karma and original sin

[Vajrahridaya]

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

 

ralis

 

No, we don't see the universe as one great mind like the human mind in a bigger form. We are probably the only religion that doesn't do that, well and maybe Taoism doesn't do that, but as far as I can tell Buddhism is the only one that clearly does not do this. Well, I guess Samkhya is also not Theistic, but that's not really practiced anywhere anymore as it's elements have become what is now Vedanta and Shaivism really. We also only think humans are special because we are the only ones on Earth that have the ability to self transcend and create a tradition of methods for the sake of self transcendence and to directly experience the nature of phenomena beyond concept. Any sentient being who has the capacity for Buddhahood would be considered a beneficial karmic circumstance for any mind stream. It doesn't have to be human, but on Earth we seem to be the only ones that can do this. We can transcend environment or create a hospitable environment to sustain our life within any environment, from under the ocean to the Arctic. We can transcend conditioning even while appearing to be bound by them through the power of our mind and imagination.

 

The Universe is not one big mind though, there is no such mind upon deeper investigation, it's only an experience that arises due to causes and conditions inherent in the universes processes.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[rebelrebel]

And to elaborate, what if somebody does a "virtuous" action for purely selfish reasons, out of fear for their own future rebirth? What kind of seed is planted then? Or what if I let two people die in order to save five?

 

And I don't think ralis was talking about a universal mind. He meant that we make our self created values more important in the grand scheme of things than they really are.

Edited October 24, 2009 by rebelrebel

[Vajrahridaya]

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?

 

The Buddha talks about this type of circumstance. It's beneficial for the person who was about to do the hurting, it's beneficial for you and it's beneficial for the person who was going to get hurt. The Buddha talks about how in a past life he was on a boat and he found out that one person on the boat was going to kill everyone on the boat, so he threw this person over board. He said that this was good for the person so that he didn't get the negative karmas from killing lots of people and the people didn't get the results of negative karmas because of the fact that the would be assassin was thrown overboard. Both the would be killer and the would be victims were spared the karma of the act. Since the Buddha was the person who tossed the guy over board actually did an act from the intention of benefit for everyone concerned, it was an act of merit.

 

So, this type of circumstance is discussed in Buddhist thought. It's actually a very deep, and complex subject. All your wrong conclusions actually arise from a lack of study. You should study Abhidharma and find out how deeply complex Buddhist metaphysics is.

 

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.

 

Hell in Buddhism is a state of mind, it's not a punishment, it's just a realm that manifests for a being that reflects the persons state of mind, and it manifests in co-relation and in co-origination with other beings of similar mind types. So, the universe does not punish people, we just reap the fruit of our actions and intentions, the state of our mind manifests our actions and the reactions follow in accordance to the actions, but it's complicated. Much more so than is possible to really put forth through words. The teachings and meditating on the teachings should lead to an intuitive realization of the nature of karma and it's subtle complexities. To a demonic minded person, hell might be where they want to be, hell is just a term, it's not an absolute, it's relative. It's just that for a person who is after inner peace and compassion would consider a realm where beings compete against each other and constantly put each other down, fight, express power through anger, lie to each other, steel from each other and kill each other at whim would be considered hell. Buddhism is a path to the pacification of these types of attitudes, so a demon realm is called hell because of this. A demon would just call hell, home. Or the projects in the South Bronx. Not that everyone who lives in the projects in the South Bronx is demon minded, but.. it's just an example.

 

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...

 

Yes, this is considered a misuse. But, if that's the only way to get a beginner to start putting forth the right efforts to change their actions from destructive to constructive, then eventually to the realization that doing good is it's own reward. One could say that this fear tactic is a kind of spiritual teaching for the more "heavy" type of people, until they gain enough merit from right action to experience a lighter state of mind as a result.

 

Rabia a Sufi saint from India from the 8th century once was seen walking through the street of her town carrying a torch and a bucket of water during one of the times when the whole town was praying. She caused a commotion and everyone stopped praying and she got everyones attention and said, "I'm carrying this bucket of water to put out the fire of hell and I'm carrying this torch to burn down the pillars of heaven, so that you people will stop praying out of the fear of the punishment of hell and desire for the pleasures of heaven, and pray for the love of God alone for it's own sake."

