creating karma

[s1va]

I don't have the time to explain this karma and repercussions in detail right now.  But, for anyone who is interested, I would suggest checking out the following book, 'On Wings and Wheels - A dialogue on Moral Conflict by Swami Chinmayananda'.  He explains this and other concepts of Gita beautifully in his other books and speeches.  This book starts with this topic on the first page, to explain why no action by virtue of that action alone is either a sin or a merit.

 

 

https://www.amazon.com/Wings-Wheels-dialogue-moral-conflict/dp/B0046FLPQI

 

 

• DESCRIPTION

A conversation with Swami Chinmayananda on moral conflict highlights the theory and principles of ethical thought in Indian philosophy. Swamiji synthesizes many conflicting viewpoints with clarity and simplicity. Total Pages 65.\n

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Jeff said:

Sure, I get it. In that context there are really no other people as everything is just an aspect of Brahman. Hence, karma would only be a local mind thing and what you are consciously aware of.

If I am not mistaken is this conversation taking place in th context of different levels of reality wherein the earthly manifestation is little more than a motion picture? 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

If it’s all impermanent and empty, if it’s all an illusion or a game... what does it matter in regards to addiction?

I invoke the Obi Wan Kenobi clause 

 

 

[Pilgrim]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

Addictions should be removed in my view.  Some people may use addictive substances and not get addicted to them.  It is alright in this case.

 

But, it is not possible to realize emptiness while being addicted to any substance.  By definition addiction is obsessive attachment towards something in my opinion, that a person struggles to overcome.

But what about the ones who actually enjoy know they are enjoying and are not seeking to overcome anything? What do you call that? 

[Jonesboy]

3 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

I have considered this as well and the answer I came up with was something like this.

 

1. It is entirely possible Tobacco, Alcohol use / consumption, or other things you can imagine may very well be something in the physical body where the demand is present. We like to use phrases like addiction but might it not be something else?

 

Lets consider that in recent times there is mounting evidence for genetic memory playing a part in our lives. If this is the case then a body that has a desire for a certain substance may be hardwired for it, due to ancestral use of certain things like Tobacco or Alcohol. In this case I would say the realized being is simply allowing the body it's relief, no different than urinating with a full bladder.

 

 

 

Or you could say karmic obstructions carried over into this lifetime.

 

Sure there are people born with addictions to let's say crack from their parents. Does that mean they will always be addicted?

 

An enlightened being in Hinduism is beyond the Vasanas are they not? Depending on the tradition the world is an illusion. This body is of this world, your consciousness and this body are not two separate things, it is all the energy of Shakti, of you.

 

Such addictions of the body and still being enlightened as you present it  would also say that there are vasanas that one can't move beyond.

 

Interesting theory.

[s1va]

8 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

But what about the ones who actually enjoy know they are enjoying and are not seeking to overcome anything? What do you call that? 

 

Exactly.  This is what I meant by the statement pleasurable acts are not necessarily always a sin.  But, it is very hard to engage in some immensely pleasurable or pleasing activities and not get attached/addicted to them, unless we are Trailanga Swami as you mentioned in an earlier post.  So, better to watch out!

[dwai]

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Or you could say karmic obstructions carried over into this lifetime.

 

Sure there are people born with addictions to let's say crack from their parents. Does that mean they will always be addicted?

 

An enlightened being in Hinduism is beyond the Vasanas are they not? Depending on the tradition the world is an illusion. This body is of this world, your consciousness and this body are not two separate things, it is all the energy of Shakti, of you.

 

Such addictions of the body and still being enlightened as you present it  would also say that there are vasanas that one can't move beyond.

 

Interesting theory.

Not every vāsanā is a binding one. Some bind and some don't bind. After jivanamukti, the future karma phala are not accrued. The karma phala that is already set in motion (prārabdha) will continue until they exhaust.  So even if a jivanamukta seems like he/she has desires/addictions, they are non-binding for them. 

[Jeff]

12 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

If I am not mistaken is this conversation taking place in th context of different levels of reality wherein the earthly manifestation is little more than a motion picture? 

 

Depends on your view, but this discussion is taking place in the Buddhist forum, and most people seem to be talking about the Hindu version and definition of Karma.

 

To me, buddha is very clear about it...

 

But the master guards his watching.

