


You're right. Once you become a Buddha in Pure Land the mission is not over. You have to keep coming back to samsara to help other beings gain enlightenment until it is empty of sentient beings. And thats why Mahayana is known as the "greater vehicle" in Buddhism because you have to work for the salvation of all not just yourself.Just curious - are you a Pure Land Buddhist?


So how does one "come back to samsara" from the Pure Land? Is this referring to reincarnation? But if one cannot fully remember (if at all) one's previous life, how does one know to help others gain enlightenment?


Also, one thing I don't get about Buddhism is that although they differentiate themselves from Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic religions by saying that they dont' believe in a "geographical place" regarding heaven, but that it's more of a mental/spiritual state, how is this any different? I mean arguably the very belief that one will go to heaven after death is just another mental/spiritual state, without having to actually "go there," if you get what I mean.



Even if reincarnation were true, the problem with the karma theory would still persist: nobody knows for sure what they did in the 'past life' and how that's guiding their 'present life'. So the whole thing becomes meaningless, for, if you don't even know what you were and what you did in the previous life, how is it going to help you learn from your mistakes and become a better person in his life?:confused:

Yeah I'm a bit confused about that too. But how I understand it (which may not be correct) is that since Buddhism doesn't support the notion of an unchanging soul (unlike Abrahamic religions), I assume that we are not supposed to "know" our previous life. There's the "candle analogy" that sort of helps to explain it: It when you light a candle with another candle, the newly lit candle does not arise from the old ‎one, but is another candle.

Also, there is the idea that one's psychological characteristics - kindness, patience, etc - get transferred with reincarnation. I'm not sure how this works though.


At least, purgatory makes sense (even if you don't believe) in that you know you're being cleansed of your sins. Karma makes no sense because you don't even know why things are happening in your life and to what end.Why do people's souls need to sit in some sort of celestial limbo in order to be "cleansed" of "sin?" How are souls (non-material things that aren't proven to exist) cleansed of subjectively bad deeds ("sin")? The entire concept is so fantastical that it makes the least sense.

[Dude]

When you say "one if born in Pure Land after death" due to "the compassion of Amida Buddha," are you saying that pretty much anyone who practices Pure Land will be born in Pure Land?

Yes.


What about Therevadin Buddhists? Why doesn't Amida Buddha's compassion apply to them? Also, I thought that Buddhists didn't worship anyone.Theravadins don't see the Buddha as having saving power. They only see him as a great teacher. Amida Buddha and other Buddhas appeared later in Mahayana scriptures due to the belief that there are infinite Buddhas and Buddhas never "pass away" after their Nirvana but continue to benefit people.Theravadins reject Mahayana scriptures believing them to be not the true word of Shakyamuni Buddha who lived in India 2500 years ago. So denying the fact that Buddhas have saving power and continue to exist after their Nirvana, there is no way to be reborn in the Pure Land.


So how does one "come back to samsara" from the Pure Land? Is this referring to reincarnation? But if one cannot fully remember (if at all) one's previous life, how does one know to help others gain enlightenment?I am a Mahayanist and yes the belief of Pure Lands are one of the core teachings in Mahayana. Bodhisattvas or "enlightened people" are said to remember all their past lives.



Also, one thing I don't get about Buddhism is that although they differentiate themselves from Judeo-Christian/Abrahamic religions by saying that they dont' believe in a "geographical place" regarding heaven, but that it's more of a mental/spiritual state, how is this any different? I mean arguably the very belief that one will go to heaven after death is just another mental/spiritual state, without having to actually "go there," if you get what I mean.Buddhist heavens and hells are temporary places not eternal destinations as in western religions so they do not hold much significance.

[Dude]

This is an excellent explanation of Karma in Buddhism. Many people these days see karma through the lens of Hinduism and new age western religions. It's important to distinguish them.


Kamma is a volition action, and volitional activity is a formation (sankhara) conditioned by ignorance. Thus, kamma is representative of samsaric existence or 'being'. Actions which are generally considered to constitute good kamma (wisdom, generosity, lovingkindess) are such because these actions inherently involve a degree of renunciation of self-interest and a reduction of craving and clinging. This is how they yield good vipaka (kammic result). Not because they somehow coerce and manipulate external events, but because of their very nature. On the other hand, greed, aversion and delusion work in the opposite direction and mire one further in samsaric suffering.

