karma and original sin

[C T]

Just to throw a Daoist slant in amongst the midst, or perhaps a cat amongst the pigeons, the concept of Karma, in its commonly excepted form, doesn't exist within Daoism per se.

 

Rather we have what can be referred to as The Law of Universal Energy Response. Within this view it is observed that the Universal flow of nature is always seeking harmony. Thus a discordant action will beget a harmonization response.

 

This natural law also states: One's life experience is in perfect synchrony with one's internal energy vibration. One's internal energy vibration is determined by the sum contents of one's mind.

 

Also there is the recognition that collective energy vibrations exist. A family, for example, will have it's own collective vibration made up by the sum vibration of the individuals. Just so it is for a community, nation, and planet.

Hi Stig,

 

I totally agree with the point that energy vibrations are determined by the sum contents of one's mind. This is absolutely true, which is why there is also much emphasis on mind-training in the Mahayana tradition!

 

Glad to see this similarity in the two philosophies

 

Regards,

 

CT

[ralis]

Some of the best culture to come out of religion. "The Blues"

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/joe-bonam...many-roads.html

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/david-gil...ocaster-50.html

 

ralis

[C T]

Some of the best culture to come out of religion. "The Blues"

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/joe-bonam...many-roads.html

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/david-gil...ocaster-50.html

 

ralis

Impeccable!!

 

Thanks for sharing!

[Vajrahridaya]

Greetings..

I sense much consistency and clarity in this statement.. if you will allow a slightly different perspective (though some will see it differently).. my experiences reveal the "two truths" to be Oneness manifested as many-ness, each defining the other in a relationship we call existence.. Ancient mystics represented this relationship with the Taiji symbol (Yin/Yang).. it is the unnoticed element of this symbol that many disregard, the 'nothingness' which contrasts the relationship.. the weathered stone wall on which someone painted the 'symbol'..

 

Be well..

 

Thank you! Though Buddhist interpretation of the ultimate truth is different from this version that you are stating as to Buddhism, there is no one essence, or mysterious allness that all things are. This would be considered an extreme of Eternalism to Buddhism as all things are dependently originated without primal cause or essence since beginningless time, including consciousness. We consider the experience of oneness a misinterpretation of the experience of emptiness. When the consciousness expands and seems to pass through all things in a seeming "oneness", it's really just consciousness becoming aware beyond itself, but without knowing the cause, which is emptiness. A Buddhist due to training in the right view, understands that it's the condition of emptiness which is allowing for this experience of expansion and the seeing through and beyond itself and things, thus the Buddhist who understands the 1st of the nobel 8 fold path does not get caught up in erroneous views such as Eternalism or Nihilism.

 

So for Buddhism, the two Truths are that things appear but have no essence.

 

All the best!

Edited October 27, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[ralis]

More music to lighten up the heaviness of this thread.

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/srv-voodoo-child.html

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Impeccable!!

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

Also the great movies that have arisen from religious belief systems!

 

All the erroneous beliefs that people have reified into different relams of experience, dimensions of reality, afterlife's, etc. All due to the power of dependent origination.

[ralis]

Also the great movies that have arisen from religious belief systems!

 

All the erroneous beliefs that people have reified into different relams of experience, dimensions of reality, afterlife's, etc. All due to the power of dependent origination.

 

Vajraji,

 

We are having show and tell now. Why not post something fun. I did.

 

 

ralis

[Capital]

@Tao99 - The quote you highlighted in red by Vajrahridaya (I can't type that name so many times... ) seems to say that Ralis' interpretation was simplistic and black and white. It wasn't an attack unless taken as one. Ralis seems to take every statement Vajrah says as an attack in the posts I've seen (and he then responds with all the emotion of an abused victim), whether I can find said attack in the context or not.

 

This has led me to the conclusion, perhaps too black and white itself, that Ralis (and SotDE) is the primary instigator in most of these arguments.

 

This seemed logical from what I've read in quite a few threads, but I didn't read through the many other threads hosting the same arguments again and again, so I don't know enough to be fully objective; regardless, I should stop casting judgment. In this very thread, I didn't read any page but the last couple; worse, my response was one made in foolish frustration at the fighting that seems to spawn from nothing more than a misinterpreted line here or there.

 

EDIT:

 

Tao99, if the following quote is the quote you took as 'an attack', then perhaps it is misinterpreting more than just a line here or there. Nothing, nothing in that post is offensive, unless you have a skin as thin as that which covers a baby's scalp.

 

Actually this is something that every Buddhist does, is take refuge in the Buddha/Dharma/Sangha, or the triple jewel. It is considered the life line for Buddhists. But, that doesn't mean that all other beings are damned. Everyone will reap the fruits of their efforts. Even someone who takes refuge, but does not follow the dharma and only pays lip service will only reap the fruits of their efforts.

 

When we Buddhists take refuge in the Buddha, we are basically taking refuge in the faith that we can become just like the Buddha, so it's not that he saves us in the magical sense that Christianity poses that Christ is the son of God and that we are to worship him but we will never be like him.

