Reincarnation....karma [Archive]

sonrisa

12th July 2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by DrewPollock@Jul 10 2004, 03:28 AM
How does karma apply to one not a human. Say one is an animal, or a hellbeing, or a heavenly being.

--I'm not sure if karma applies to animals, or at least not all of them. Karma is about choices & in order to make these choices, a certain level of intelligence is required. The things that many animals do is not so much a "choice", but driven by survival & propigation of their respective species.

Apes can communicate coherently using sign language or a pc keyboard, that indicates a degree of intelligence. Dolphins are sposed to be intelligent. Perhaps karma applies to them as well.

I personally, don't think we reincarnate as animals- tho one of my friends swears up & down she was a cat in a past life- not only becuz of the intelligence/decision making factor, but becuz, developmentally, we are at a higher level than most animals ( I'm not sure about the apes & dolphins) By same token, I don't think we can reincarnate as angels, if that's what you mean by a heavenly being. If angels are, as some suspect, interdimensional beings, or higher dimensional (5th, 6th, whatever) beings, than they are on a different level of development than us. But perhaps, we can eventually evolve to their level, & thus beome angels ourelves- eventually (even Random! :))

Angels having karma, never thought about that before, but if they are intelligent beings with the ability to make choices, then karma would apply to them as well.

a random hack

12th July 2004, 12:20 PM

Karma is not like planting seeds. If you plant a seed, and do not water it, it will not grow. How does this apply to karma? I understand the analogy, and it would explain my question, if it were true.
Action and effect also do not apply. For example, If you beat someone up and rob them, the effect is that the person you robbed will be bruised and broke, and the effect on you is that you will have some money.

well, it only an analogy :lol:
ok, fair enough, let's say, you do something, then you don't think about it for years, but then, something happens and you are reminded of that first action. this reminder might be considered to be like water, nourishing the seed, which then grows into an effect, making you feel guilty, happy, whatever, and maybe affecting further action... <_<
as for your acction and effect, yes, that is one of the effect.. others might be, the person i robbed might feel less safe walking around, more inclined to rob someone else, etcetcetc, depending on the complex of karma present in their 'seed memory' quite a deep level of consciousness, apparently.

sonrisa

12th July 2004, 03:00 PM

the seed can be planted in a past life. The purpose of karma is to help us evolve spiritually to higher levels of conscienceness, & ultimately to reach nirvana. Working out various karmic issues can take more than lifetime.

to use your robber example- the tit for tat explanation of karma would be that the person you robbed once robbed you in a past life, so it's payback time. And we do interact with people we interacted with in past lives (tho generally not in such a dramatic fashion!) settling up old karma or making new karma.

a subtle explanation of karma would be that the person you robbed was, in a past life, a skinflint, a miser who hoarded his $. So, in this life, he was relieved of some of his $ by you. This would be especially true if the person you robbed is working out karmic issues relating to $ in his present life.

As Random pointed out, karma can be quite complex, & buried deep in our conscienceness, which is why we generally don't know what issues we are working on, altho thru contemplation & observation we can get an idea.

sahyo

12th July 2004, 04:53 PM

The purpose of karma is to help us evolve spiritually to higher levels of conscienceness, & ultimately to reach nirvana.

not possible imagined "purpose of karma" "higher levels" "reach nirvana"

sonrisa

13th July 2004, 05:28 AM

how so asheera?

DrewPollock

13th July 2004, 05:30 AM

So ...... since you believe in karma, do you believe in a diety? The reason im asking is, the idea of karma and reincarnation is just plain silly unless there is some kind of universal power driving it.

DoWalker

14th July 2004, 12:54 AM

My favorite metaphor for understanding karma is the glass of water. It's clear until you pollute it with unwholesome thoughts and deeds. Therefore, even if you have money, your mind resides in the spiritual equivalent of sewage, so you have to ask if it was worth the money.

Incidentally, the metaphor extends when we talk about meditation -- letting the impurities in the water settle, letting the water purify.

From one life to another, we retain some of that filth until we have let go of the impurities, and again have a clear glass of water. (Nirvana)

I stole this metaphor, but I don't know whose it was first, or I would credit them.

DrewPollock

14th July 2004, 01:54 AM

Dowalker, in your metaphor, where does the karma coming back on you take place? I understand about the "polluting your mind". I agree. But karma is "if you do a bad deed, something bad will happen to you". If you put shit in a glass of water, how does that come back on you?

Will someone answer my question about a diety? Or how reincarnation and karma just take place and are the exact equal punishment, or reward, to what you have done in the past? Wait, in know why no one will answer it...... Because no one can. If you can, and your answer sounds rather logical, i will give you 85 billion dollars.

sahyo

14th July 2004, 02:26 AM

If you put shit in a glass of water, how does that come back on you?

watershitingwater...did seem as though 'you' asked the question? ;)

sonrisa

14th July 2004, 05:34 AM

wait y'all, before we go any further...

Drew, can we see some proof of this $85 billion?

DrewPollock

14th July 2004, 12:35 PM

haha I wish i had proof of 85 billion dollars. but all joking aside.... if you can answer my question, go ahead. I like the buddhist philosophy, but i am very doubtful the reincarnation/karma side of buddhism. I would appreciate it if you could answer me though. Maybe i can get you 85..........cents.