It is his most precious treasure.
He never gives in to desire.
He meditates.
And in the strength of his resolve He discovers true happiness.
He overcomes desire -
And from the tower of his wisdom He looks down with dispassion

Upon the sorrowing crowd.

-Dhammapada

[Jonesboy]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Not every vāsanā is a binding one. Some bind and some don't bind. After jivanamukti, the future karma phala are not accrued. The karma phala that is already set in motion (prārabdha) will continue until they exhaust.  So even if a jivanamukta seems like he/she has desires/addictions, they are non-binding for them. 

 

I would have to agree with Jeff's post.

 

Your view sounds like excuses to me. He smokes crack every day but it's okay, he isn't addicted and a jivanamukta. He just likes it because he prefers it over cigs or scotch.  All good it's all none binding but he is a badass guru who we should all listen to.

 

Really?

[dwai]

7 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I would have to agree with Jeff's post.

 

Your view sounds like excuses to me. He smokes crack every day but it's okay, he isn't addicted and a jivanamukta. He just likes it because he prefers it over cigs or scotch.  All good it's all none binding but he is a badass guru who we should all listen to.

 

Really?

It is really tragic to see so much over-generalization and suppositions about how a jivanamukta should or should not behave.

 

It is okay to speculate, but until you become one yourself, you have to rely on testimony of reliable sources. Of course, you could just deny that all those who are known as jivanamuktas aren't actually that and were charlatans or celebrated as such by stupid people.  

 

At this point, to me, it is laughable at best to see folks casting aspersions on recognized masters...especially when the naysayers very clearly have a long way to go.

 

[Pilgrim]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

I had friends who smoked cigarettes casually and were not addicted.  Sometimes they smoked everyday for a while.  Somehow it just didn't affect them the same way it did for others.  But most people that I know who smoke cigarettes everyday are addicted.

I smoked for 17 years. Then I decided I was not enjoying it and bouts of Bronchitis every winter got old.

 

So I took Chantex Spelling?

 

Within 1 week or so I quit and it has been over 12 years now since I picked one up.

 

My brother took Chantix and still smokes till this day.

 

The woman I live with smokes and enjoys yet I have no desire to join her.

 

I have seen her smoke up to a pack in a single day that is 20 Ciggs more often it is far less and she will go a very long time in-between.

 

When I smoked I would smoke a pack to a pack and a half per day.

 

This idea of addiction is more complex than not. I also do not believe it is a real thing. 

 

Human beings are habit oriented. Habits help us somehow habits has become connected with negative behaviors.

 

Stop the habit long enough and it goes away.

 

When I stopped smoking it took 3 things.

 

Chantix for a week or so made it so the Nicotine could not bind to the receptor sites in the brain.

 

This broke the physical habit.

 

The psychological work was every time I thought about smoking to tell myself this is not to do. (This is a Zen trick. I can go into it if anyone wants to know.)

 

The third part was reconnecting with my prana and before long the energetic body became more important. Through the practice of Pranayam.

 

I would say that in all honesty after 6 months I was done, but yes it took that long.

 

 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Even then, they smoke socially, smoke only when they drink, etc. While they are not addicted there is still some desire that is driving them to such action.

Yes it is the same desire as breathing. 

The desire to avoid pain and to get pleasure.

If seeking pleasure is addiction then we are all hopeless addicts.

[Jonesboy]

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

It is really tragic to see so much over-generalization and suppositions about how a jivanamukta should or should not behave.

 

It is okay to speculate, but until you become one yourself, you have to rely on testimony of reliable sources. Of course, you could just deny that all those who are known as jivanamuktas aren't actually that and were charlatans or celebrated as such by stupid people.  

 

At this point, to me, it is laughable at best to see folks casting aspersions on recognized masters...especially when the naysayers very clearly have a long way to go.

 

 

Didn't realize I have cast aspersions on anyone. Did I mention anyone by name?

 

All I am doing is going off of my experience of desires, issues and fears, letting them go and progressing along the path.

 

I have no desire or goal to be a jivanamukta. That is not my path.

 

All the best to you Dwai.

[Jonesboy]

4 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Yes it is the same desire as breathing. 

The desire to avoid pain and to get pleasure.

If seeking pleasure is addiction then we are all hopeless addicts.

 

Pleasure or bliss is often taught as something that someone has to let go of. The Buddha talked about it often.

