Good Karma + Bad Karma = ?

[Sloppy Zhang]

It simply means both are true and false.

 

There is a self and there isn't a self.

 

So how could there only be no-self?

 

I know I may sound argumentative right now, but I am just trying to see your point of view.

 

Don't even worry about it.

 

Here's where I'm coming from:

 

I grew up with a Christian, and it was the first time I pondered duality, in which I rationalized out how duality falls short of explanation for, in this case, God.

 

People always asked those dumb questions like "Can God make a rock so big that He couldn't lift it?" Well, God can do what God wants. So, yes. But God can also lift it. So God does.

 

And the other scenario, God can do anything. God is also omnipresent (everywhere). But could God be nowhere? Yes. But God is also everywhere! Then you have hell, which is eternal separation from God. But God could pop in there if God had the inclination, but also be there all the time.

 

So dualistic language doesn't go far in explaining these concepts even in Christianity.

 

So is there no-self? Well we aren't going to take it to that extreme. But we aren't going to say there IS a self. But that doesn't mean both are true and/or both are false. It just means that the ACTUAL concept is beyond it the concepts ("beyond" also being dualistic )

 

However, I am of the opinion that saying "there is no self" is probably less wrong than saying "there is a self", because even though the actual case is beyond language, the actual case is different thing than the "self" as people come to think of it. So saying "there is no self" already addresses what they have in their head, which they are going to have to work with through the practice anyway. But even there you can play with dualistic words to be like "nuh uh, saying something is different is too extreme!"

Edited April 27, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Dagon]

"However, I am of the opinion that saying "there is no self" is probably less wrong than saying "there is a self", "

 

Yeah, that's the hard part. I tend to side the other way slightly.

 

Truly they are equal.

 

I too was raised to be christian, and baptized even. I think that metta is what sways.

[Marblehead]

Hehehe. You guys are getting too "Buddhist" for me and I can't say anything more because it is not my intention to question or argue.

[Jetsun]

It simply means both are true and false.

 

There is a self and there isn't a self.

 

So how could there only be no-self?

 

I know I may sound argumentative right now, but I am just trying to see your point of view.

 

I agree, to completely deny the self is to stray into nihilism which is an extreme and an extreme is not the middle way therefore it's not Buddhism. Most of the teachings point out what is not self but that is always in relation to what is self.

[Otis]

This is my take on the whole self/non-self thing.

 

Of course there is a Self. I have a body. It is the whole of me. That is my greater Self.

 

Within that body, there is a brain. And within that brain, there are many structures and neurochemical pathways, which serve different functions.

 

The small-s "self", also known as "I", is merely a cluster of functions. What I think of as "me" is mostly just the parts of my brain that speak English (primarily the thoughts).

 

There are lots of other powerful functions in the brain, like imagination, intuition, emotions, choice, perception, etc. But these are not "me", because they sometimes take me by surprise, and they are all somewhat out of "my" control.

 

It is precisely this small-s self which mistakes my simulacrum of the world, for the actual world. It is this part which is addicted to "shoulds", methods, concepts and hierarchy. It is this part that sees itself as important, that believes stories about the world, that is addicted to pleasure, that turns away from pain.

 

This is the "self" that does not exist (as a distinct entity). There is no homunculus in my brain, pulling the levers, making my body do its thing. "I" am just a cluster of functions, not a person. I am my ego, just a small piece of the whole.

 

There is, however, a body, with all of its many functions (including "me"). That body is my "true Self".

 

Unfortunately, the "true Self" is usually depicted in "spiritual" terms, as if it was something "out there". But I see no need to create an abstract "true Self", when there is clearly a physical one. I don't need to be "more than flesh" in order to be whole. I just need to stop pretending that my (small-s) self is greater than my body, when to my view, the opposite is clearly true.

[Otis]

I think that's one of the horrible myths about enlightenment: that somehow "I" will become this great or happy or compassionate thing.

 

But, in my view, enlightenment cannot include "I", because I (my ego) is precisely what keeps me addicted to delusion.

 

In order to be free, I have to give up "I". I have to surrender my importance, my will, my choices, my beliefs, my habits. All of these things are merely cysts in the mind, obstructions to proper function. None of those qualities of me will lead me to liberation; freedom only comes when I let them go.

 

If I am a cluster of functions in a relatively small part of my brain, then why I am trying to micromanage the whole Self? Why do I always think I have to be the parent, the boss, the one in charge? IME, when I get out of the way, the Self that emerges is much more powerful, flexible, spontaneous, and wise, than "I" have ever been.

 

p.s. I cannot say that the Self which emerges when I get out of the way is the whole Self, either (it probably isn't). My greater Self is waking up slowly, as I surrender, bit by bit, my control of the organism. I doubt that "I" will be around to ever witness the full awakening, if it happens, because by then, I will be long gone, returned to whatever function (a conduit for awareness?) that I was initially evolved to do.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Otis

[Pero]

I don't believe in karma or reincarnation of an "atman" or something. Even Buddha said that there is no "self" and that after death your energies split up, go into the "recycle bin" and then amalgamate with splitted-up energies of other dead beings to new personalities that reincarnate...which is pretty much the same as in traditional chinese popular belief the splitting-up of the spirits of your organs or so. So your personality or consciousness obviously exists only once.