 

We understand that when we focus on the Buddha and all his virtues that our mind becomes like that of the Buddha, like that which we focus upon. Of course this happens for real Christians as well, as many of the autobiographies of the saints talk about if you read them they talk about becoming one with Christ.

 

Anyway, we more like realize that same potential within ourselves and actualize it by keeping the company of those that are like minded and follow the same path to the same goal as us, so this is inspiring and keeps our mind focused in the right direction. We also read the teachings of the Buddha which is a whole assortment of methodology for how to become a Buddha ourselves. It's not a doctrine of blind faith, or metaphors, like the NT which is very, very short compared to the teachings of the Buddha.

 

We realize that we are not punished in any way, but we just reap the fruits of our actions, which is interesting because Jesus say's this in the Bible, that we reap what we sow. We just don't blame anybody, not even God for our existence. We see that we are reaping the fruit of our own past lives in this life, not as punishment, as karma is not good or bad as Dwai say's, but is merely action and reaction, cause and effect.

 

For instance, it could be good for someone to go to jail after committing a crime, because if not, that person might continue to commit the crime, making more bad karma and that person might not be given a chance to think about the consequences of their actions. So, it's all perspective, as it doesn't have to be seen as punishment, but rather a time to contemplate and re-direct ones mind and focus in life, then when they get out of jail, they have an entirely different state of mind and their life takes on a new direction.

 

It's really perspective and understanding really. Nothing is as it seems and what things seem to be is generally how we are making them seem through our own conception.

 

----

 

[The part to Ralis]

 

Depends on your perspective. I was born with the karma of having a yogically inclined mother, so this was a great help for me in my life. At the same time I grew up quite poor so I didn't have many of the monetary advantages. So, both are due to the response of past lives. Your view only works if one were to think one was just born. I know that I was born many, many times in different circumstances. I was never really born per say, I just go through different manifestations of the cause and effect chain.

 

To me, it seems that you have decided to look at it in this way, so you experience the information in that way. But, I don't see it like this at all. I don't find this perspective very helpful.

 

It doesn't answer why bad things happen to good people and why good people sometimes do bad things. Why good things happen to bad people, and why people are born in the situations they are born into. If you want to accept chaotic nihilism, that's your choice. I don't find this helpful at all. Nor do I find this the truth through both introspection and consideration of life as a whole, I see that everyone reaps what they sow in a complicated manor. Rinpoche talks about this, how a circumstance can leave seeds of primary conditions that don't come to fruition until the appropriate secondary conditions are ripe for the primary condition to manifest it's fruit.

 

Tainted existence is merely a perspective. Yes, there are positive and negative polarities, there is night and day, yes our body can get hurt or feel pleasure, it's a paradox. We are born into this world due to causes and conditions. If you see things as inherently liberated, that's on a deeper dimension of vision through Rigpa. But, this is merely the non-dual vision, that does not take away the facts of duality.

 

From a certain perspective Ralis... if your body is so pure, why does it get hurt? There are realms that you can take birth in where your body cannot get hurt, where you can manifest your thoughts desire instantaneously without having to put forth the work and effort that you have to in this realm. If you have no taints in your body or mind karma, why are you born in this realm? Why do you suffer?

 

Your teacher believes in karma and see's that yes, for the most part, we are born with dualistic vision, because we are reaping the fruits of past lives. How do you see this teaching?

 

It seems to me that you are interpreting things in very simplistic black and white ways. Your not seeing the grey.

Edited October 27, 2009 by Capital

[Marblehead]

More music to lighten up the heaviness of this thread.

 

http://www.guitar-tube.com/watch/srv-voodoo-child.html

 

ralis

 

Yeah! Stevie was one of the great ones.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Y'all like the Blues?

 

Here's the main man:

 

Peace & Love!

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

As we all know, the Blues are purely inspired by Taoist beliefs, listen and see for yourself:

 

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

I thought I was the only one who remembered Shuggie Otis.

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Y'all like the Blues?

 

Here's the main man:

 

Peace & Love!

 

He certainly had the feel for the blues! The song "Crossroads" is about Robert Johnson making a deal with the devil so that he could play the guitar any way he wanted.

 

 

ralis

[Tao99]

@Tao99 - The quote you highlighted in red by Vajrahridaya (I can't type that name so many times... ) seems to say that Ralis' interpretation was simplistic and black and white. It wasn't an attack unless taken as one. Ralis seems to take every statement Vajrah says as an attack in the posts I've seen (and he then responds with all the emotion of an abused victim), whether I can find said attack in the context or not.

 

This has led me to the conclusion, perhaps too black and white itself, that Ralis (and SotDE) is the primary instigator in most of these arguments.

 

This seemed logical from what I've read in quite a few threads, but I didn't read through the many other threads hosting the same arguments again and again, so I don't know enough to be fully objective; regardless, I should stop casting judgment. In this very thread, I didn't read any page but the last couple; worse, my response was one made in foolish frustration at the fighting that seems to spawn from nothing more than a misinterpreted line here or there.