[Pilgrim]

37 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Or you could say karmic obstructions carried over into this lifetime.

 

Sure there are people born with addictions to let's say crack from their parents. Does that mean they will always be addicted?

 

An enlightened being in Hinduism is beyond the Vasanas are they not? Depending on the tradition the world is an illusion. This body is of this world, your consciousness and this body are not two separate things, it is all the energy of Shakti, of you.

 

Such addictions of the body and still being enlightened as you present it  would also say that there are vasanas that one can't move beyond.

 

Interesting theory.

Not that they cant move beyond but simply see no reason to land on either side and simply let the body take it's comfort. So perhaps from their point of view it is a difference that makes no difference. Certainly they are aware of their bodies, hunger etc.. 

[Pilgrim]

30 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

Depends on your view, but this discussion is taking place in the Buddhist forum, and most people seem to be talking about the Hindu version and definition of Karma.

 

To me, buddha is very clear about it...

 

But the master guards his watching.

It is his most precious treasure.
He never gives in to desire.
He meditates.
And in the strength of his resolve He discovers true happiness.
He overcomes desire -
And from the tower of his wisdom He looks down with dispassion

Upon the sorrowing crowd.

-Dhammapada

Ah yes we are more Hindu about this in the replies. I am anyway blended with my own observations of course.

 

This Buddha you are describing however is not engaged in the world which is fine. Is he smoking? is he doing anything but being detached and dispassionate? I am glad he has true happiness. Must be lonely at the top.

 

[Pilgrim]

9 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Pleasure or bliss is often taught as something that someone has to let go of. The Buddha talked about it often.

I suppose the Buddha probably did say that, but I do not go along with he over intellectualization of the Buddha based philosophies, or the ideas that became Buddhism that grew out of Hinduism. Heck for that matter I have no idea which Buddha you are referring to there are so many different ones.

 

So of interest what is the difference between a Bhudda and a Jivenmukta are they not really one and the same? It seems to me one incarnates and is active with the people and the other gets big books people can quote from?

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

I suppose the Buddha probably did say that, but I do not go along with he over intellectualization of the Buddha based philosophies, or the ideas that became Buddhism that grew out of Hinduism. Heck for that matter I have no idea which Buddha you are referring to there are so many different ones.

 

So of interest what is the difference between a Bhudda and a Jivenmukta are they not really one and the same? It seems to me one incarnates and is active with the people and the other gets big books people can quote from?

 

No they are much, much different. Heck the realization of a Jivenmukta  is different based on the tradition, KS and AV are perfect examples of that.

 

I have a meeting at the moment but maybe someone else can answer your question while I am gone.

[Jeff]

20 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Ah yes we are more Hindu about this in the replies. I am anyway blended with my own observations of course.

 

This Buddha you are describing however is not engaged in the world which is fine. Is he smoking? is he doing anything but being detached and dispassionate? I am glad he has true happiness. Must be lonely at the top.

 

 

I am really just trying to make the distinction of the differences in thoughts on Karma and the nature of desires between different traditions.  The Tao Te Ching would agree with Buddha regarding being desireless...

 

Chapter 1

...

Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; This appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery.

 

Chapter 64

...

People usually fail when they are on the verge of success. So give as much care to the end as to the beginning; Then there will be no failure. Therefore the wise seek freedom from desire. They do not collect precious things. They learn not to hold on to ideas. They bring people back to what they have lost.

 

 

[s1va]

38 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

I smoked for 17 years. Then I decided I was not enjoying it and bouts of Bronchitis every winter got old.

 

So I took Chantex Spelling?

 

Within 1 week or so I quit and it has been over 12 years now since I picked one up.

 

My brother took Chantix and still smokes till this day.

 

The woman I live with smokes and enjoys yet I have no desire to join her.

 

I have seen her smoke up to a pack in a single day that is 20 Ciggs more often it is far less and she will go a very long time in-between.

 

When I smoked I would smoke a pack to a pack and a half per day.

 

This idea of addiction is more complex than not. I also do not believe it is a real thing. 

 

Human beings are habit oriented. Habits help us somehow habits has become connected with negative behaviors.

 

Stop the habit long enough and it goes away.

 

When I stopped smoking it took 3 things.

 

Chantix for a week or so made it so the Nicotine could not bind to the receptor sites in the brain.