Until one is an arahant, there will always be varying degrees of ignorance, so we will continue to 'build houses' (i.e. sankhara) and identify with the five aggregates (in part or in whole) and will continue to exist in the samsaric round of becoming to that extent. So called "good kamma", through seeing the benefits that derive from lack of clinging, provides a good foundation not only for general mundane happiness, but also for the transcendental wisdom which ultimately transcends kamma (and thus, samsara) by the understanding and experience of cessation.

Nothing particularly mystical and incomprehensible there, is there?

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Why do people's souls need to sit in some sort of celestial limbo in order to be "cleansed" of "sin?" How are souls (non-material things that aren't proven to exist) cleansed of subjectively bad deeds ("sin")? The entire concept is so fantastical that it makes the least sense.

I am making 'if' statements here, that's all. If reincarnation were true, we'd still be clueless as to who did what to whom, and why he's being punished for that in this life and so on. On the contrary, if purgatory were to be true (note the word 'if'), at least we'd know where we are, why we are there, what's happening to us, and so forth.

That's all I am saying. At least, some sort of knowledge (as to why things are happening to us, how they're happening etc.) is possible in purgatory, whereas, in reincarnation, we simply have to play a guessing game as to what we did in the previous life etc. etc.

Now you might want to give me a good rep for this post.;)

[Invincible Summer]

I am making 'if' statements here, that's all. If reincarnation were true, we'd still be clueless as to who did what to whom, and why he's being punished for that in this life and so on. On the contrary, if purgatory were to be true (note the word 'if'), at least we'd know where we are, why we are there, what's happening to us, and so forth.

That's all I am saying. At least, some sort of knowledge (as to why things are happening to us, how they're happening etc.) is possible in purgatory, whereas, in reincarnation, we simply have to play a guessing game as to what we did in the previous life etc. etc.

Now you might want to give me a good rep for this post.;)

But why does it matter that we know "who did what to whom," "where we are," etc?

[BuddhaInBabylon]

this thread makes me want to shed tears in a lot of ways....
"Dude" you need to be careful with your words. jodo shinshu is a very...how shall we say.....particular kind of buddhism that borders on occultism and you know it. The parallels between Christ and Amida (Amitabha) are remarkable indeed. What's more is the doctrine of tariki parallels the concept of intercession in judeo-christian traditions as well. I have said my fair share of "namu amida butsu" in my life, but the core of our convictions is direct experience. Shakyamuni Buddha's dying words were admonitions to rely upon no outside source for our emancipation. to be a light unto ourselves. He said he showed us the way, and that we need only have discipline and single mindedness and live the noble eightfold path. To follow the eightfold path dilligently, neither you or i would waste time debating politics or find ourselves on a politically aligned message board.(read Dogen) This is not meant to be a personal attack, but you really need to be careful about how you represent Buddhism to a forum of free thinkers like this. They may get the wrong idea.

Having said that, i would like to submit to this forum that outside of the four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the seven factors of awakening, there is nothing else to Buddhism. Pure land buddhism although indeed widely practiced is an abberation of the original "doctrine" of buddhism, in much the same way modern christianity is a shadow of CHRISTian doctrine. Or so i'm told. I don't research Armaic scriptures or really care to know about monotheism anymore than i already do as it has been the root of millions of murders throughout the ages. I defy anyone to show me evidence of a buddhist crusade or a buddhist holy war. Pure land doctrine in many ways is contradictory to Shakyamuni's teaching, is all i am saying.

[Mahatma Gandhi]

But why does it matter that we know "who did what to whom," "where we are," etc?

Normally, we try to make sense of what's happening around us, don't we? If a person is punished, the first question we ask is: what did he do to deserve this punishment? When we're in pain, we ask the very same question. Reincarnation doesn't provide a specific answer (only a vague, general one), whereas purgatory does.

