karma and original sin

[Vajrahridaya]

I make a statement and I receive a lecture on the Buddhist ideology of karma as a universal absolute. My views are not simplistic. Will you ever stop framing condescending statements?

ralis

 

I said "seems simplistic" because you don't offer an alternative view. You just make broad over-simplified generalizations in every thread that mentions something religious.

 

I ask you questions and you answer none of them. Thread after thread, you make negative generalization after generalization with very little fortitude.

 

You condescend religious people all the time, you condescend the Dalai Lama. You've condescended me, over and over and over again.

 

Not much for a conversationalist are you?

 

You haven't read Rinpoche's books, so you don't even know what Rinpoche teaches yet you claim to be his student? You want to have opinions about my writing style and you want me to listen to you as if I should think you know what you're talking about?

 

Well an important question still stands. Hell and heaven in buddhism are the results of particular actions done in life. That is undoubtedly an absolutist/black and white sense of morality. This is absolutely good and will lead to heaven/a better rebirth and that is absolutely bad and will lead to hell. This requires somebody to set in stone what is good and bad, absolutely right and wrong. And life is just not reducible to black and white like that. "Morality" is always relative and completely arbitrary. Like somebody else said, this is a child's sense of morality.

 

Morality is relative. It always depends upon the situation and the intention of the person. Virtue leads to higher rebirth and non-virtue, like stealing, murder... you know the selfish stuff, leads to future births of suffering because the action and intention arises from suffering. Those actions and intentions that arise from peace, love, compassion lead to that result. You sow seeds of thorn bushes, you are not going to get juicy mangos.

 

I don't think you are seeing the teachings from their intended vast view point. You are reducing but the law of karma is not like that. It's deeply complex.

 

In terms of afterlife beliefs, I lean toward rebirth to be honest. But I have a very very hard time accepting karma as it is supposed to relate to rebirth. If rebirth is true, I tend to think it would just be random.

 

Chaos? Effects without causes?

 

I don't see that as being helpful, or reflective of reality.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.soulsurvivor-book.com/interview.html

 

Teletubbies.

 

 

I said "seems simplistic" because you don't offer an alternative view. You just make broad over-simplified generalizations in every thread that mentions something religious.

 

I ask you questions and you answer none of them. Thread after thread, you make negative generalization after generalization with very little fortitude.

 

You condescend religious people all the time, you condescend the Dalai Lama. You've condescended me, over and over and over again.

 

Not much for a conversationalist are you?

 

You haven't read Rinpoche's books, so you don't even know what Rinpoche teaches yet you claim to be his student? You want to have opinions about my writing style and you want me to listen to you as if I should think you know what you're talking about?

Morality is relative. It always depends upon the situation and the intention of the person. Virtue leads to higher rebirth and non-virtue, like stealing, murder... you know the selfish stuff, leads to future births of suffering because the action and intention arises from suffering. Those actions and intentions that arise from peace, love, compassion lead to that result. You sow seeds of thorn bushes, you are not going to get juicy mangos.

 

I don't think you are seeing the teachings from their intended vast view point. You are reducing but the law of karma is not like that. It's deeply complex.

Chaos? Effects without causes?

 

I don't see that as being helpful, or reflective of reality.

[TianhuaQigong]

http://www.soulsurvivor-book.com/interview.html

 

Teletubbies.

 

and , it is not a simple reincarnation, reincarnation is Process, the goal is improve the soul. the live changed follow the middle cure of the Yinyang sign, reincarnation ,reincarnation , reincarnation .... and at some point Yin change to Yang, or Yang change to Yin, after Change it will not be same as before anymore, it is another higher level "soul" . a totally change or upgrade. like ice became water, water become steam. steam has highest energy

[ralis]

The problem I have is that karma is defined in a simplistic and religious manner. I think it is not possible to quantify karma and make it an absolute tenet of any philosophical system.

 

This discussion is concerned with karma for the class of all humans. Humans compose a dynamic system. A dynamic system is characterized as one of change. Changes in dynamic systems are extremely complex and depending on the system, are extremely difficult or impossible to quantify. Why? The reasons are due to complex variables that interact. Interaction is non-linear. For simplicity, if one were to observe 1 million variables all interacting with each other, then what specific conclusions can be made? Can one honestly make absolute observations of karmic processes in the dynamic system of all humans?