DoWalker

14th July 2004, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by asheera@Jul 14 2004, 01:26 AM
If you put shit in a glass of water, how does that come back on you?
Many people misunderstand karma to mean "what goes around, comes around," as if there's a judgemental being, (God,) who says "You stole that man's wallet? Well, during your next reincarnation, let's see how you like tuberculosis!"

Karma is your own pollution of your own divine self. It does not have to "come back on you," because by existing in a state of anger or fear, your brain is clouded with the haze of this "shit." Living in this hell of your own creation IS the "punishment," or rather the consequence.

"As you sow, so shalt thou reap." -- If you plant a karmic seed by performing an unwholesome action, it will grow you do not let it go. Attonement can help us let go, which is why giving the wallet back to the owner would be useful. However, the most important part is letting go of all negative emotions associated with the act, such as attatchment to the new money, the feeling that you deserve to have it more than the original owner, fear that you might get caught, displaced anger at the upper class, even guilt over what you've done.

Meditation allows our spiritual tumblers to reset, so we can take a fresh look at our actions and thoughts.

I, personally, do believe that there is some kind of universal power driving karma, but not all buddhists would agree. <_<

DrewPollock

16th July 2004, 12:59 AM

well, thanks dowalker, that makes a some sense.

BUT NO ONE WILL OR CAN ANSWER MY QUESTIONS ABOUT REINCARNATION! 85 billion is still on the table..... if you answer nicely, i might throw in a nicely buttered bagel.

DoWalker

16th July 2004, 01:35 AM

"How does karma apply to one not a human?"

You got me there. Dunno.

"Say one is an animal, or a hellbeing, or a heavenly being."

No hell, no heaven in buddhism. You're either enlightened, or you stay on the big Wheel, and try another time around. You keep going until you're enlightened.

"How does one get good karma, or bad karma?"

No such thing as "good" or "bad" karma. All karma holds us back from enlightenment, so it could all be construed as "bad."

"What/who judges your karma, and thus reincarnates you to what best fits your karma?"

You do. There's no judgement. That'd be like asking someone else to judge how tall you've grown this year. You need clothes that fit, regardless of your size.

I'm not a buddhist priest or monk, so if I'm incorrect in any of these statements, I welcome corrections.

Oh, and forget the $85 billion. I'm fine, thanks.

DrewPollock

17th July 2004, 01:26 AM

thanks, but i dont think it is possible having reincarnation without something regulating it. But you did a good job explainging. Thanks

beesting42

18th July 2004, 04:35 PM

what happens when you rob someone is more than just getting money...
you are perpetuating a process that involves suffering. you are acting under the illusion that you need something... then you are asleep, seems like choice... but no choice at all...

beesting42

18th July 2004, 04:46 PM

Also you are making the same mistake as most intellectuals/philosphers etc... looking for a first cause. trying to make sense of this will lead you to a dead end... (if god made the universe... who made god?) or (if karma determines our fate... what determined our karma?)
see where this leads? Use your intuition... its more nonsense than nonsense with these questions. its like ultra nonsense going in circles.

beesting42

18th July 2004, 04:57 PM

if you really want to know about reincarnation try and remember your last life... or in between... or ask somebody that does... i sure dont remember, it is not even something I wanna talk about, or hear about for that matter...
there is of course much wisdom in a book like the tibetan book of the dead... but how does it apply to you drew? does it?
In my experience it applied to me.

DrewPollock

19th July 2004, 05:37 AM

that makes sense, this site forum is dead.... im goin on over to buddhanet

sonrisa

19th July 2004, 03:03 PM

beesting--if you really want to know about reincarnation try and remember your last life... or in between... or ask somebody that does... i sure dont remember, it is not even something I wanna talk about, or hear about for that matter...

--as I understand it, you aren't sposed to remember your past lives. The trauma of going thru your Mom's birth canal is sposed to erase those memories so you don't carry any baggage from your past lives into your present one. Or so I've been told. Baggage from your past lives can interfere with the issues you're sposed to be working out in this, your current life.

beesting--there is of course much wisdom in a book like the tibetan book of the dead... but how does it apply to you drew? does it?
In my experience it applied to me.

how has it applied to you?

sonrisa

19th July 2004, 03:40 PM

I was at a potluck last nite & we had a speaker there who talked about karma, among other things. He likened Karma to a wheel that goes round & round, what goes around comes around, in other words. He also touched upon the seed analogy- "that what you sow, so shall you reap", or however that verse goes (sorry, I'm not much into the bible) Anyhow, this speaker was saying how karma is an energy & that we need to put good karma out there in order to improve our lives, if we put out bad karma, that's what we will get back. In my experience that has been true, it seems like the bad stuff always comes back to bite you in the butt. But I have always tried to pass the good energy along & to help others, & there have been some situations where I was really SOL & help arrived out of nowhere, or at the very least from an unexpected place. So I truly believe in generating good energy & passing along any good energy that comes to me.