[Dude]

this thread makes me want to shed tears in a lot of ways....
"Dude" you need to be careful with your words. jodo shinshu is a very...how shall we say.....particular kind of buddhism that borders on occultism and you know it. The parallels between Christ and Amida (Amitabha) are remarkable indeed. What's more is the doctrine of tariki parallels the concept of intercession in judeo-christian traditions as well. I have said my fair share of "namu amida butsu" in my life, but the core of our convictions is direct experience. Shakyamuni Buddha's dying words were admonitions to rely upon no outside source for our emancipation. to be a light unto ourselves. He said he showed us the way, and that we need only have discipline and single mindedness and live the noble eightfold path. To follow the eightfold path dilligently, neither you or i would waste time debating politics or find ourselves on a politically aligned message board.(read Dogen) This is not meant to be a personal attack, but you really need to be careful about how you represent Buddhism to a forum of free thinkers like this. They may get the wrong idea.

It's wrong to assume that there only one type of Buddhism. It's like saying Roman Catholicism is the only denomination in Christianity. There is the Theravada and the Mahayana and within the Mahayana there are many many schools. Jodo Shinshu being one of them. This school alone does not represent all of Pure Land Buddhism. There are many paralells between Amida and Christ but there's also huge differences. Amida prior to becoming a Buddha was a monk before making his bodhisattva vows in which one of them was that anyone who called upon him would be reborn in his Pure Land. Christ on the other hand is the "son of God" the "messiah" and only through him one can be saved or go to hell for all of eternity. There is nothing like that in Mahayana/Pure Land. If you do not worship Amida but practice dilligently you will still become enlightened. Part of the core teachings of Mahayana is that the Buddha out of compassion taught many different paths to different people because everyone has different capacities. If you reject this then you reject all of Mahayana as the true teachings of Buddhism.

[Invincible Summer]

Normally, we try to make sense of what's happening around us, don't we? If a person is punished, the first question we ask is: what did he do to deserve this punishment? When we're in pain, we ask the very same question. Reincarnation doesn't provide a specific answer (only a vague, general one), whereas purgatory does.


Hmm my response didn't quite come across as intended. I will try to reiterate later.

[Volcanicity]

Revolutionaries believing in Karma? Good luck with that.:thumbup1:

[Mahatma Gandhi]

Revolutionaries believing in Karma? Good luck with that.:thumbup1:

It is the karma of the revolutionaries to believe in karma.:thumbup1:

[x359594]

Even if reincarnation were true, the problem with the karma theory would still persist: nobody knows for sure what they did in the 'past life' and how that's guiding their 'present life'...

In the Buddhist understanding of karma, it is nothing more then causality, and any given event has a number of causes, but the Buddhists extrapolate causality from the physical realm to the metaphysical realm.

Further, Buddhism denies the existence of any sort of permanent unchanging entity that stands behind experience such as a spirit, soul or atman.

The empirical self is nothing but a concatenation of tendencies that come into existence moment by moment, abide in a moment, die and are reborn (not reincarnated), with the previous existence conditioning the next one and thus giving the illusion of a single continuous existence. This is extended into the metaphysical realm with the hypothesis that an individual mind stream persists after death and meets with other causes and conditions to form a new being.

Needless to say, this is at odds with New Age versions of karma, Hindu versions and other popular understanding such as ones expressed in this thread where karma is given a heavy ethical interpretation.

One version of karma that hasn't been discussed yet is the Jain version, where karma is conceived in material terms as a fine dust that enters the body through the pores of the skin and collects around the bija or seed that's supposed to be liberated at death. Weighted down by karma the bija reincarnates.

[Invincible Summer]

The empirical self is nothing but a concatenation of tendencies that come into existence moment by moment, abide in a moment, die and are reborn (not reincarnated), with the previous existence conditioning the next one and thus giving the illusion of a single continuous existence. This is extended into the metaphysical realm with the hypothesis that an individual mind stream persists after death and meets with other causes and conditions to form a new being.

Reminds me of Foucault/post-structural/post-modern theory and how the subject is created and understood through the intersecting of discourses


Needless to say, this is at odds with New Age versions of karma, Hindu versions and other popular understanding such as ones expressed in this thread where karma is given a heavy ethical interpretation.

Indeed, it's difficult to separate the various interpretations of karma as in the West they seem to be interchanged

[Adi Shankara]

Indeed, it's difficult to separate the various interpretations of karma as in the West they seem to be interchanged

That's the thing though, karma isn't "good" or "bad", Karma simply is the illusory state (maya) and a complete lack of karma is the liberated state (Nirvana or Moksha, depending on your beliefs).