I doubt the Buddha said that.

 

 

Bad Karma + Good Karma = ???

 

Bad Karma + Good Karma = Bad Karma + Good Karma

 

So in your example, that someone would've accumulated the negative karma of killing in full and next to that the positive karma of helping his friends.

[Wells]

I doubt the Buddha said that.

What certain widespread branches of "Buddhism" (=religion) teach is not at all necessarily what Buddha teached! Do your research as mindful and unbiased as I did, then you will find it yourself. I was surprised too.

"There is no self" and "everything is only temporary" are the 2 most important statements in Buddhism.

"Nirvana" is wiping out all interests in this world in your spirits/chi/ingredients. Then your energies will no more go into the "recycle bin".

 

Bad Karma + Good Karma = Bad Karma + Good Karma

 

So in your example, that someone would've accumulated the negative karma of killing in full and next to that the positive karma of helping his friends.

Yes...maybe all day long.

[Birch]

I think that's one of the horrible myths about enlightenment: that somehow "I" will become this great or happy or compassionate thing.

 

But, in my view, enlightenment cannot include "I", because I (my ego) is precisely what keeps me addicted to delusion.

 

In order to be free, I have to give up "I". I have to surrender my importance, my will, my choices, my beliefs, my habits. All of these things are merely cysts in the mind, obstructions to proper function. None of those qualities of me will lead me to liberation; freedom only comes when I let them go.

 

If I am a cluster of functions in a relatively small part of my brain, then why I am trying to micromanage the whole Self? Why do I always think I have to be the parent, the boss, the one in charge? IME, when I get out of the way, the Self that emerges is much more powerful, flexible, spontaneous, and wise, than "I" have ever been.

 

p.s. I cannot say that the Self which emerges when I get out of the way is the whole Self, either (it probably isn't). My greater Self is waking up slowly, as I surrender, bit by bit, my control of the organism. I doubt that "I" will be around to ever witness the full awakening, if it happens, because by then, I will be long gone, returned to whatever function (a conduit for awareness?) that I was initially evolved to do.

 

 

I liked this :-)

 

Well of course there's a self, otherwise who would be typing this reply out on a silly keyboard :-)? The way I'm sort of starting-ish to consider ego is as the constricting/contracting thing, the straining thing and the hurting thing. The thing that gets het up about fabricated situations (and who knows if it doesn't make that stuff up itself?) and can't tell the difference between reality and an opinion (because it just as easily cools down if you pretend the reverse or stop thinking about the "issue").

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Wells]

That sounds like you read the Hinayana doctrine. We can say that the Arhats of Hinayana shrink their "minds" into their Nirvana With Remainder (9th samadhi absorption,) you can say they are taking a lonnng vacation.

 

Though because it is a one sided extreme of emptiness (therefore not true "emptiness"; still just a thought of "emptiness") and because of impermanence, they will be spit right out into cyclical existence once again.

 

Arhats, because they still have defilements in their alaya consciousness (8th or "storehouse" consciousness,) can still be subject to their karma when leaving that state.

 

The Buddha turned the wheel of dharma more than once. This is why we have Mahayana; with the bodhisattva grounds leading to Buddhahood.

What I did read about Buddha's teachings MATCHES the traditional taoist doctrine...and my common sense about how things work in our world.

As Liao says:"The glass of water I just drunk was maybe once part of Queen Victoria; the protein in my muscle was before protein in the muscle of a cow." The same is it with Chi. My Chi was once part of many other people's chi. My chi generates my personality in cooperation with my body (and it's chemicals). When my chi burns out, my personality ceases to exist. No immortal "true self" necessary! There is no self/soul/angel/monade/whatever...that's only fairy tales. Ever thought about the exploding count of people on this planet? Where come all this new souls from?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Dorian Black

[Otis]

I liked this :-)

 

Well of course there's a self, otherwise who would be typing this reply out on a silly keyboard :-)? The way I'm sort of starting-ish to consider ego is as the constricting/contracting thing, the straining thing and the hurting thing. The thing that gets het up about fabricated situations (and who knows if it doesn't make that stuff up itself?) and can't tell the difference between reality and an opinion (because it just as easily cools down if you pretend the reverse or stop thinking about the "issue").

The "constricting/contracting" totally matches my experience. When I am able to get out of my way in dance, then it's as if 20+ years have dropped from my body. For me, dancing from the ego is like riding a bike with the brakes on all the time!

 

I think the English translation of the self/no-self metaphor is unfortunately confusing. Especially since it suggests a dualistic answer (there is no self), whereas I think Buddha was saying something in-between: what you think of as the self is only an illusion and a small fragment of who you are.