 

Of course in Buddhism, we don't worship a God, but we learn to see interdependence and act in accordance with this virtue for it's own sake, not out of fear of hell or the desire for heaven. Buddhism is from the very beginning a path that talks about transcending such desires or fears. Of course, everyone has their needs and capacity, so if a person needs some fear to get some good actions on their side, it would probably be better than not doing good at all. Every mind stream has to make it's own progress in it's own time, through it's own path.

 

Take care.

 

 

And to elaborate, what if somebody does a "virtuous" action for purely selfish reasons, out of fear for their own future rebirth? What kind of seed is planted then? Or what if I let two people die in order to save five?

 

And I don't think ralis was talking about a universal mind. He meant that we make our self created values more important in the grand scheme of things than they really are.

 

Well I considered this. I made a point concerning that in my post.

 

We consider it hard for a mind stream to manifest in a body that has the brain capacity to contemplate it's own nature. There are way more sentient beings without the capacity to contemplate self, than there are those that can. So yes, we consider the attainment of the human body to be important, for the sake of our own liberation and the for the sake of influencing other humans towards the same. Those that think it's better to be an animal I think don't know any better and don't understand how much restlessness animals suffer from within, even when they aren't physically moving, their hyper senses are constantly picking up information that they don't really have the power to contemplate with the acknowledgement of Buddhanature.

[ralis]

No, we don't see the universe as one great mind like the human mind in a bigger form. We are probably the only religion that doesn't do that, well and maybe Taoism doesn't do that, it's ambiguous about this and not so clear, so as far as I can tell Buddhism is the only one that clearly does not do this. Well, I guess Samkhya is also not Theistic, but that's not really practiced anywhere anymore as it's elements have become what is now Vedanta and Shaivism really. We also only think humans are special because we are the only ones on Earth that have the ability to self transcend and create a tradition of methods for the sake of self transcendence and to directly experience the nature of phenomena beyond concept. Any sentient being who has the capacity for Buddhahood would be considered a beneficial karmic circumstance for any mind stream. It doesn't have to be human, but on Earth we seem to be the only ones that can do this. We can transcend environment or create a hospitable environment to sustain our life within any environment, from under the ocean to the Arctic. We can transcend conditioning even while appearing to be bound by them through the power of our mind and imagination.

 

The Universe is not one big mind though, there is no such mind upon deeper investigation, it's only an experience that arises due to causes and conditions inherent in the universes processes.

 

I never made a statement that the universe was one great mind. Anthropocentric ideology is a projection of human values, morals etc. onto the universe. Then you state, "humans are special.......". Have you studied history in any depth?

 

You continually demonstrate the ability to deal in absolutes. In a world of absolutes, nothing evolves!

[Vajrahridaya]

I never made a statement that the universe was one great mind. Anthropocentric ideology is a projection of human values, morals etc. onto the universe.

 

Yes, I made points about both possibilities. That you were thinking that we are projecting the idea of a human mind over the universe or just that the universe has morals. In Buddhism it's no to both.

 

Then you state, "humans are special.......". Have you studied history in any depth? You continually demonstrate the ability to deal in absolutes. In a world of absolutes, nothing evolves!

 

No... you constantly demonstrate the ability to interpret what I say in absolutes. It's like I have to put forth a whole collage of examples to show how relative everything is. I'd be writing for eons.

 

I said in Buddhism, a human life is considered special, due to the possibility of Buddhahood. Not that most humans actually undertake this challenge, as most... if you study history, obviously do not. Is that clear enough for you? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence Ralis.

 

The universe does not care if you are a Buddha or not, but you certainly will experience a difference. So, we act in accordance with how the universe works for the sake of experiencing our own liberation, or our inherent Buddhanature. Not because the universe cares or will punish us.

[fragrant herbs]

Well, I must reaffirm the fact that I do not accept the concepts of 'original sin', or 'karma', or 'life is suffering'.

 

That said, I will try to remain silent through the rest of this thread.

 

Peace & Love!