[Dimentio]

I, Emperor Nero Caesar, hereby is delcaring the imperial decree that I've permbanned Mahatma Gandhi for wasting bandwidth...
:lol:

[Invincible Summer]

That's the thing though, karma isn't "good" or "bad", Karma simply is the illusory state (maya) and a complete lack of karma is the liberated state (Nirvana or Moksha, depending on your beliefs).


How is karma eliminated or rid of then?

[x359594]

How is karma eliminated or rid of then?

In the Buddhist scheme, the production of new karma ends when an individual becomes enlightened, and the karma accumulated prior to that eventually wears out.

Of course, in the material world causality never ends but somehow it stops at least on the metaphysical level with the onset of enlightenment. I don't think we'll get a rational explanation since it's not a rational hypothesis. I don't say this to insult anyone who subscribes to a belief in karma, but it seems to me more a question of faith than logic.

[Adi Shankara]

How is karma eliminated or rid of then?

by realizing the nature of all karma; Adi Shankara says this is similar how one fears a rope in the dark, believing it to be a snake, but once they realize the rope is just a rope, not a snake, all fear dissipates.

karma and ignorance is very similar in Shankaran thought.

[Stand Your Ground]

I kinda believe in Karma.

I used to laugh at poor people.
I used to laugh at people who had to take the bus.

When I was still living with my mom when I was younger we eventually became poor.

And now I'm on my own and ride the bus to work.

Coincidence? IDK.

[danyboy27]

karma dosnt exist, any simple history book will show you that doing good dosnt mean succes, and doing bad dosnt mean failure.

take gengis khan, one of the most ferocious tyran the world had endured, he ordered the rape and pillage of thousand of villages, and he died peacefully, being burried with ton of treasures and presents.

Franco, the spanish dictator, ogusto pinochet,chilean dictator, they both lived and died of natural causes, being able to fully fufill their aspirations and realize their evil deeds undisturbed.

on the other side of the coin, many good men where killed or lived sad lives despite their tremendous efforts to do good; spartacus was crucified, most of the jewish who organized uprising in the guetto where lined against the wall and shot, i seen multiples people who where good but got nothing but shit in life.

Karma dosnt exist.

[Adi Shankara]

karma dosnt exist, any simple history book will show you that doing good dosnt mean succes, and doing bad dosnt mean failure.

take gengis khan, one of the most ferocious tyran the world had endured, he ordered the rape and pillage of thousand of villages, and he died peacefully, being burried with ton of treasures and presents.

Franco, the spanish dictator, ogusto pinochet,chilean dictator, they both lived and died of natural causes, being able to fully fufill their aspirations and realize their evil deeds undisturbed.

on the other side of the coin, many good men where killed or lived sad lives despite their tremendous efforts to do good; spartacus was crucified, most of the jewish who organized uprising in the guetto where lined against the wall and shot, i seen multiples people who where good but got nothing but shit in life.

Karma dosnt exist.

You don't understand karma at all. if you read some of the Lotus sutra, you'd realize that it's impossible for human beings to guess what karma is negative or good since it'd be too subjective, and even so, one can only know what is good for eliminating karma, but not for what creates negative karma.

[danyboy27]

You don't understand karma at all. if you read some of the Lotus sutra, you'd realize that it's impossible for human beings to guess what karma is negative or good since it'd be too subjective, and even so, one can only know what is good for eliminating karma, but not for what creates negative karma.

even if that witchcraft was real, why should i make efforts to eliminate my karma if there is no way to determine if the bad luck that i experience is linked to my karma at all?

and beside, experiences have been made in the past on people who claimed to be able to sense the karma of other peoples, the experiences showed the usual 50% margin of error, wich mean those people had perhaps the same chances of detecting other people karma by guessing.