"The love you take is equal to the love you make" Paul McCartney knows karma! :)

indubitably_stupid

24th July 2004, 03:02 PM

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=1][COLOR=blue] :duh:

Karma: perform your duties without expectations. Thats how Bhagawat Geetha describes Karma. If you are a king, its your duty to protect your people from invaders.. for that you gointo war., kill your enimies. Killing in sin. But when you kill for your people, you do the right thing, you DO your Duty.. thats your KARMA.

Karma: is applicable to all living creature..

Moksha is attained when you are doing Karma ie, when you perform your duties without expectations.

Cheerz

thirst4sun

28th July 2004, 04:20 PM

So I truly believe in generating good energy & passing along any good energy that comes to me.

Sonrisa, I agree with your comment. I try to pass good energy because I believe what comes aroud goes around. I recently had an exprience where karma took it's course. Someone had mistreated ( to say the least!!!) in the past. This person unpleasantly experienced everything that I did. I still felt sorry for this person that they had to suffer as I did. Is it wrong that I feel bad for this person :huh: Anyway, this was the strangest experience where I witnessed what comes around goes around. I'm now true believer of karma!

sonrisa

29th July 2004, 12:15 PM

I wouldn't say you are wrong to feel bad for this person, altho I don't think anybody would blame you if you didn't, if this person treated you badly. I'm assuming that you didn't intend this person to suffer from your actions....

duty is dharma not karma. To put it very simply, karma is basically the law of cause & effect, what goes around comes around. You make your own karma. To do your duty, (whatever that is) is to fulfill your dharma.

Corri

20th September 2004, 07:27 AM

The appropriate response to the original question, I believe, is "Mu."

Does the Buddha have Karma?

Corri

sahyo

20th September 2004, 08:08 AM

"appropriate"?

sonrisa

20th September 2004, 09:43 AM

mu? as in nada? or as in innaccurate assumptions?

Corri

21st September 2004, 12:02 AM

My use of the word 'appropriate' in my first post was a poor semantics choice on my part. Consider the following, found on the Awakening 101: Regarding Mu (http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/mu.html)

A monk once asked master Chao-chou, "Does a dog have Buddha-nature or not?"

Chao-chou said, "Mu"

At first the answer to the query posed by the monk seems obvious. A central tenet of Buddhist thought is the belief that all sentient beings have Buddha-nature, so to that extent that a dog is sentient, a dog has Buddha-nature. That this answer is so obvious suggest that this is not the response the monk is looking for: The question is not to be interpreted literally and responded to conceptually. In fact, rather than a straightforward question the utterance by the monk to Chao Chou constitutes a Koan

Chao Chou's response is to answer neither yes-nor-no: To answer Mu. Mu is not as unusual as it first seems. There are many everyday questions that we would not want to answer either yes or no to. Consider the question: "Have you stopped beating your dog yet?" Now it is notoriously easy to invent a situation in which either a positive or a negatively answer to this question is misleading. Either answer will mislead if I ask the question of a devoted animal lover, someone who would never mistreat any animal. If I was to demand a yes or no answer from an such a person they would be in a situation equally perplexing as Chao Chou's: any response they make will be misleading. A positive answer has the implication that the mis-treatment once took place and has now ceased. Whereas a negative reply implies that this non-existent mistreatment is still continuing.

The difficulty with answering this question for a pet lover is that the question itself set up a misleading picture of things. The question implies the existence of something that has never taken place and any response only seems to place one more firmly within that view of things. The correct response is to question the question: To ask for an alternative way of picture things. This is also implicit in the notion Mu. To answer a question with Mu (to say neither yes-nor-no) is to deny the validity of the question itself. The reason the answer is neither yes-nor-no is because the question sets up misleading categories, similar to Avyaakata in the sutras, that which do not apply to the situation being examined. Mu is a call for the question to be unasked. A call to look beyond the limiting conceptualisation implicit in the question. In fact, Mu is more extreme than this: It is a call to move beyond the limiting perspective of conceptualisation itself and to a directly contact with ultimate reality via pre-reflective awareness.

The above has been extrapolated from a paper that no longer calls up by Mitch Parsell, Ph.D, with minor editing by the Wanderling for our purposes here.

THE WANDERLING INTERJECTS:

If the speaker brings no personal, egotistic delusions into their expression, the occasion speaks for itself, the total situation alone determines what is said or done. Thus, in the case of the Zen master, what-is-said is simply what-is. In the case of the deluded person, however, the "what-is" includes his excess conceptual baggage with its affective components, the deluded ideas about the nature of "self," "thing," "time," and so on that constitute the person's own particular distortion of what actually is. (source)

Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable. All that the Enlightened one does, says, or thinks is through free will, a manifestation of basic nature, and not the effect of past Karma.

Corri

sonrisa

21st September 2004, 01:34 AM

so you're referring to an inaccurate assumption then?

Corri

21st September 2004, 02:42 AM

No. More like an inaccurate question.

sonrisa

21st September 2004, 10:35 AM

how is a question innaccurate?

Corri

21st September 2004, 09:56 PM

Did you read my above post on Mu and not understand it... or do you not understand how I think it all relates to the original question at hand?

thirst4sun

22nd September 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Corri@Sep 21 2004, 08:56 PM
Did you read my above post on Mu and not understand it... or do you not understand how I think it all relates to the original question at hand?
Yes Corri, I read your post. You stated the answer to the question quite accurate.