 

This broke the physical habit.

 

The psychological work was every time I thought about smoking to tell myself this is not to do. (This is a Zen trick. I can go into it if anyone wants to know.)

 

The third part was reconnecting with my prana and before long the energetic body became more important. Through the practice of Pranayam.

 

I would say that in all honesty after 6 months I was done, but yes it took that long.

 

 

 

That is addiction in my definition.  But, I am fine that you see it as different and more complicated.

[Pilgrim]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

That is addiction in my definition.  But, I am fine that you see it as different and more complicated.

Then where is it now?

[s1va]

22 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

No they are much, much different. Heck the realization of a Jivenmukta  is different based on the tradition, KS and AV are perfect examples of that.

 

I have a meeting at the moment but maybe someone else can answer your question while I am gone.

 

I agree.  Jinanmukta and Buddha are so different.  Sakyamuni Gautam Buddha has gone to great lengths to explain the difference in detail.

 

It is sad to see such generalizations calling all realization as the same.  It took me a while to understand the differences.

 

Jivanmukta in my view is similar to Arhat.  But, not a Buddha, it is vastly different.  As you pointed out the realization of Shiva in Kashmir Shaivism is also different from jinanmukta.   They are so different as I tried to explain in my other thread about Abhinavagupta's non-dual vs. Vedantic Non-dual.  Abhinavagupta has explained the differences beautifully in his works Tantra Loka and Tantra Sara.

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Then where is it now?

 

Where is what? Addiction? Not sure.

 

What you described fits my definition of addiction.  Doesn't matter what happened later or when.   Everything transforms sooner or later.  That doesn't mean they were not what they were at one snapshot.

[Pilgrim]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

It is sad to see such generalizations calling all realization as the same.  It took me a while to understand the differences.

Perhaps then you can explain in your own words without citing writings?  I would be interested in this.

[s1va]

23 minutes ago, Pilgrim said:

Perhaps then you can explain in your own words without citing writings?  I would be interested in this.

 

It's not my intention to cite and not explain.  I have explained my views elaborately in some other threads.  I will still make an attempt here with the time I have right now.

 

Also, not sure if this is the right topic to discuss this, being in Buddhist section of the forum.  I will keep it short.  This may also bring up endless rebuttals, challenges and arguments from some here, that is why I don't bother to elaborate anymore.

 

Vedanta realization is about avidya or ignorance clouding the Brahman/Atman.  All that is needed is for this cloud to pass and the Brahman to shine like sun.  Jnana or Knowledge by intellectual questioning is enough to remove this ignorance.  Everything is also an expression of one Brahman in this non-dual.  Abhinavagupta's non-dual is bheda-abheda, it accepts both differentiation (immanent) and the non differentiated conciousness (transcendent) to be equally and simultaneously true.  It is all one vibration of the divine in KS. Therefore duality is equally valid in this view as the non-dual.  It is never not the true, partially true or just a stage to cross over to higher.  

 

Then, it is not the avidya/ignorance that is the problem, but it is about maya (a divine force) that makes us forget who we are and engage in this game.  The anugraha or divine grace helps remove the Maya and make us realize, we are essentially Shiva.  This may sound similar because there are some similarities. But there are some glaring differences.  The vivarta vada, that the manifested world is not real, but appears so, like a rope mistaken for snake is entirely rejected by Abhinavagupta.  He explains why in detail.  There can't be one Brahman that is all knowing and all pervading and also ignorant (avidya) at the same time.  There are some major logical loop holes as pointed by many.

 

As it concerns to Buddhism, it is even simpler and clear to see the differences.  There is no Isvara (one all encompassing divine), Buddha rejected this completely and he is right in my opinion.  There goes most arguments towards jinanmukta.  Even ignoring that huge thing, anatta, no self and one supreme Self /Atman are diametrically opposite concepts.  Emptiness is NOT the One Brahman.  Never.

 

Why do we need to combine everything and put them all in one bucket?  Is it because it gives some comfort to the mind.  The differentiations are important.  They result in different levels of end realizations, like Arhat, immortal, realized immortal, Buddha, etc.

 

Edit: These are not simply some superficial differences.  I urge you to read some works of Abhinavagupta and Kashmir Shaivism, if you haven't done so already.  Knowing you, I think you will agree when a reasonable argument is made.