[Adi Shankara]

and beside, experiences have been made in the past on people who claimed to be able to sense the karma of other peoples, the experiences showed the usual 50% margin of error, wich mean those people had perhaps the same chances of detecting other people karma by guessing.

you know this argument has fallacies, correct? just because some claim to be able to predict karma, does not mean all believe that one can predict karma.


even if that witchcraft was real, why should i make efforts to eliminate my karma if there is no way to determine if the bad luck that i experience is linked to my karma at all?

well if there is no way to determine that our children will grow to be 75, successful, and happy...why have children at all? hell, if we know that we could get hit by a bus tomorrow, why get out of bed and eat?

even so, many don't believe that karma accumulated in this life is expended in the same lifetime. many believe that you try to accumulate for the next one, so that one may have a positive birth in the next. this is not what I personally believe, but it's a belief that stands irregardless.

[Dimentio]

karma dosnt exist, any simple history book will show you that doing good dosnt mean succes, and doing bad dosnt mean failure.

take gengis khan, one of the most ferocious tyran the world had endured, he ordered the rape and pillage of thousand of villages, and he died peacefully, being burried with ton of treasures and presents.

Franco, the spanish dictator, ogusto pinochet,chilean dictator, they both lived and died of natural causes, being able to fully fufill their aspirations and realize their evil deeds undisturbed.

on the other side of the coin, many good men where killed or lived sad lives despite their tremendous efforts to do good; spartacus was crucified, most of the jewish who organized uprising in the guetto where lined against the wall and shot, i seen multiples people who where good but got nothing but shit in life.

Karma dosnt exist.

Genghis Khan was actually quite good. Its a myth that he built pyramids out of skulls or ordered mass torture and mass rape sessions. The only social group which he massacred in conquered nations were generally the nobility, while he allowed commoners who gave up peacefully to live on.

Genghis is sadly often confused with Tamerlane, who killed about 20 million people in Central Asia in the 14th century.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Indeed, I've heard something along the lines of a woman being able to walk from Spain to Mongolia without fear of molestation under Genghis' rule.

As for karma, I think it's a better idea to teach people not to be dicks than it is to make reference to some kind of cosmic scoreboard.

[danyboy27]

you know this argument has fallacies, correct? just because some claim to be able to predict karma, does not mean all believe that one can predict karma.
.
but if you cant see or predict it, what evidence do you have to believe in it?





well if there is no way to determine that our children will grow to be 75, successful, and happy...why have children at all? hell, if we know that we could get hit by a bus tomorrow, why get out of bed and eat?
.
that a completly irrelevant exemple, children exist, karma dosnt.



even so, many don't believe that karma accumulated in this life is expended in the same lifetime. many believe that you try to accumulate for the next one, so that one may have a positive birth in the next. this is not what I personally believe, but it's a belief that stands irregardless.
then again, what are the real evidences that karma is real.

[x359594]

[QUOTE=Thomas_Sankara;1851264]...just because some claim to be able to predict karma, does not mean all believe that one can predict karma.../QUOTE]

If karma is taken in its Buddhist meaning as causality, then some simple behaviors can be predicted in the physical realm with a degree of certainty.

For example, it's the karma of water to boil when its temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius or 212 degrees Fahrenheit under standard conditions at sea level (at one atmosphere of pressure) when exposed to heat. Here in a nutshell are all the causes and conditions necessary to give rise to this simple empirical phenomenon.

And this is how karma operates according to Buddhist understanding. When it comes to human behavior, there are so many variables involved that karma does indeed become hard to predict over a long period of time. We can say that it's the karma of human flesh to scald when placed in boiling water but we can't account for all the causes and conditions that led to the scalding.

[kitsune]

There are very different views of karma, depending on the tradition. Some are very mystical, while others are very practical. I grew up with very practical Zen, where karma is simply the recognition that the conditions of a moment are the result of the conditions of previous moments. It certainly doesn't mean that the actions of an individual will directly return in kind to them. In the realm of human behavior, it's understood that the effect of one's actions spread out like ripples in a pond.

Someone posted a link recently showing research that supports this view (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100308151049.htm).

[Die Rote Fahne]

Revolutionaries believing in Karma? Good luck with that.:thumbup1:

Why? The revolution in itself would be a huge act of good karma. The revolution would also be a result of the bad karma gathered for centuries by the bourgeois and capitalists.

[Invincible Summer]

karma dosnt exist, any simple history book will show you that doing good dosnt mean succes, and doing bad dosnt mean failure.

take gengis khan, one of the most ferocious tyran the world had endured, he ordered the rape and pillage of thousand of villages, and he died peacefully, being burried with ton of treasures and presents.

