[disappointment2]

Dhamma taught by the Buddha is wide and various in many levels. Some are for a household man. Some are for the monk (‘Pabbajjita’). Some are for ‘Sotāpanna’ (the stream-winner) level and upwards until ‘Arahanta’. So, it is normal if anyone would be confused from time to time.

For example, if we take certain Dhamma, which are specifically for a monk, to apply for a household man or in the other way round, we would feel confused and unreasonable. For another example, an axe can cut a tree. A plastic bag can contain a food. If we try to use an axe to contain a food and use a plastic bag to cut a tree, it would not be useful. So, we need to match the Dhamma appropriate to ourselves at our own levels and needs.

Moreover, Dhamma could be classified as mundane dhamma (Lokiya Dhamma) and supramundane dhamma (Lokuttara Dhamma). If we mix both together to explain each other, we would be confused and feel unreasonable because both are in different levels and should be used for different targets who have different dhamma strength. For example, in Lokiya Dhamma, we should refrain from not killing; in Lokuttara Dhamma, there is no self, no us and no the others. If there is no us, how could we kill the other? I can raise these kinds of conflict for many examples. The tool to protect us from confusion is that we need to understand what levels of Dhamma we are talking at such time. I will try to explain on your questions, but am not sure whether I would make you more confused. If it is the case, please kindly ignore my comments.

To sum up, the law of Karma according to the abovementioned monk is about being positive, proactive, turning negative/possibly hrmeful things into positive/useful stuff. I found his explanation of the law of Karma very impressive.
On the other hand, i found all of the above contradicts with other aspects of Buddhism hence i became confused.

About the law of karma, there are three groups of supporters:

First group – the supporters believe that everything is happened due to our previous karma, and we have to accept it.

Second group – the supporters believe that everything is happened due to the desires if god, and we have to accept it.

Third group – the supporters believe that everything is happened without causes, so we cannot do anything about it.

In fact, all of these three groups misunderstand. Some may feel that the first group is quite closed to Buddhism, but it is still not. It is true that the Buddha taught about law of karma. But the law of karma is not the highest concept of dhamma. Because the law of karma is still within the level of Lokiya Dhamma. What the Buddha taught is above the law of karma. The Buddha taught us to be able to be beyond law of karma. This is to say we can exit from the wheel of rebirth.

If the law of karma rules everything absolutely, there is be no chance to leave the wheel of rebirth. But, in fact, there is. So, at the time without Buddha’s dhamma, we could say that the law of karma is most powerful and rules everything absolutely. However, at the time with Buddha’s dhamma, we cannot say so. The Buddha’s dhamma is more powerful than law of karma and can lead us to exit from the wheel of rebirth. After exit from the wheel of rebirth. There is no self, so no one to take karma.

For Lokiya Dhamma level, we learn and understand law of karma in order to stay in this world and the wheel of rebirth properly and safely. For Lokuttara Dhamma level, there is no self and no us. As there is no us, there no person doing karma. Not sure whether this explanation would be understandable. The tip is that we cannot just study theory, but we need to practice, so we will understand more on Dhamma taught by the Buddha.

Any beginner to buddhism would probably start with the four nobel truths.

In real life, it is quite true for this statement. However, if we study more and more, we will know that the most difficult part is these four noble truths and they have much-more-deeper meaning than what we understand from our reading in the beginning. The last thing for a person to understand before entering into ‘Arahanta’ is the four noble truths.

If we think that we understand the four noble truths, I leave two questions for thinking. First - why the four noble truth starts from ‘Dhkkha’ (suffering), not ‘Samudaya’ (cause of suffering). Second – if everything is Dhukkha, why we could feel some happy in our life. Why we cannot see that everything is suffering as per the four noble truths says.

For a beginner, I would not suggest him/her to start from the four nobel truths. I would suggest him/her to start from the threefold learning/training (Sikkha), i.e. Abhisila-Sikkha (training in higher morality), Adhicitta-sikkha (training in higher mentality) and Adhipanna’sikka (training in higher wisdom). After having some morality, mentality and wisdom, then we study the four noble truths.

Buddhism starts with a very NEGATIVE notion: life means suffering!!! While i personally agree with this to a large extent, i wonder: do i have to be depressed/very negative to become a buddhist? is there an objective way to verify that life is suffering? i know many people who strongly disagree and find life beautiful/joyful so can a happy person become a buddhist? Even if we agree that happiness is impermenant, should not we agree that also misery/suffering is impermenant? dont you guys agree that buddhism as a philosophy always look at the half empty part of the glass? even when we look at the ultimate goal of buddhism: to break out of the cycle of rebirth by achieving nirvana, do you guys see that life that bad?

Buddhism does not start from negative notion. We start from the truth. Buddhist is a good learner, and we do not run away from suffering, so we study suffering. Comparing to a doctor, if a doctor wants to cure sickness but he does not study sickness, how could he cure sickness. A Buddhist wants to cure suffering. So, we study suffering.

A Buddhist understands that both suffering and happiness are impermanent and not self. But A Buddhist does not run away from both suffering and happiness. Our mind can/may feel happy or suffering like other people. The difference is that we have ‘Sati’, i.e. well aware of it and do not let such happy or suffering controls us.
You view that buddhism is a philosophy which always looks at the half empty part of the glass because you do not truly understand the four noble truths. You still see that the other half is happiness. This is why I said that the four noble truths are not that easy as someone may think.

I ve read few books and article talking about buddhism and oriental phiosophies in general. What they share in commin is that they focus on the inside, not the outside. To make my point clear i will share the following metaphoric stories:

It is correct to focus inside our body and mind. Someone may view that we are suffering of outside, e.g. from our lover, son, employer, house, friend, war, money, job etc. However, if there is no body and mind of us, how could we are suffering from those matters. In fact, we are suffering because of our body and mind.

For example, if our lover just dies but we do not know about it, would we be suffering from it? The answer is ‘no’. Once we know about it, we take it to our mind and then we are suffering. (Although I said this, I already said previously that a Buddhist does not run away from suffering.)

As you can see from the above story, the criteria being used to determine richness is how content you are with what you already have! However, does that mean that being ambitious is a bad thing!! what do we mean by being ambitious? isnt it to not be fully satisfied with what we have? if we fully satisfaction with what we have then how would we get motivated to do anything in life? I agree that its a virtue to learn how to control your desires and learn how to be happy with what you have but if we look at some countries like Burma, dont you guys agree that this Phiosophy (being passive and indifferent to whats happening outside) enabled their dictators to rule them out without any opposition and steal the wealth of a poor nation!!

Feeling richness or poorness is depending on each person’s desire which could be various and can change from time to time. Being ambitious could be good or bad depending on objectives. Controlling a desire is to ensure that we would not do a bad thing or harm other people. This is just a basic concept of Buddhism, i.e. Abhisila-Sikkha (training in higher morality) as I mentioned above.

Controlling a desire does not mean that a Buddhist has to be poor or lazy. A Buddhist has to be diligent and can be rich, provided that he must work it out in appropriate ways, e.g. diligence, be legal and does not cheat others. And although a Buddhist is not rich, he is not suffering, because he has ‘Sila’ and he controls his desire.

Politics is not related to studying and practicing Dhamma. If you mix them, you would feel more confused. For mathematics, one plus one is ‘two’. However, by other subjects, I can raise two examples which one plus one is ‘three’, or ‘one’. So, I would suggest not mixing them.