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Arranged by who? These arguments with so many opinions, prove there are no absolute answers.

 

ralis

 

Dependent origination can be realized as the absolute answer with no absolute truth's other than causation and emptiness.

 

Your opinion about our opinions originates dependent upon causes and conditions, as in you've been conditioned to think this way, it's your karmic vision. Your idea that karma does not explain how things happen is caused by conditions of influence and your interpretations which are caused by more past influences and interpretations of influences.

 

Excellent point! I was just accused of seeing the universe in black and white! All I did was make an observation of Buddhist dogma. The whole Buddhist karmic debate reduces to "I create and control my own reality."

 

ralis

 

Not really, that's not the conclusion that one should have when reading about Karma. Because we all influence each other, so we actually co-create. As we influence each other in way's that conditions our actions and intentions, thus influencing others even more.

 

It's not solipsism, it's co-creationism. But, through recognizing my part in it, I can make steps to be a better influence for myself and others. I can change the way I interpret circumstances outside of my control and change a negative habit pattern into something virtuous. But, at the same time, I enter that circumstance that is now beyond my control because of what I did in a previous moment that was in my control. I made the choice to go there, to sit there and thus get hit in the face by that ball, but I can react and get all pissed off, throwing punches, or I can just see it as a circumstance brought together by various forms of causation leading to that effect and just go get an ice pack and not blame the batter or the pitcher or anybody per say and just take the swelling peacefully. Karma is just saying that things do not happen without causes, that is all.

 

Just like Chaos theory say's that upon appearance, circumstances seem to be random, coming from all directions, but if you look more closely a pattern appears, a deeply complex one. That's karma.

[Vajrahridaya]

There are sweeping generalizations being made here in that all beings are subject to karma. So if I am not aware that karma is playing an absolute role in my life, then what? Should not all beings be warned ahead of time as to the dangers inherent in existence? After all some claim karma offers choices. How does one know what the proper choices are? Good and evil are relative concepts depending on what culture one finds oneself.

ralis

 

Yes they are, so you're not going to break the laws in a certain country simply because you can do it in this country, that would lead to the result of jail. It's not so much as good and evil, it's beneficial and non-beneficial.

 

You are not born with a tag on you that warns you about the consequences of thoughts and actions. You learn this over time. Yes, virtue is relative, but there are some absolutes. Basically, don't act out of rage and utter selfishness, and if it hurts someone else in the long or short of it, don't do it.

 

If you experience compassion within, then your actions are naturally going to follow suit. Of course you will know according to the information you have collected. Like one person experiences compassion and gives the homeless man some money, but the other person knows that giving that person money will only lead him to dependence and knows that he will just spend it on drugs. So, out of compassion he does not give the man money. Both are compassionate but one is wiser than the other.

 

We are conditioned by karma until we realize emptiness, then our choices have a wider and wider range of information and we are not so conditioned by habit patterns or insecurities. We feel more secure within, the peace, calm and sense of freedom, so we don't act in needy ways. We are free from karma even while karma is happening, only if we've realized the condition of emptiness, that nothing has any intrinsic nature. We start responding from a space of seeing interconnectivity, so we don't act in way's that harm on a grand scale, Though individually it's quite complicated, and cultural. But, there are some absolutes, don't murder for instance is one, don't sell illegal weapons, such things.

 

If you don't know the difference between good and evil for yourself, in your own culture, then you might want to get that checked out. Sociopaths don't understand these differences or those with Dissocial Personality Disorder. Even a kid knows that hurting someone else is not beneficial.

 

This argument is bogus! Gates has ripped off billions from his crappy software. Anti-trust violations? Yes, the Europeans courts have found MS guilty. Therefor if he gives away lots of money, then is karmic burden is reduced? It is a well known fact that he stole the source code from Apple Computer. Also, just because he gives money away through his charitable foundation, that is good karma? What if he needs the tax breaks and that is a way to benefit? Is that not a selfish endeavor?

 

This deference to the aristocrats that somehow they have better karma than the rest of us is an untenable argument.

ralis

 

I agree that if Bill's intentions are not honorable, though I don't know exactly what's going on in his mind. No amount of giving away of what is pennies to the dollar for him is going to help him. If he actually experiences compassion from within, that can help.