Franco, the spanish dictator, ogusto pinochet,chilean dictator, they both lived and died of natural causes, being able to fully fufill their aspirations and realize their evil deeds undisturbed.

on the other side of the coin, many good men where killed or lived sad lives despite their tremendous efforts to do good; spartacus was crucified, most of the jewish who organized uprising in the guetto where lined against the wall and shot, i seen multiples people who where good but got nothing but shit in life.

Karma dosnt exist.

I think the problem here is that Buddhist karma isn't a quid-pro-quo thing where if you do something good, the laws of the universe will bring good things to you. This (to my understanding) is how the West conceives it, but is not really correct.

I think that Buddhist karma is more about how the subject affects itself rather than how the external world will affect the subject. For instance, if you do something that is negatively karmic, there are emotions, etc that come with doing something that is negative and you'll feel some level of mental/physical suffering. Vice versa for positive actions.



#avg_ls_inline_popup { position:absolute; z-index:9999; padding: 0px 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-top: 0px; width: 240px; overflow: hidden; word-wrap: break-word; color: black; font-size: 10px; text-align: left; line-height: 13px;}

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think that Buddhist karma is more about how the subject affects itself rather than how the external world will affect the subject. For instance, if you do something that is negatively karmic, there are emotions, etc that come with doing something that is negative and you'll feel some level of mental/physical suffering. Vice versa for positive actions.

Isn't that down to personality, however? Sociopaths will happily screw someone over and not feel a twinge of guilt about it.

[Adi Shankara]

Isn't that down to personality, however? Sociopaths will happily screw someone over and not feel a twinge of guilt about it.

in Buddhist reasoning, sociopaths and psychopaths are deeply in bad karma, since they'll never find peace with others, nor will they ever know what it is to fully have the human experience.

[Adi Shankara]

but if you cant see or predict it, what evidence do you have to believe in it?

if everything has an equal and opposite reaction to every action, why wouldn't that be extended universally?





that a completly irrelevant exemple, children exist, karma dosnt.

missed my point entirely; future children don't exist, so why have them?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

in Buddhist reasoning, sociopaths and psychopaths are deeply in bad karma, since they'll never find peace with others, nor will they ever know what it is to fully have the human experience.

This sort of thing is why I think attributing human activities and mindsets to such nebulous concepts as "karma" is far inferior to rational reasoning using evidence gathered from the material world. Sociopaths are the way they are because their brains are different, and hopefully medical science will be able to do something about it one day.

[Invincible Summer]

I've got a question: How are the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism involved in maintaining a theocratic/feudalistic, caste-like structure?

Also in another thread, Kiev Communard mentioned that Zen Buddhism in Japan had been linked to militarism and nationalism.

What can be said about this? Is it just aberrations on Buddhist teaching, much like how some Christians see Televangelists and Prosperity Gospel preachers to be aberrations on Christian theology?

[Adi Shankara]

I've got a question: How are the teachings of Tibetan Buddhism involved in maintaining a theocratic/feudalistic, caste-like structure?

Tibetan history is pretty complex on this; the title of Dalai Lama is originally a Mongolian title given to abbots of the Dredung monastery (I think) who showed royal favor to Altan Khan; many of the Dalai Lamas were never even Tibetan, and some were sent in from the Mongol Empire, in a sort of show of support for the friendly relations between the Tibetan and Mongol empires. how it was turned into a title of Tulku (basically, a Lama who could choose his/her own rebirth) was that Sonam Gyatso, the first Dalai Lama, proclaimed his future rebirths and signs to look for. naturally, considering the original Mongolian title bestowed, it was soon manipulated into political office in order to maintain that order of Mongol-Tibetan relations.