[QUOTE]Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable. All that the Enlightened one does, says, or thinks is through free will, a manifestation of basic nature, and not the effect of past Karma.

sonrisa

22nd September 2004, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by Corri@Sep 21 2004, 09:56 AM
Did you read my above post on Mu and not understand it... or do you not understand how I think it all relates to the original question at hand?

yes, I read your post re: mu. You simply pasted what was posted on that site you linked to. Do you understand mu?

One usage of mu is the non-answer, ie, to say nothing. It's a polite way to answer questions you don't want to answer, for instance I may ask you what your real name is, your physical location, your webmailbox, etc.... Now you don't know me, so (understandably) you don't want to give that info out- especially on a public message board! So you would answer mu, in other words, politely telling me to myob.

the other usage of mu relates to that example you pasted above about asking a dog owner if s/he has stopped beating their dog, when the owner never beat the dog to begin with. A simple yes or no answer is misleading, since the question is based on an innaccurate assumption- that the owner was beating the dog. (so the owner could state that s/he never beat the dog to begin with, or could simply answer mu) But when I attempted to clarify that you were referring to an innaccurate assumption you posted
Corri
No. More like an inaccurate question.

So if, no, the assumption is not inaccurate, then how is the question inaccurate? How can any question be inaccurate, since a question is merely a device to obtain answers, which may or may not be inaccurate. But the questions themselves, would not be inaccurate. They may contain inaccurate assumptions, but how is a question, per sé inaccurate?

sahyo

22nd September 2004, 11:20 AM

Cause and effect, just like birth and death, lose their significance at the Enlightened level because at the level of basic nature there is no one to receive the effect of Karma, whether it is good or bad. Therefore, at the extreme, when one is Enlightened, the law of Karma is not applicable. All that the Enlightened one does, says, or thinks is through free will, a manifestation of basic nature, and not the effect of past Karma.

does seem flowering not sunningsoil?

sonrisa

22nd September 2004, 01:23 PM

exactly asheera :D

Corri, it has occurred to me that you may mean that the question is irrelevant (as opposed to inaccurate) if the original question you're referring to is Drew's question about whether or not animals have karma. He asked a straight up question. There are no assumptions, accurate or inaccurate. But if you are of the same opinion as those yogis who say that lower animals do not have karma because they lack the intelligence needed to make decisions that would generate karma, then you would find Drew's question by its very nature irrelevant & answer "mu". This would be a non-answer.

Corri

23rd September 2004, 01:35 AM

Mu is not so much a non-answer, ie. refusing to answer the question, as it is more of a call for the question to be 'unasked.' When I say that a question is inaccurate, your answer of irrelevent does apply in some instances; however, if one is searching beyond conceptual thinking, or dualistic thinking, then yes, I see that a question can be inaccurate, for the way one words a question and asks it often will dictate the type of answer one receives. Mu does not always apply to a question with a yes or no connotation.

Corri

P.S. Sorry about the PM :lol: I hit the wrong button and wondered where the heck my post was. Not that I mind PMing you... it just wasn't the original intent.

Corri

23rd September 2004, 01:43 AM

And no, I am not of the same opinion that lower animals do not have karma. I share this opinion:

All sentient beings have Buddha-nature, so to that extent that a dog is sentient, a dog has Buddha-nature.

Corri

sahyo

23rd September 2004, 02:36 AM

sonrisa

23rd September 2004, 01:12 PM

Corri-- Mu is not so much a non-answer, ie. refusing to answer the question, as it is more of a call for the question to be 'unasked.'

--ok, I can go with a call for a question to be unasked....
I am of the opinion that there are no questions that should not be asked. For some questions however, the appropriate answer, as you correctly point out, is mu :)

Corri--I see that a question can be inaccurate, for the way one words a question and asks it often will dictate the type of answer one receives.

--a loaded question? Ok I can see your point. I would call such questions loaded or slanted (as opposed to inaccurate) however

Corri--Mu does not always apply to a question with a yes or no connotation.

--agreed. And to some of those (gutter questions, nosy questions, etc..) questions, the answer is most definitely mu!!

Corri--P.S. Sorry about the PM :lol: I hit the wrong button and wondered where the heck my post was. Not that I mind PMing you... it just wasn't the original intent. [/QUOTE]

--s'alright. I just put you on my buddies list :D

Corri

23rd September 2004, 11:07 PM

sahyo

24th September 2004, 05:36 AM

does seem "lower"-higher animals?

does seem as though a-container which can "have" "has"?

Corri

24th September 2004, 10:26 PM

Language.

sahyo

25th September 2004, 04:15 AM

wasn't referring the language

Corri

25th September 2004, 04:37 AM

I was. :lol:

sahyo

25th September 2004, 05:20 AM

:lol:

jesupocaplypse

9th November 2004, 04:51 PM

animals minds operate on different frequencies than ours. Not neccessarily Lower/Higher, nor simpler/complex-er :think:

just different.

We in our human arrogance, in failing to understand them on their own level, often deem them lesser. They're just different, not better nor worse

thus, their karma, is also different. But it's still there.
are they aware of it? do they contemplate? contemplate karma?
maybe. But not in human words and thinks, cat experiences karma with a cat's mind.