[ralis]

 

 

If you don't know the difference between good and evil for yourself, in your own culture, then you might want to get that checked out. Sociopaths don't understand these differences or those with Dissocial Personality Disorder. Even a kid knows that hurting someone else is not beneficial.

 

Exactly what are you implying with this statement? FYI, it is disassociated, not dissocial.

 

 

ralis

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.ianlawton.com/bbosextr2.htm

 

Exactly what are you implying with this statement? FYI, it is disassociated, not dissocial.

ralis

[Birch]

I like it better when you explain things the way you just did;-)

[Vajrahridaya]

The problem I have is that karma is defined in a simplistic and religious manner. I think it is not possible to quantify karma and make it an absolute tenet of any philosophical system.

 

This discussion is concerned with karma for the class of all humans. Humans compose a dynamic system. A dynamic system is characterized as one of change. Changes in dynamic systems are extremely complex and depending on the system, are extremely difficult or impossible to quantify. Why? The reasons are due to complex variables that interact. Interaction is non-linear. For simplicity, if one were to observe 1 million variables all interacting with each other, then what specific conclusions can be made? Can one honestly make absolute observations of karmic processes in the dynamic system of all humans?

ralis

 

For me that complexity is explained by dependent origination and the law of karma. Karma is not linear. The Buddha explains that in the Pali Suttas how non-linear it is, which is why bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people so to speak, though it's all perspective as well, as Dwai said, one can take it as punishment, or as a liberating factor. Being good in this lifetime doesn't necessarily lead to a fruitful next life, he has said that if you are human and able to delve into your unconscious, that you should do so while you are sure you have the capacity and weed out all the nuances of your own neurosis. The chain of causes and conditions are deeply complex and are constantly changing.

[Prince...]

I scanned through some of the posts and I noticed a lot of things said concerning Christianity that is not exactly correct. The problem is that there are these mainstream ideas of Christianity and then there are the suppressed views, or maybe the less known views.

 

I am going to say that Orthodox Christianity is vastly different from that practiced in the West. The emphasis is not on sin and redemption, but the actual being Christ-like to the point that one achieves Theosis. There is no magic involved, just hard work.

 

I am going to duck out, though. I have already committed enough heresy this week and managed to drop my grade in Faith Seeking & Understanding from an A to a B+ for siding with Pelagius in a paper over St. Augustine. I don't want to think what will happen when we study Origen next semester and I start bringing up his views on reicarnation...

[Vajrahridaya]

Exactly what are you implying with this statement? FYI, it is disassociated, not dissocial.

ralis

 

I was using it as an example and I meant Dissocial personality disorder. Disassociated personality disorder would be more like multiple personalities that are not associated with each other manifesting through one person.

 

From wiki:

 

 

Dissocial personality disorder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to be confused with Dissociative identity disorder.

Conduct disorder

Classification and external resources

ICD-10 F60.2.

ICD-9 301.9

Dissocial personality disorder is one of several psychopathic personality disorders, each of which has different operational definitions and terminologies depending on the system of classification of mental disorders used.[1]

Psychopathy is a general construct that differs from the specific diagnoses of antisocial, psychopathic, dissocial, and sociopathic personality disorders, the various diagnostic classifications for psychopathy.[2]

Dissocial personality disorder is the diagnostic category established for psychopathy in the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is conceptually similar to the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for Antisocial personality disorder.[3]

Contents [hide]

1 ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder

2 Confusion in terminology

3 Research findings

4 Treatment

5 See also

6 Footnotes

7 External links

[edit]ICD-10 Criteria for Dissocial Personality Disorder

 

Specifically, the dissocial personality disorder is described by the World Health Organization by the following criteria:

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others and lack of the capacity for empathy.

Gross and persistent attitude of irresponsibility and disregard for social norms, rules, and obligations.

Incapacity to maintain enduring relationships, though having no difficulty in establishing them.

Very low tolerance to frustration and a low threshold for discharge of aggression, including violence.

Incapacity to experience guilt and to profit from experience, particularly punishment.

Markedly prone to blame others or to offer plausible rationalizations for the behavior bringing the subject into conflict.

Persistent irritability.

The criteria specifically rule out conduct disorders.[3] Dissocial personality disorder criteria differ from those for antisocial and sociopathic personality disorders.[4]

[ralis]

I was using it as an example and I meant Dissocial personality disorder. Disassociated personality disorder would be more like multiple personalities that are not associated with each other manifesting through one person.