Now what turned this office into a theocracy was the original appointment of a rival Lama by the grandson of the great Khan, and this upset the balance, and led to many invasions and periods of hardship; so Kelzang Gyatso, the original selected Tulku, absorbed power to consolidate the rule of his school of Lamas and supporters, and ever since then (I think it was in the 1700s) it was a theocracy led by a few regents who killed Dalai Lamas to prevent them from ruling, whereas before, it was pretty much just a Lama-led kingdom with strong relations to Mongolia. (sorry if this is kinda rambling, I'm a little bit stoned, and if you need me to explain any of this in depth, just ask)

So basically, a schism with Mongolia led to a dictator like Lama who enforced strict rule of Tibet, who was killed by either Chinese imperial court officials, rival Tibetan clans, and that led to the deaths of many Dalai Lama tulkus before they could obtain the age of majority to rule, thus allowing a "royal regent" to basically dictate from the palace while the very Lamas they were to be protecting would often die horribly violent deaths, thus establishing a mysterious monarchy that ruled through the Tibetan lamas as if that marked them with divine right to rule. take this quote by the Dalai Lama's brother to understand the situation:


After him [Jamphel Gyatso the VIIIth Dalai Lama (1758-1804)], the IXth and Xth Dalai Lamas died before attaining their majority: one of them is credibly stated to have been murdered and strong suspicion attaches to the other. The XIth and XIIth were each enthroned but died soon after being invested with power. For 113 years, therefore, supreme authority in Tibet was in the hands of a Lama Regent, except for about two years when a lay noble held office and for short periods of nominal rule by the XIth and XIIth Dalai Lamas.
It has sometimes been suggested that this state of affairs was brought about by the Ambans—the Imperial Residents in Tibet—because it would be easier to control the Tibet through a Regent than when a Dalai Lama, with his absolute power, was at the head of the government. That is not true. The regular ebb and flow of events followed its set course. The Imperial Residents in Tibet, after the first flush of zeal in 1750, grew less and less interested and efficient. Tibet was, to them, exile from the urbanity and culture of Peking; and so far from dominating the Regents, the Ambans allowed themselves to be dominated. It was the ambition and greed for power of Tibetans that led to five successive Dalai Lamas being subjected to continuous tutelage.


tl;dr: so basically, the Tibetan monarchy of regents ruled while telling the people they ruled with right through the Lamas even though most died horrible violent deaths, thus establishing a rule of elite lamas.


Also in another thread, Kiev Communard mentioned that Zen Buddhism in Japan had been linked to militarism and nationalism.

This is the first time I heard of this. State Shinto is almost always what manifests itself as religious nationalism in Japan which centers on a cult of the emperor as the divinity as the sun; Buddhism would never sanction the worship of a human "deity" like that.


What can be said about this? Is it just aberrations on Buddhist teaching, much like how some Christians see Televangelists and Prosperity Gospel preachers to be aberrations on Christian theology?

Pure-land Buddhism is basically evangelical buddhism which follows some elements of faith based worship; they are relatively small compared to most sects, but they aren't intrusive in their practices, and they don't really preach on TV from what I know.

[Weezer]

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Just saying.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Newton's Third Law of Motion:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Just saying.

Newton's laws refer to physical motion, not the actions of intelligent beings. Newton also said "force equals mass times velocity", but taking that to heart isn't necessarily going to make me a better person.

Buddhists and New Agers have this extremely irritating habit of mangling scientific terms and theories to support their own kooky beliefs.

[ZeroNowhere]

Newton also said "force equals mass times velocity", but taking that to heart isn't necessarily going to make me a better person.Acceleration? But yeah, invoking Newton's Third Law in relation to karma is as mystifying as it is mystical. When a body exerts a certain physical force on a second body, the second body exerts an equal and opposite force on the first. This is not equivalent to karma. One may as well use the second law to prove that The Force from Star Wars exists.


Buddhists and New Agers have this extremely irritating habit of mangling scientific terms and theories to support their own kooky beliefs.Yes, although the sensible ones (?!) have moved on to quantum physics, as they're less likely to look like idiots to the average high-schooler.

[Invincible Summer]

Pure-land Buddhism is basically evangelical buddhism which follows some elements of faith based worship; they are relatively small compared to most sects, but they aren't intrusive in their practices, and they don't really preach on TV from what I know.

What I meant is that could the Zen Buddhist influence in Japanese militarism (as explored in Brian Victoria's book Zen at War and discussed in this article (http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118)) and other activity such as the expulsion of Tamils in Sri Lanka be considered "aberrations" of Buddhist doctrine?


Also, just when I thought Buddhists didn't seriously think that poor/disadvantaged/disabled people existed because of their "bad karma" accumulated in past lives, I came upon this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdUNF6NadjI) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3vkOLpkoP4).