[Wells]

Well of course there's a self, otherwise who would be typing this reply out on a silly keyboard :-)?

1) your BODY is typing.

2) the intent and order to type come from your PERSONALITY.

[Marblehead]

1) your BODY is typing.

2) the intent and order to type come from your PERSONALITY.

 

And all that happens because we have a brain. The ego hides in the brain somewhere - just a very small part of our totality.

[Jetsun]

1) your BODY is typing.

2) the intent and order to type come from your PERSONALITY.

 

From my experience my personality is something which covers up and protects something more vulnerable and tender inside of me, something which existed before my personality was created.

[Wells]

And all that happens because we have a brain. The ego hides in the brain somewhere - just a very small part of our totality.

As I already said elsewhere: I won't use the term "ego" anymore because it's meaning is something different for different people.

For me, it's my "I", my personality, my identity, my consciousness, my self.

But I prefer the term "conscious personality", everyone seem to understand what I mean with that. And I clearly deny the existence of a "higher self" or something like that. It's only a fairy tale, a belief like believing in Jesus H. Christ! Nobody will ever realize what doesn't exist! Your consciousness, the "witness", is only ONE (but surely the most fundamental) of many functions of your personality like thinking, feeling, sensing and so on. "Pure consciousness" is only blanking all the other functions in favor of "being conscious". I don't get why people don't get that...even every psychologist gets it! "Pure consciousness" is no big deal (besides hard to realize)!

Waysun Liao calls your personality your "I" or "Yi".

And your brain in cooperation with your chi produces your personality. Damage your brain and you will see it's influence over the existence and form of your "I".

[Wells]

From my experience my personality is something which covers up and protects something more vulnerable and tender inside of me, something which existed before my personality was created.

...or your personality simply has different layers or parts with different functions. But it's all one thing.

...and there is no reason to believe that a part or function of it could be "immortal" or "never changing" like the conception of a "soul".

Edited April 29, 2011 by Dorian Black

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[ShaktiMama]

I don't believe in karma or reincarnation of an "atman" or something. Even Buddha said that there is no "self" and that after death your energies split up, go into the "recycle bin" and then amalgamate with splitted-up energies of other dead beings to new personalities that reincarnate...which is pretty much the same as in traditional chinese popular belief the splitting-up of the spirits of your organs or so. So your personality or consciousness obviously exists only once.

 

Anyway, just out of curiosity: What do you esoteric / New Age / reincarnation / Hinduist guys think what would karma do to someone who let's say developed high powers through cultivation and then uses them to kill all of his enemies, wiping them all out of existence...but also uses them to heal and help his friends...even gives them from his own so hardly cultivated life-energy to save their lives maybe...or to help them to get their amount of energy together to build their own illusory body.

 

Bad Karma + Good Karma = ???

 

I mean, the guy from John Chang's lineage (the leaf-surfer) killed a whole village with all his men, women and children because they wiped out his home village. Is he burning in hell now or running around as an animal despite his high cultivation or even immortality?

 

 

no need to worry about this. Karma doesnt believe we exist either. Just keeps on turning and turning.

 

s

[Marblehead]

But I prefer the term "conscious personality", everyone seem to understand what I mean with that.

 

And your brain in cooperation with your chi produces your personality. Damage your brain and you will see it's influence over the existence and form of your "I".

 

Yeah, I could easily work with the term "conscious personality". But I wonder, isn't what we exhibit of ourself to the world oftentimes an unconscious expression of our subconscious personality as well?

 

Ah, a difficult subject to discuss well, our personal chi and its role in our life. If this were to be discussed I would have to ask for your understanding of what our person chi is. (Not necessary here as it would be too far off the thread topic.)

[Birch]

1) your BODY is typing.

2) the intent and order to type come from your PERSONALITY.

 

Hum, more splitty definitions. To say this body is "mine" rather than it's "me". There wasn't an order IMO as much as a call to respond. It was myself who typed it. I liked Otis's thing about the faulty translation better but your thing about personality is a fun one to dive into.

 

Apech, where's your expertise in latin when one needs it? Where does "personality" come from?

[Wells]

Hum, more splitty definitions. To say this body is "mine" rather than it's "me". There wasn't an order IMO as much as a call to respond. It was myself who typed it. I liked Otis's thing about the faulty translation better but your thing about personality is a fun one to dive into.

 

Apech, where's your expertise in latin when one needs it? Where does "personality" come from?

persona = mask

Forgot about that...so I better search another term !

 

...maybe the "me"?

[deci belle]

[Wells]

the only good karma is a dead karma.

well said!

[Pero]

What certain widespread branches of "Buddhism" (=religion) teach is not at all necessarily what Buddha teached! Do your research as mindful and unbiased as I did, then you will find it yourself. I was surprised too.

Ok, please show me where you found he said that.

 

Yes...maybe all day long.

What? I don't understand.