What are they aware of that we are not? If you could smell as well as a cat would you be as concerned about your past life? or the future? or would you be more concerned with the overwhelming aromas that are everywhere?

Ever spend an entire day watching a house cat relax in the sun? and try to mimic the cat's actions?
I tell you, they have the essence of life figured out far better than we.

I feel that my cat can feel as full a spectrum of feelin's as I. I can see when my cat is happy, and i can see when my cat is angry. I can see when she is stressed, and when she is relaxed. I can see when she is interested or concerned with something, and when she is apathetic. I can see when my cat is lost in thought, and often my cat sings along with my red hot chili pepper albums. (subjectively speaking, she's not very good, but compared to other cat's... she's a diva.)

pussy purrin and lookin so satisfied.

Spiny

12th January 2005, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by DrewPollock@Jul 13 2004, 04:30 AM
So ...... since you believe in karma, do you believe in a diety? The reason im asking is, the idea of karma and reincarnation is just plain silly unless there is some kind of universal power driving it.
"The reason im asking is, the idea of karma and reincarnation is just plain silly unless there is some kind of universal power driving it."

Not in Buddhism. The issue of a god ( whatever ) is irrelevant to rebirth. Things are just as they are.

Buddhafly

23rd January 2005, 12:47 AM

Hello.
I have deeply considered this question until finally I looked for help with an answer.
This is what I found out:
The subject of Karma is a complex one , and is I feel often misrepresented . Karma has become one of those expressions thats hit the American and English languages but its meaning isn't the same as the original meaning in India
as far as I can tell.

The first thing to realize is that Buddhists have a very vast view. So there is endless time, endless space, endless possibilities in terms of exitences we can be born into etc.

Karma is the Buddhist law of cause and effect, everything we do has an effect. Every action we do causes a ripple in the cosmos. All the beings in the cosmos are endlessly causing ripples. We are all connected in various ways
to places, other people, worlds, groups of people. We are also connected to the ripples caused by our past actions both in this life and our endless past lives.

Buddhist teachings say that this endless web of cause and effects is very complex and impossible to understand by ordinary beings. Only Buddhas can understand Karma.

So this is the general background. So if you havent understood Karma don't worry. if you have then think again you probably have an over simplistic view the same as everyone else!

One wrong view of karma is that Karma is Justice. That someone somewhere is judging you and punishing you. This
is clearly a view fed by judo-christian views of an all mighty God who would judge you. There is nothing like this
in Buddhism.

In Buddhism we do something and act in a certain way and that sends waves out - these waves have energy - they reflect off the world and change the world. So causes have effects. We our masters or mistresses of our destiny.

One Buddhist teacher in response to a student who asked about their past lives said that if you wish to know about your past lives look around you at the present. The present is causes by the past.

Another Buddhist teaching says that through endless time we have all done everything. We have all been murderers, mothers, fathers, brothers, doctors, and every possible thing. All these actions have sown seeds that will come to fruition in our future lives. As to when different seeds might come to fruition - only Buddhas could tell you!

So this view of karma should cause us to have tremendous compassion. All beings have been our parents, all beings have been our children . if we see someone suffering we know that in the vast scheme of things everyone will suffer.

From time to time good karma will come to fruition. We will then have a good stable situation. A birth in a good country and in a good family. Buddhism says that if we have a good birth we should practice Meditation without delay because it is only temporary and it will soon decay!

the only escape from the sea of Karma is practice meditation and realize the dream like nature of the world around us. Enlightenment , waking up is the only answer.

You ask about Hell. Hell is a particularly bad fruition of Karma. Aggression is at the fore. We might experience this as a very bad rebirth that last a long time. It might be moments within our human life.
When the seeds of karma that produce Hell appear we would
be stuck with a difficult situation until they burn out.
It might be difficult to do very much about this until it stops. But the Buddhas and awakened beings in the Universe
work tirelessly to free beings from Hell because they can not help themselves.

The animal realm is a particular extistence with a lot of ignorance. the mind and intelligence of animals is obscure.
They see the world through frosty glass. Again it might be difficult (not impossible) for animals to do good actions.
But the karma of being an animal will burn out and they
will move on. Buddhas and enligthened beings work tirelessly to help animals. We as humans should help them to.

locomotive

19th January 2006, 06:49 AM

I wanna know if I understood this correctly: There is bad and good karma. If you do bad karma then it somehow come back bad. Even if you do good karma you can fall back to doing it out of greed or whatever and thus it is no garentie you will attain nirvana. A enlightened person will still follow karma of nature but he won't create extra karma which might affect things and causing karma back again(that is how he stops rebirth of self). In that way he achieves without doing anything. Like the ripples in the ocean our effects will cause something later and that is the rebirth. ::Now the site says that rebirth is stopped when you reach nirvana but it also says that rebirth keeps going. I can only interpet this as two seperate things: one is rebirth of bad karma whitch comes into existence by duality and creating extra karma that will come back in any form(like a bad environment for example) and the rebirth of yourself in the form of normal cause and effect. Because you started it but from a enlightend position the effect of the cause(you) is a rebirth of you.

:blink: give me you thoughts :lol:

Thomas Knierim

22nd January 2006, 08:06 PM

Hello locomotive,

I will try to answer this from the Buddhist point of view.

locomotive: I wanna know if I understood this correctly: There is bad and good karma.