This guy teaches classes on Buddhism and meditation around my area. He claims to be an ex-Theravadin monk. I mean, how is it fair at all to blame the victim for the actions of their past lives on their current condition, especially since they can't remember their lives (as supposedly one could have lived hundreds of past lives)? It's pretty abhorrent to me when he suggests in the 2nd video that people get murdered because it's basically their comeuppance.



Also, in another video of his, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HANNTrYK7I) he basically says that there are things that we just shouldn't bother trying to understand (the JFK assassination being one of them... :confused:). Karma is one of them. Isn't that against what Gautama said, when he basically said that one shouldn't believe just for the sake of believing? Don't the "Four Imponderables" conflict with basic Buddhist philosophy?

[x359594]

...Pure-land Buddhism is basically evangelical buddhism which follows some elements of faith based worship; they are relatively small compared to most sects, but they aren't intrusive in their practices, and they don't really preach on TV from what I know.

On the contrary, Pure Land Buddhism is the largest denomination of Buddhism in East Asia (China, Korea and Japan.) Taken together, Chinese-American, Japanese-American and Vietnamese-American Pure Land Buddhists easily out number all other denominations in the US. (The biggest single denomination of Buddhism in the United States, however, is Sokka Gakki International, an off-shoot of the Japanese Nichiren Shoshu sect.)

The Jodo Shinshu sect of Pure Land Buddhism is the largest sect in Japan and has been since the 15th century. Further, this school started as a non-hierarchical lay movement among the peasant classes in medieval Japan and during the Sengoku era when the country was up for grabs among competing warlords the Shin sect threw off feudal rule in a small area of Eastern Japan and set up a federation of villages that lasted 90 years. They firecely resisted the re-imposition of feudal overlordship in a series of uprisings known as the ikko-ikki.

In the rest of East Asia, especially China, Pure Land Buddhism became one of the dominant schools there; in China Chan (Zen) merged with Pure Land during the Ming dynasty, and Chan's recent revival in Taiwan is a continuity of this Pure land hybrid.

As far as the Japanese Pure Land goes, it was never evangelical in the Western sense of that word. This school is non-monastic and lay oriented. The founder Shinran left the Tendai monastery of Mt. Heiei after 20 years and turned to Pure land practice exclusively. For this he was dis-robed by the civil authority at the instigation of the Tendai hierarchy. Later he married and had children and directed his message of exclusive reliance on Amida Buddha to the peasantry, low ranking samurai and marginal laborers.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ok, let us get something straight. This will clear up some confusion on Karma (btw, I find it to be a bs concept with no evidence or real practical applications).
Karma does not happen in this life, only in your next one. This life you are living now is your fault because of the mistakes you made in a past life, not the one you are living now.
My Name is Earl's view of Karma (tho an awesome sho :D) is just a practice in fundamentally misunderstanding karmic philosophy.

[x359594]

...Karma does not happen in this life, only in your next one...

As others have indicated in earlier posts, Buddhist karma (as distinct from New Age karma, Hindu karma and Jain karma) is a theory of causality, no more and no less. As such it occurs in this life inasmuch as results have causes, but the Buddhists extend causality into the metaphysical realm.

Whatever its popular misunderstandings maybe among contemporary Western Buddhists the earliest canonical literature does not carry the imputation of morality to karma.

[x359594]

Since this thread is now about Buddhism in general, I think it should be examined from an historical materialist perspective that takes into consideration the various iterations of Buddhism in different historical moments and different countries. Depending on time and place Buddhism has been progressive and it's been reactionary.

For an accurate understanding of Buddhism (or any other religion) it's important not to essentialize it but rather to examine how it relates to the given socio-economic conditions in which it finds itself.

For example, in contemporary North America all the various sects of Buddhism exist side by side but have very different memberships. The attitude of Asian-Americans toward Buddhism is different from the attitude of Euro-Americans toward Buddhism. Euro-American Buddhists are mostly white and middle-class and are heavily represented in the meditative schools of Buddhism while Asian-American Buddhists come from various class backgrounds and are more likely to belong to belong to non-meditative schools of Buddhism or in the case of Theravada Buddhism meditation is limited to ordained clergy. These are only a few of many examples that could be cited.