 

This has been something hard for me to accept also, so what I decided to do with karma is to say that I don't know and don't really care. I have not really cared for the saying, "That is bad karma," as it is no different to me than a Christian saying, "You are going to hell." When I was in Buddism I decided to not concern myself with karma. You just lead a life that is kind towards others and help people and animals when you can. Why? Because you don't wish to harm others; not because you fear hell or a bad afterlife. Do I believe in an afterlife. Yes, but I don't know what it is like. Other than that, life takes care of itself. And life is suffering also bothered me. I believe that you have to accept the good with the bad. Of course I don't live in a country where I am starving nor am in physical pain all the time, so I can say that at this point in my life. I guess it boils down to "what is, is, and I don't know what is and don't really believe that any one can really know."

Edited October 25, 2009 by fragrant herbs

[fragrant herbs]

Karma and original sin are both suspect, in my view. I really don't think our actions have any consequences beyond this lifetime; I would be surprised if they did. Even if there is such a thing as rebirth, I don't believe our actions influence the result of future rebirths. And I don't think the simple act of pouring water over someone's head (Catholicism) can remove his original human depravity, because none exists to begin with. Life is meant to be lived to the fullest, without fear of being punished in some future life or lives.

 

All these concepts of "sin" and "karma" and "morality" are purely human constructs. That is not to say, however, that some actions are not objectively harmful to others, because they are. But to posit some future punishment for "karma" or "sin" is ridiculous. Both karma and sin operate from a child's sense of morality; I must do such and such, because if I don't, I will get punished. And if I am a good boy I will get such and such as a reward.

 

I've always questioned notions like "heaven" and "hell" because there is no such thing as an absolutely "heavenly" or "hellish" experience. Everything is relative. My existence on earth is heavenly to a Sudanese refugee, but it might be hellish to a Wall Street fat cat.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I really like your post. Especially the "Wall Street fat cat" comment. And here literally "poor" me in a big comparison thought that I was in heaven. It is all relevent, isn't it? I think of heaven and hell as conditions on this earth. I can't know about the afterlife.

 

I have read a lot of past life regressions and have had them done on me, even one future one. Does this mean that karma exists? Reincarnation? Maybe. But then recently I found that Dr. Helen Wambeck did some future life progressions, and people were able to come up with them, but you know what? Their future lifes didn't come out as real if the time lines are correct. Our world is not like they discribed, so they began to sound like fantasies. I don't know what to think now even past life regression. but what would we learn if our so called bad karma went on into the next life? We wouldn't know about it to learn anything, would we? What about being reborn into an animal life? We wouldn't learn from that either, would we? Unless we have a teacher in the inbetween life that tells us our "sins" or goes over our life, but then when we are reborn we no longer remember it for it to be a lesson to us.

 

Karma theory is very different. There is no specific qualification of whether karma is good or bad...it simply is Karma (or action). When one does action using one's free will, he/she will have performed karma/kriya and therefore will have to face the consequences of this action.

 

The theory of Karma exists because there is no concept of "original sin" in the Eastern traditions. No one is born a "sinner" and no one can "save" anyone else. It is the individual's responsibility to watch out for one's own salvation or moksha (that being breaking the cycle of re-incarnation).

 

Maybe I misunderstand, but karma and original sin seems like the same to me. Original sin means to me that one is "born into sin," and with karma, your past life causing you to be "born into sin." You will always carry some baggage with you until you become enlightened and are therefore no longer affected by karma or original sin. The Hindu gurus, to me, were set up to save others just as Christ was. They took on your bad karma or sins. In reality, as far as I can tell, they only took on disciples to worship them, but still the idea was the same, again. Great book on this savior idea is Pagan Christs that can be read online for free or purchases. It is by JOhn Mackinnon. www.forgottenbooks.org

 

Also I don't think any human, no matter how they have lived their life and how bad they have been, deserves to suffer and endure sick, disgusting, unspeakably horrible acts conjured from the human imagination in a "hell realm" for any period of time. The human imagination can be a truly scary thing.

 

The last sentence was truly funny, but so true. And I have to agree with you on the first part too.

Edited October 25, 2009 by fragrant herbs

[Marblehead]

Hi Fragrant Herbs,

 

Nice posts. I don't want to say anything else at the moment as I do not wish to cause anyone to think that I am trying to sell something.

