Results 1 to 20 of 55
Questions on Buddhism
Note: Edited this thread to allow for a general discussion about Buddhism, not just karma & reincarnation specifically
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.Originally Posted by Huston Smith from The World's Religions
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."
Last edited by Invincible Summer; 5th September 2010 at 05:23.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
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
"As with the Christian religion, the worst advertisement for Socialism is its adherents." - George Orwell
“Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead.” - Kurt Vonnegut
"I am confident that, in the end, common sense and justice will prevail. I'm an optimist, brought up on the belief that if you wait to the end of the story, you get to see the good people live happily ever after." - Cat Stevens
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.
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.
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.
*cough*
Hey! I'm a reincarnation of Nero!
Last edited by Dimentio; 3rd August 2010 at 14:42.
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.?
So would Hindus/Buddhists suggest that poor people are that way because in their past life they were a shitty person?
Wow I never thought about it that way. Very interesting. But can't this lead to a sort of selfish behaviour?
Funny, because it was on a website about Zen Buddhism that said it was scientific fact: http://www.zenguide.com/principles/k...ncarnation.cfm
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
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.
x_x Ah well, maybe I was misinformed.
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.
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.
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?
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.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?
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.
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.
Last edited by Invincible Summer; 6th August 2010 at 19:17.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
Yes.
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.
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.
Buddhist heavens and hells are temporary places not eternal destinations as in western religions so they do not hold much significance.
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?
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?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.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Dude; 7th August 2010 at 06:20.
Hmm my response didn't quite come across as intended. I will try to reiterate later.
We've got your war!
We're at the gates!
We're at your door!
We've got the guillotine...