There are three types of karma, good, bad, and (for the purpose of distinction) neutral karma. Good karma is wholesome, bad karma is unwholesome, and neutral karma is ineffective, meaning neither wholesome nor unwholesome. Karma is a vedic concept that arose in ancient India, and it is prominent in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.

locomotive: If you do bad karma then it somehow come back bad.

Karma cannot be "done". Karma is what that results from doing, in particular from intentional doing.

locomotive: Even if you do good karma you can fall back to doing it out of greed or whatever and thus it is no garentie you will attain nirvana.

Yes, the going theory is that beings in Samsara bounce up and down into and out of various levels of existence according to their changing karmas. One time a god-like being, another time an animal, one time heaven, another time hell. Hence, the Buddhist goal is not to accumulate good karma, but to extinguish karma altogether.

locomotive: A enlightened person will still follow karma of nature but he won't create extra karma which might affect things and causing karma back again

That's where different branches of Buddhism differ. Principally, an enlightened being does not generate new karma. In the Hinayana view, the arahat (arahant) proceeds straight to the state of Nirvana after passing away (which raises the interesting question whether the most logical thing to do after enlightenment is to commit suicide :lol: ). In the Mahayana view, the bodhisattva does not generate karma, but wills him/herself into successive rebirths in Samsara -through an act of volition- in order to be able to assist the other beings in Samsara.

locomotive: Like the ripples in the ocean our effects will cause something later and that is the rebirth.

Yes, the ripple on the ocean is one of the metaphors frequently used to describe karma. Another metaphor is the flame that is transferred from one candle to another. You may also liken it to a conditioned force field carrying the characteristics of past actions, although that particular metaphor is somewhat unorthodox.

locomotive: Now the site says that rebirth is stopped when you reach nirvana but it also says that rebirth keeps going.

No, that is probably a misunderstanding. Nirvana means the end of Samsara, and thus the end of rebirth.

There are many interesting philosophical questions connected to the concept of karma, which I don't want to bring up at this point, since it may get too confusing. Let me just say that the Buddhist notion of karma is pretty straightforward, since it regards only intentional (volitional) acts, whereas the Hindu and Jainist notion also regards karma from unintentional actions, such as the unconscious killing of insects ones steps on. The latter is regarded to be neutral karma by most Buddhists.

Cheers, Thomas

locomotive

22nd January 2006, 09:12 PM

Like you said this is to be debated about. Thank you very much man. :)

namtso

5th September 2006, 06:04 PM

I can't really add anything to what Buddhafly and Thomas Knierim have written. Great stuff there about how different traditions understand karma. Thanks to you both.

Of course not having anything better to say has never stopped me before so here's this stuff -

DrewPollock, I'm very skeptical about reincarnation too. Apparently it was widely accepted in India and more recently in Tibet. I think one of the most popular stories of reincarnation is the one about how the current Dalai Lama, the 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet was found at age 2. See http://www.fpmt.org/teachers/hhdl/hhdlbiography.asp for an account of this. I also like to recommend watching the movie Kundun (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119485/) which is also about the life of the 14th Dalai Lama. Kundun is a name Tibetans use for His Holiness the Dalai Lama, it means "The Presence".

Here's some very good free MP3 recordings by Robina Courtin about reincarnation and karma (http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html) -
Cause and Effect (http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html)
Transforming the Mind (http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html)
Wheel of Life (http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html)
Why Bad Things Happen (http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html)

http://www.lamrim.com/venrobina/index.html

In regard to Karma, there are apparently Buddhist practices that can help eliminate it more quickly although I can't remember exactly what they are at the moment. Of course a person can make it a point by acting out of sincere compassion with the desire to help others, guided by wisdom. Sometimes what a person thinks is helpful can in the long run actually do harm. So it's important to also develop wisdom through study and meditation. And I would expect that living by the Noble Eightfold Path etc. would also lead to the elimination of negative karma.

Some short RealAudio streams by Thupten Jinpa discussing karma

http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/m...ha&mediaType=RM (http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/me/20060123_me_tjbuddha&mediaType=RM)
http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/m...th&mediaType=RM (http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?mediaURL=/me/20060123_me_tjrebirth&mediaType=RM)

DoWalker
It's possible it's a quote from Robina Courtin but I think I may have heard it elsewhere too.
Re.: My favorite metaphor for understanding karma is the glass of water.
I wanted to mention that in Tibetan Buddhism they do believe in Hell Beings so I guess that implies the existence of a hell of sorts. Maybe the bardo is the hell where the Hell Beings reside, I don't know. Or it's a manifestation of their own delusions. (http://www.tibet.com/Eco/eco8.html) I'll have to read up on that one but right now I need to get to sleep. In Tibetan Buddhism they also believe in Gods but the Gods are seen as somewhat less enlightened than a Buddha. Apparently Gods get stuck in their godly realm because it's so great and comfortable, but it's still being stuck I guess. Prof. Robert Thurman (http://www.bobthurman.com) says that an entity becomes a God by doing a lot of meritorious things, helping lots of people/sentient beings out. But it's harder to attain enlightenment while being a God because the god realm is so distracting. Prof. Robert Thurman (http://www.bobthurman.com) says that being a human being is the best way to work towards attaining enlightenment. I think that he says a human being experiences suffering and as a result can empathise with other sentient beings. This helps a person generate great compassion and the desire to help others. Anyhow, I ramble. I started out commenting on Hell Beings and just got completely out of control. I may need a mental brake job.

redraven

8th September 2006, 04:22 AM

Karma is cause and effect, you do something and you have the effects, and until all of the effects are gone, you will continue causing more effects. Karma keeps you trapped in samsara, and you will stay there until you release it all. It applies to all beings because a) their past effects are still happening to them, that's why they're in hell in the first place and b ) they're still doing things, as in the case of a hellbeing, maybe cursing the Buddha which causes a lot of karma.