 

We all have our illusions and delusions from time to time. I just think that it is important for us to check in with reality now and then.

 

If we can't 'prove' something it is still only a theory - nothing more.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Yes, I made points about both possibilities. That you were thinking that we are projecting the idea of a human mind over the universe or just that the universe has morals. In Buddhism it's no to both.

No... you constantly demonstrate the ability to interpret what I say in absolutes. It's like I have to put forth a whole collage of examples to show how relative everything is. I'd be writing for eons.

 

I said in Buddhism, a human life is considered special, due to the possibility of Buddhahood. Not that most humans actually undertake this challenge, as most... if you study history, obviously do not. Is that clear enough for you? The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence Ralis.

 

The universe does not care if you are a Buddha or not, but you certainly will experience a difference. So, we act in accordance with how the universe works for the sake of experiencing our own liberation, or our inherent Buddhanature. Not because the universe cares or will punish us.

 

 

When you use the verb (is), you are making a statement in absolute terms. I refer you to General Semantics and Robert Anton Wilson's works.

 

ralis

Edited October 24, 2009 by ralis

[Marblehead]

I am correct in regards to this.

 

ralis

 

 

Hehehe. The temptation is too strong. Sorry.

 

Well, I am right so if anyone disagrees with me then it is an automatic absolute that they are wrong.

 

How's that for allowing my ego to express itself?

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Hehehe. The temptation is too strong. Sorry.

 

Well, I am right so if anyone disagrees with me then it is an automatic absolute that they are wrong.

 

How's that for allowing my ego to express itself?

 

Peace & Love!

 

Point taken.

[Vajrahridaya]

When you use the verb (is), you are making a statement in absolute terms. I refer you to General Semantics and Robert Anton Wilson's works.

 

ralis

 

Yes, it's absolutely true that in Buddhism a human life IS considered special. You either waste it, or you don't.

 

Ya dig!?

 

So, if that's what you meant by absolute, then yes... it's an absolute according to the view of Buddhadharma and how hard it is to get a human body. Of course, the regular ol' person without memory due to being blinded by the void of the unconscious takes it for granted because for them, the birth into a human realm of existence will not be seen as an alternative to being born in any other way. For me of course, I feel that's a delusion that beckons questioning. I questioned this intensely as a young kid in Elementary school. "How come I'm not some other type of being like a bird or a dog?", "What truly makes me different from the animals and the bugs?" I think probably all kids do this, but I did come up with some conclusions, which I later found agreed upon by ancient and modern yogi's. Go figure!

[ralis]

Yes, it's absolutely true that in Buddhism a human life IS considered special. You either waste it, or you don't.

 

Ya dig!?

 

So, if that's what you meant by absolute, then yes... it's an absolute according to the view of Buddhadharma and how hard it is to get a human body. Of course, the regular ol' person without memory due to being blinded by the void of the unconscious takes it for granted because for them, the birth into a human realm of existence will not be seen as an alternative to being born in any other way. For me of course, I feel that's a delusion that beckons questioning. I questioned this intensely as a young kid in Elementary school. "How come I'm not some other type of being like a bird or a dog?", "What truly makes me different from the animals and the bugs?" I think probably all kids do this, but I did come up with some conclusions, which I later found agreed upon by ancient and modern yogi's. Go figure!

You are confirming what I said in regards to anthropocentric projections. If and only if the human birth is the highest attainment, then one must conclude from your statement that the human birth is the highest in the entire cosmos. That is an absolute anthropocentric view.

 

ralis

Edited October 24, 2009 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

You are confirming what I said in regards to anthropocentric projections. If and only if the human birth is the highest attainment, then one must conclude from your statement that the human birth is the highest in the entire cosmos. That is an absolute anthropocentric view.

 

ralis

 

Highest birth on Earth. Not the cosmos. Bieng born into a pureland would probably be the highest. There are Alien worlds with beings who are intelligent or even more so than human where they practice different forms of Buddhist teachings, even Dzogchen. ChNNR has mentioned meeting some of these beings.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Oh No!!! The space cadets are coming to get us and convert us all into Buddhists!