 

EDIT:

 

Tao99, if the following quote is the quote you took as 'an attack', then perhaps it is misinterpreting more than just a line here or there. Nothing, nothing in that post is offensive, unless you have a skin as thin as that which covers a baby's scalp.

 

You are calling simple differing opinions on an issue or debate point an "attack", and the real personal attacks go right over your head and you miss it. So you have it backwards. Here are the issues in red and green in a forum debate (or any other kind):

 

I. debating - criticizing or supporting an issue or debate point, based on the provided or available evidence.

 

II. ad hominem (abusive) - attacking the person who is making the debate point, instead of the debate point evidence.

 

So it's all green until that first red

which then sets the tone for what follows,

 

meaning ad homs are now allowed, and

will be offered as "evidence" for debate point falsity. (see wiki quote above)

 

 

[so The part to Ralis by V, as you found it, in red and green]

 

V: "Depends on your perspective. I was born with the karma of having a yogically inclined mother, so this was a great help for me in my life. At the same time I grew up quite poor so I didn't have many of the monetary advantages. So, both are due to the response of past lives. Your view only works if one were to think one was just born. I know that I was born many, many times in different circumstances. I was never really born per say, I just go through different manifestations of the cause and effect chain.

 

To me, it seems that you have decided to look at it in this way, so you experience the information in that way. But, I don't see it like this at all. I don't find this perspective very helpful.

 

It doesn't answer why bad things happen to good people and why good people sometimes do bad things. Why good things happen to bad people, and why people are born in the situations they are born into. If you want to accept chaotic nihilism, that's your choice. I don't find this helpful at all. Nor do I find this the truth through both introspection and consideration of life as a whole, I see that everyone reaps what they sow in a complicated manor. Rinpoche talks about this, how a circumstance can leave seeds of primary conditions that don't come to fruition until the appropriate secondary conditions are ripe for the primary condition to manifest it's fruit.

 

Tainted existence is merely a perspective. Yes, there are positive and negative polarities, there is night and day, yes our body can get hurt or feel pleasure, it's a paradox. We are born into this world due to causes and conditions. If you see things as inherently liberated, that's on a deeper dimension of vision through Rigpa. But, this is merely the non-dual vision, that does not take away the facts of duality.

 

From a certain perspective Ralis... if your body is so pure, why does it get hurt? There are realms that you can take birth in where your body cannot get hurt, where you can manifest your thoughts desire instantaneously without having to put forth the work and effort that you have to in this realm. If you have no taints in your body or mind karma, why are you born in this realm? Why do you suffer?

 

Your teacher believes in karma and see's that yes, for the most part, we are born with dualistic vision, because we are reaping the fruits of past lives. How do you see this teaching?

 

It seems to me that you are interpreting things in very simplistic black and white ways. Your not seeing the grey."

 

 

Once one goes red, it sets the tone - ad homs allowed as evidence - and the respondant naturally responds with some observations of his own. This is quite natural and justified as it is out of bounds and a fallacious argument as wiki quote above shows.

 

So really it's the red initator who set the tone (and his supporters), who needs to have a thick skin, and expect that he will get respondants who rightfully respond, and now feel justified in now using ad homs on him. That's really the point I'm making.

 

I hope you can now see the difference between legitimate debate counterpoints and ad homs against the debater, which are then offered as why the debater's debate point/belief/insight is false (see wiki above).

 

Thus ends my counterpoint to your debate point, based on the provided/available evidence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

However, I could go the other way with it. I could implement the Way of Ad Homs as he has been doing since his first post. He can't help himself because it's sort of built into his doctrine what with ignorance, delusion, "shitty projecting", anger being serious primal causes for why someone's debate point/belief/insight is false. Now isn't that interesting from an academic point of view! (see wiki quote above) And so it went, ebb and flow of red lines all begun by V's doctrine itself.

 

I could implement the Ad Hom Way and simply say:

 

Nobody should believe capital's V/ralis debate point because capital is a simpleton with very simplistic, black and white ways.

 

Now don't lose your thick skin, and roar back at me that I am ignorant = an idiot, so therefore obviously wrong!

 

And don't get me wrong, I'm not making a big deal out of this; I'm just pointing out what is academically out of bounds and bad form. I totally understand that it's a part of V doctrine and hard to avoid and apply. And I also understand that respondents will naturally and justifiably respond.

 

have a good one

Edited October 28, 2009 by Tao99

[Marblehead]

He certainly had the feel for the blues! The song "Crossroads" is about Robert Johnson making a deal with the devil so that he could play the guitar any way he wanted.

ralis

 

Yep. And it is probably the most recorded blues song of them all. Nearly every rock group that starts out playing the blues classics will record that song.

 

And true, he knew what the blues were - he lived them.

 

But his karma got him. (Trying to stay on the thread topic. Hehehe)

 

Peace & Love!

Edited October 27, 2009 by Marblehead