Karma is always negative in that it traps you in samsara, but it isn't good or bad. That is a hippie new age belief. Doing good things can bring you virtue, but that isn't karma, that is the absence of karma.

namtso

16th October 2006, 11:10 AM

Doing good things can bring you virtue, but that isn't karma, that is the absence of karma.
Can't virtuous actions also serve to eliminate karma or reduce the karmic influence (or however it's phrased), from the Buddhist perspective?

scameter

17th October 2006, 01:11 PM

Well, if you look at it thoroughly, if doing good things brings virtue, which is the absence of karma (which in Buddhism is a good thing), then good things should always be done, and through this, it is essentially as if karma is replaced with virtue.

namtso

17th October 2006, 04:16 PM

essentially as if karma is replaced with virtue.

Like burning off karma by practicing virtue and generating merit?

Jampa

22nd October 2006, 06:30 AM

Practicing virtue create also karma... but good one! Actions you do will always bring results, until you are liberated from ignorance. Once you reach this state, then you do not create karma anymore, then you are not pushed by it in new samsaric existences. If your enlightened mind sees any nedd for being anywhere, then it manifests itself in any form suitable to help that being.
Big love

______

26th October 2006, 09:49 PM

"You reap what you sow!" :D

scameter

26th October 2006, 09:51 PM

Like burning off karma by practicing virtue and generating merit?

Quite right. Like a spiritual diet. :D

Practicing virtue create also karma... but good one! Actions you do will always bring results, until you are liberated from ignorance. Once you reach this state, then you do not create karma anymore, then you are not pushed by it in new samsaric existences. If your enlightened mind sees any nedd for being anywhere, then it manifests itself in any form suitable to help that being.

Definitely. :)

"You reap what you sow!"

:thumbsup: :D

Jampa

26th October 2006, 11:17 PM

Sorry if I seems to split hairs, but I think there is only 2 ways for burning off karma, and they are neither by practicing virtue nor by creating merits (which is actually the same: you create merits by practising virtue!).
To burn off karma, either you become liberated or, on the way to that liberation, by practising purification practices like Vajrasattva meditation...
Hope this has some interest for you
Hugs

______

27th October 2006, 09:45 PM

I've heard this before! :D In practicing virtue and gathering merit, one creates more karma! Truly one must attain Enlightenment to clear one's cumulated karma. :)

scameter

27th October 2006, 11:11 PM

Jampa

27th October 2006, 11:41 PM

Dear Scam, You are probably right that there is other explanations in other buddhist schools. My understanding comes from the Mahayana and Vajrayana of the Tibetan Gelug tradition. This school says (if I'm not totally out) that accumulatin enormous amounts of good karma cannot eliminate bad one. Bad one will stay until you have purified it, or when you are enlightened. Accumulation of good karma creates only the perfect conditions to advance on the Path without too many hindrances. Worst, good karma can bring reincarnation in the gods' realms, where all your senses are satisfied and you have no motivation to practice Dharma.
Bisous

______

28th October 2006, 12:50 AM

I think perhaps there are differing viewpoints of this in Buddhism, as Buddhism has different schools with different interpretations. I know that to some, the accumulation of good karma by following the Eightfold Path liberates one from bad karma created by following the ego selfishly, but perhaps to others, it requires a sort of emptiness and silence, and thus releasing the ego passively, to be released of karma.
Sakyong Mipham says that there is no such thing as "bad" karma and "good" karma. There is only karma. According to him, the idea of "good" and "bad" karma was generated by the "hippie movement".

scameter

30th October 2006, 12:59 AM

:D Well, I don't think it was exclusively generated by that.

"Karma(Sanskrit: कर्म from the root kṛ, "to do", [meaning deed] meaning action, effect, destiny) means "(the result of) action", generally taken as a term that comprises the entire cycle of cause and effect. Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. Individuals go through certain processes and accompanying experiences throughout their lives which they have chosen, and those would be based on the results of their own creations: "karma". Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward. Karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well.

The "Law of Karma" is central in Hinduism, Ayyavazhi, Sikhism, Buddhism, and Jainism (religions born in Nepal, and India). All living creatures are responsible for their karma - way of life - and for their release from samsara. As a term, it can be traced back to the early Upanishads.

The Law of Karma is taught in the esoteric Christian tradition, Essenian and later Rosicrucian, as the "Law of Cause and Consequence/Effect" [1]. However, this western esoteric tradition adds that the essence of the teachings of Christ is that the law of sin and death may be overcome by Love, which will restore immortality.