 

From wiki:

 

You seemed to be directing it to me!

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I scanned through some of the posts and I noticed a lot of things said concerning Christianity that is not exactly correct. The problem is that there are these mainstream ideas of Christianity and then there are the suppressed views, or maybe the less known views.

 

I agree, we are mostly going to be talking about mainstream though, not the mystics, gnostics, or the commentaries by the great saints of the Eastern Orthodox or Desert Fathers. We are mostly going to be talking about how the Bible is understood from a majority standpoint, not those that actually use the statements as deep metaphors for contemplation that mirror some of the Eastern Wisdom traditions. Most people who grow up Christian in the West aren't influenced by the good spiritual stuff.

 

 

I am going to duck out, though. I have already committed enough heresy this week and managed to drop my grade in Faith Seeking & Understanding from an A to a B+ for siding with Pelagius in a paper over St. Augustine. I don't want to think what will happen when we study Origen next semester and I start bringing up his views on reicarnation...

 

Awesome!!

 

 

You seemed to be directing it to me!

 

ralis

 

No, not if it doesn't apply. Though the person you picked as your Avatar is someone who would be considered as suffering from this disorder. Not the actor but the character, The Joker.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

Prince -- again a fascinating connection. So the Ethiopian view of Christ as God -- (complete union of human and divine) -- is also the "end goal" of early Christian reincarnation?

 

Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church - Origins

 

Tewahido is a Ge'ez word meaning "being made one"; it is related to the Arabic word توحيد tawhid, meaning "monotheism". This refers to the Oriental Orthodox belief in the one single unique Nature of Christ (a complete union of the Divine and Human Natures), as opposed to the "two Natures of Christ" belief (unmixed Divine and Human Natures, called the Hypostatic Union) held by today's Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. "

 

http://knol.google.com/k/souzaom/the-reaso...tazyid1jha11/2#

 

I scanned through some of the posts and I noticed a lot of things said concerning Christianity that is not exactly correct. The problem is that there are these mainstream ideas of Christianity and then there are the suppressed views, or maybe the less known views.

 

I am going to say that Orthodox Christianity is vastly different from that practiced in the West. The emphasis is not on sin and redemption, but the actual being Christ-like to the point that one achieves Theosis. There is no magic involved, just hard work.

 

I am going to duck out, though. I have already committed enough heresy this week and managed to drop my grade in Faith Seeking & Understanding from an A to a B+ for siding with Pelagius in a paper over St. Augustine. I don't want to think what will happen when we study Origen next semester and I start bringing up his views on reicarnation...

Edited October 24, 2009 by drewhempel

[TianhuaQigong]

The problem I have is that karma is defined in a simplistic and religious manner. I think it is not possible to quantify karma and make it an absolute tenet of any philosophical system.

 

This discussion is concerned with karma for the class of all humans. Humans compose a dynamic system. A dynamic system is characterized as one of change. Changes in dynamic systems are extremely complex and depending on the system, are extremely difficult or impossible to quantify. Why? The reasons are due to complex variables that interact. Interaction is non-linear. For simplicity, if one were to observe 1 million variables all interacting with each other, then what specific conclusions can be made? Can one honestly make absolute observations of karmic processes in the dynamic system of all humans?

ralis

 

as Taoist said about Tao : Tao is simple, (only a few rules, Tao de Jing say 7 rules) and Tao is Accurate.

accurate means what ever this thing is big or small, it has to follow those rules. sad, I can not prove. but I do able to prove something scientist can not explain, such as the exist of Qi, and something else. Karman is inculded in Tao philosophical system. it is called "rule of consequence "

 

surely this is a dynamic system, karma is the factor , or law of this system, as you said this 1 million variables, non-linear system has to be controlled by something, can you give me a factor? as we can see the human has been development very well in last 5000 years, in everything, include morality. how dare someone say it is random process. how could some factors control this system, I will give a example in math, say your dimension is a line, my dimension is a surface include your line. how could you image my movement in the surface, now, your demension is a surface, I am in 3D, how could you image my freedom, but everyting for me is so easy and simple, now, you are in 3D, I am in 4D (3D +time, I can travel on time) . how could you understand I can watch pass, not you are in 4D, I am in 5D (4D + speed) . ..... in Tao there are 33 demsnsion.