 

Run for your lives!!!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[Vajrahridaya]

Oh No!!! The space cadets are coming to get us and convert us all into Buddhists!

 

Run for your lives!!!!!

 

Peace & Love!

 

Well, it's better than eating your brains and harvesting your kids for slavery.

Edited October 25, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Marblehead]

Well, it's better than eating your brains and harvesting your kids for slavery.

 

Hehehe. Okay. You get one point.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Yes, it's absolutely true that in Buddhism a human life IS considered special. You either waste it, or you don't.

 

Ya dig!?

 

So, if that's what you meant by absolute, then yes... it's an absolute according to the view of Buddhadharma and how hard it is to get a human body. Of course, the regular ol' person without memory due to being blinded by the void of the unconscious takes it for granted because for them, the birth into a human realm of existence will not be seen as an alternative to being born in any other way. For me of course, I feel that's a delusion that beckons questioning. I questioned this intensely as a young kid in Elementary school. "How come I'm not some other type of being like a bird or a dog?", "What truly makes me different from the animals and the bugs?" I think probably all kids do this, but I did come up with some conclusions, which I later found agreed upon by ancient and modern yogi's. Go figure!

 

 

In terms of human birth, you state it is an absolute, then when I reminded you that an absolute is universal, you twist the argument in your favor. Is this a brainwashing technique? Sounds like cult behavior to me.

 

 

ralis

[Geneh]

As I understand it karma is the baggage an individual carries in life, and from life to life, as a result of our own actions. Original sin is a Christian understanding (after Augustine) and is the baggage we all have as a result of that pesky snake getting Adam and Eve to eat the apple. Karma is individual and original sin is collective (racial as in human race). Calvinists have used original sin to support the notion of total depravity.

 

Neither is Taoist!

[Marblehead]

In terms of human birth, you state it is an absolute, then when I reminded you that an absolute is universal, you twist the argument in your favor. Is this a brainwashing technique? Sounds like cult behavior to me.

ralis

 

Neat observation, Ralis.

 

I normally catch it whenever someone suggests a universal but I missed that one.

 

Peace & Love!

 

 

Neither is Taoist!

 

Amen! Amen! Amen!

 

Peace & Love!

[fragrant herbs]

Has anyone read the book, Pagan Christs by John Mackinnon? It is interesting that throughout history, even before Jesus Christ "died for our sins" there were many other Christs that died for our sins long before he even arrived on the scene. They were sacrificed as well. So how original was that? http://www.amazon.com/Pagan-Christs-Compar...7229&sr=8-1

[ralis]

Karma and original sin are human primate concepts, that are used as social control mechanisms. Only guilt and fear are the result of believing in these concepts.

 

 

ralis

[TianhuaQigong]

Karma and original sin are human primate concepts, that are used as social control mechanisms. Only guilt and fear are the result of believing in these concepts.

ralis

 

 

That is not bad too. if "guilt and fear" are enforced to everyone, this world will even better. Haahaaaa.

 

if you learned bible, there are karmas too. such as , God think someone did something wrong, then he let something happen. or someone do something good, then something good happened, if you read bible ,elimited those "god rule part" . you will think those two things do not have any connection.

[ralis]

That is not bad too. if "guilt and fear" are enforced to everyone, this world will even better. Haahaaaa.

 

if you learned bible, there are karmas too. such as , God think someone did something wrong, then he let something happen. or someone do something good, then something good happened, if you read bible ,elimited those "god rule part" . you will think those two things do not have any connection.

 

Guilt and fear enforced? By what means? The military? What are the other means of enforcing guilt and fear? You must be living in the dark ages!

 

1. Biblical inquisitions?

2. Torture?

3. Forced church attendance?

 

Which god will be in charge of this activity?

 

 

ralis

[C T]

Guilt and fear enforced? By what means? The military? What are the other means of enforcing guilt and fear? You must be living in the dark ages!

 

1. Biblical inquisitions?

2. Torture?

3. Forced church attendance?

 

Which god will be in charge of this activity?

ralis

 

Have you ever considered subliminal stimuli, which is quite a prevalent media, advertising and institutional tool, as sinister means towards *enforcing* guilt and fear?

 

Just a thought ralis.

 

Be well!