Actions do not create karma (good or bad) only when the actions are performed by an individual in the state of Moksha. Such a person is called "Stithaprajna". Adi Sankara gave the dictum of "Akarmaiva Moksha" which means "Moksha can be attained only by doing, not by a process of effort". All actions performed by one in the state of Moksha are termed as Dharma.

The Hindus believe that everything in the Universe is in the state of creation, maintenance or destruction. The Hindu trinity of Gods Brahma (creator), Vishnu (maintainer) and Shiva (Destroyer) correspond to the states of creation, maintenance and destruction. At the thought level, the mind creates a thought, maintains (follows) it for some time and the thought ultimately dies down (perhaps to be replaced by another thought). The Hindus believe there is a fourth state of being (called Turiya) where the mind is not engaged in thinking but just observes the thoughts. Actions in the Turiya state do not create karma. The practice of meditation is aimed at giving individuals the experience of being in the Turiya state. An individual who is constantly in the Turiya state is said to have attained Moksha. In such an individual, actions happen as a response to events (and not because of thought process), such actions do not result in accumulation of Karma.

The process view of release (moksha) from ego-consciousness (ahamkar) through individual responsibility for the totality of action with its inherent karma can be contrasted with the soteriological view of mainstream denominations of Christianity: grace given by faith in the suffering, death and resurrection of a singular saviour."

-wikipedia, under the entry for "karma"

______

30th October 2006, 08:03 AM

Can't argue with Wikipedia! :lol: :D

namtso

1st November 2006, 05:21 PM

Sakyong Mipham says that there is no such thing as "bad" karma and "good" karma. There is only karma. According to him, the idea of "good" and "bad" karma was generated by the "hippie movement".

What do you think about Sakyong Mipham getting married? He's an ordained monk, isn't he? What's the deal there?

Sakyong and Semo Tseyang married -
http://www.mipham.com/newsitem.php?id=121
http://www.shambhala.org/int/sns/sns-artic...icle.php?id=117 (http://www.shambhala.org/int/sns/sns-article.php?id=117)

______

2nd November 2006, 03:42 AM

<_< He's got a very strong American background as well as a Tibetan. I can understand how he would want to get married. Monks must look at him differently now! :naughty: I still see him as a great teacher. Congrats to Sakyong Mipham!!! :thumbsup:

______

2nd November 2006, 04:47 AM

Thank you, psyche. We're quite aware of who his daughter is. ;)

scameter

3rd November 2006, 12:35 AM

Damn... this is a very populated forum. :D

______

3rd November 2006, 01:10 AM

you mean you are quite aware

how can you speak for we

that is over 6.5 billion people
:lol: :lol: :lol:
You are quite right!
:lol: :lol:

Smurf

3rd November 2006, 06:17 AM

Yeah I didn't know we had 6.5 billion members ...

______

3rd November 2006, 05:30 PM

Yeah I didn't know we had 6.5 billion members ...
Most are on vacation somehwere away from a computer.... :lol:

namtso

3rd November 2006, 06:03 PM

He's got a very strong American background as well as a Tibetan. I can understand how he would want to get married. Monks must look at him differently now!* I still see him as a great teacher. Congrats to Sakyong Mipham!!!* - SFT
robert thurman is an ordained monk he is married with a daughter - her name is uma* - psyche

Uma Karuna .. but don't get me started. Ever since Gattaca, Paycheck , heck, The Truth About Cats and Dogs .. never mind. Johnny Depp for you (and half the women on the planet based on what I've heard), Uma Karuna Thurman for me (non attachment namsto, non attachment non attachment non attachment non attachment non attachment ...)

Robert Thurman did renouce his "monkhood" (?) didn't he? Anyways, my gut tells me that it's fine, I just wanted to hear what other folks thought. I completely believe that a person who is married is not incapable of also following the dharma. And I'd think that household would be a very good one to live in, for husband and wife and also any kids they raise.

Jampa

3rd November 2006, 10:28 PM

I completely believe that a person who is married is not incapable of also following the dharma. And I'd think that household would be a very good one to live in, for husband and wife and also any kids they raise.

Of course nothing wrong with that, provided that both have not taken the vows, that they are neither monk nor nun..... Otherwise, they face a problem.....

namtso

4th November 2006, 07:37 AM

Of course nothing wrong with that, provided that both have not taken the vows, that they are neither monk nor nun..... Otherwise, they face a problem.....
What exactly?

Jampa

4th November 2006, 10:36 AM

namtso

5th November 2006, 02:54 PM

When you take the monks' vows, you commit yourself to respect a certain behaviour. For a fully ordained monk, there are 253 (if I'm not wrong...) vows to follow, one of the most important (and the most difficult to respect), is the vows of not engaging in any sexual activity. For a full sexual intercourse, the karmic consequence of breaking that vows is very heavy. So if a monk want to have sexual intercourse, he must before give back his vows.... - Jampa
I do see the significance. Breaking the vows would not only hinder the individual's ability to focus on the practice but could by example also influence other monks to start breaking their vows as well. I'm pretty certain Prof. Robert Thurman renounced his "monk status", I honestly don't know yet whether or not Sakyong Mipham ever took the vows to begin with.