[Vajrahridaya]

I like it better when you explain things the way you just did;-)

 

Who, me?

[TianhuaQigong]

I rather jump out things to look back, the west doing very good on detail, east take care of things in whole, both of them has advance , if combine them together , we human are going to make a big step forward

Edited October 24, 2009 by TianhuaQigong

[ralis]

I agree, we are mostly going to be talking about mainstream though, not the mystics, gnostics, or the commentaries by the great saints of the Eastern Orthodox or Desert Fathers. We are mostly going to be talking about how the Bible is understood from a majority standpoint, not those that actually use the statements as deep metaphors for contemplation that mirror some of the Eastern Wisdom traditions. Most people who grow up Christian in the West aren't influenced by the good spiritual stuff.

Awesome!!

No, not if it doesn't apply. Though the person you picked as your Avatar is someone who would be considered as suffering from this disorder. Not the actor but the character, The Joker.

 

Your comment was irrelevant to my earlier comments. In regards to the Joker, the movie and comic books are commenting on an ancient archetype. There are a number of books written that are very interesting.

 

ralis

Edited October 24, 2009 by ralis

[voidisyinyang]

Sorry to break the bad news V. haha. Maybe your past life karma is sneaking in to the thread.

 

Who, me?

[Vajrahridaya]

Sorry to break the bad news V. haha. Maybe your past life karma is sneaking in to the thread.

 

 

I was talking to Kate.

 

She sometimes makes a comment after someone without quoting who she's commenting to. Maybe she's talking to you though?

 

I don't know. It's nice to know if someone is getting something.

 

What past life would that be by the way Drew? Out of curiosity. The stork or the Dinosaur?

[voidisyinyang]

Well Chunyi Lin knows! http://springforestqigong.com -- but first go to Miami for some big V vice.

 

I was talking to Kate.

 

She sometimes makes a comment after someone without quoting who she's commenting to. Maybe she's talking to you though?

 

I don't know. It's nice to know if someone is getting something.

 

What past life would that be by the way Drew? Out of curiosity. The stork or the Dinosaur?

[rebelrebel]

Of course hurting someone is wrong. Everybody knows that. But it's not always that easy. you have to look at the situation. There are a million interpretations to every situation. For instance, if somebody is attacking someone I love and I end up hurting this person pretty bad in order to stop him, what is my karma in that situation? What is good, what is bad then? You have to look deeper than just "hurting someone is always bad." There is no good or bad to the universe, to the entirety of reality. There is only good and bad for us human beings. Because we invented morality. It does not have any meaning outside of us. I'm sorry. The universe is indifferent to you hurting somebody, only YOU are not indifferent. Asserting that we are going to go to hell for our actions is like saying that morality is embedded in nature.

 

I'm always skeptical of the morality of religious people. I always question whether they genuinely care or are only being good to others out of fear of the afterlife - karma or sin. It's hard to know. You can avoid calling it punishment if you want, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that it isn't fear of punishment that is driving people who believe in karma or sin to do good things...

Edited October 24, 2009 by rebelrebel

[ralis]

Of course hurting someone is wrong. Everybody knows that. But it's not always that easy. you have to look at the situation. There are a million interpretations to every situation. For instance, if somebody is attacking someone I love and I end up hurting this person pretty bad in order to stop him, what is my karma in that situation? What is good, what is bad then? You have to look deeper than just "hurting someone is always bad." There is no good or bad to the universe, to the entirety of reality. There is only good and bad for us human beings. Because we invented morality. It does not have any meaning outside of us. I'm sorry. The universe is indifferent to you hurting somebody, only YOU are not indifferent. Asserting that we are going to go to hell for our actions is like saying that morality is embedded in nature.

 

I'm always skeptical of the morality of religious people. I always question whether they genuinely care or are only being good to others out of fear of the afterlife - karma or sin. It's hard to know. You can avoid calling it punishment if you want, but I wouldn't be so quick to say that it isn't fear of punishment that is driving people who believe in karma or sin to do good things...

 

It seems to me the Buddhists project an anthropocentric mind onto the universe. Religions have been doing this for millennia.

 

ralis

[rebelrebel]

It seems to me the Buddhists project an anthropocentric mind onto the universe. Religions have been doing this for millennia.

 

ralis

yes that is a great word for what I'm trying to get across here