[kristloken]

I will start with the law of Karma. The other day i was watching a video for a buddhist monk talking about the law of karma and that the vast majority of people misunderstand it. He started by talking about the tsunami (he was in Thailand at that time) and that many people were trying to interpret the tsunami as a punishment or as a bad karma. According to this monk, if those people understood the law of Karma they would have started rebuilding the damaged city rather than wasting time asking useless questions!!

He gave another example which is: what would you do if you find a mango seed in the middle of the road that might be hazardous to passers-by if they step on it (they might slip down). According to this monk, if you truely understand the law of karma you would not remove it from the road and simply throw it in the trash pin, but you would implant it in your garden so it will be transformed into a fruitful tree which everyone can enjoy!!

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.

Any beginner to buddhism would probably start with the four nobel 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?

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:

A poor man, Depra, once found an enormously valuable jewel. Being a person of little desire and content with his small income, Depra pondered to whom he should give the jewel. He tried to think who was most in need and suddenly was inspired to give the jewel to king Prasenajit. The king was stounded as there were many poor and needy people, but Depra said: "O king, its you who is the poorest, because you lack contenment".

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!!

According to the Zen philosophy, we should learn how "to go with the flow" be passive, and never resist whatever life through in your face (i dont know how can this be reconciled with the law of Karma as explained above) to explain my point a bit further please read the following story:

"It happened that one Zen master was passing through a street. A man came running and hit him hard. The master fell down. Then he got up and started to walk in the same direction in which he was going before, not even looking back.
A disciple was with the master. He was simply shocked. He said, "Who is this man? What is this? If one lives in such a way, then anybody can come and kill you. And you have not even looked at that person, who he is, and why he did it."
The master said, "That is his problem, not mine." !!!!
So what all of this is about? being self-centred? is this the way to make the world a better place?

In a different article i ve read the following: "Buddha sitting under his bodhi tree...if the whole world suddenly disappears, will it make any difference to Buddha? -none. It will not make any difference at all. If the whole world disappears, it will not make any difference because he has attained to the center"
Great!! so if the Buddha sees someone suffering why should he bother helping? to help others we should be motivated, we should have some sort of desire, isnt it.

One of my favourite movies is "Samsara" its about the spiritual jounry of a buddhist monk. In the movie he recieved a letter his teacher asking him "what is more important: to satisy one thousand desires or conquering just one!" from my understanding (and please correct me if i am wrong, the only desire a buddist would have is LIBERATION from all desires!!! so if i liberate myslef from all desires (which sounds good to me) and i become free, why should i bother doing anything in life!! I would just sit there doing nothing (a complete dispassion, no attachement whatsoever) and wait for death to come and wish that i break out of the cycle of death and never come back to this miserable world.

One last point is in relation to "living in the presnt moment" and in the "here and now" what buddhism say about planning? is planning for the future a bad thing according to buddism?

I have a lot fo other examples and questions, but i think this is enough for my first post in the beginners forum. I wish i can have some answers from those who have better understanding of buddhism than myself.

Your input will be highly appreciated.

[outdog]

One last point is in relation to "living in the presnt moment" and in the "here and now" what buddhism say about planning? is planning for the future a bad thing according to buddism?

No, I don't think so. But during the present moment, you have control over actions and decisions that will affect the future. When you get to the future, you will experience the results of past decisions, and it will be too late to change them. The actions you take now are conditioned by your mind-state, so inquiring into one's mind state is to get to the root.

To give an example: I have small children. If during the present moment I am irritable and want to do my own thing instead of helping them with their homework, they may not learn. Then twenty years later we may all regret it. So what I can do now is recognize my mind state. Having recognized it I can understand it. Understanding it, I can free myself from it.

That would be different from, say, planning for my child's future while actually spending most evenings in front of the TV with a six-pack.

[Vkowefek]

i was thinking about this
before i read it
& can relate in alot of ways,

life is suffering,
& this is said for a resson
when the buddha awakened
it was from understanding this,

'with suffering comes compation'
& with compation understanding

but you shouldn't read too much into
the teachings or you won't learn from them,

just like when you were first learning too walk,
you take one step at a time
if you run you will only fall....

[bestworkother]

Hello Bundokji,

Your post is really long but full of very important misconceptions about what the Buddha taught. Here there are some very qualified members that for sure will give you some links so to explore better teachings with a more sane, sensible and reasonable approach to what Buddha taught.

Until this happens, I suggest you to start with this wonderful book:

Handbook for Mankind

It is a very good reading so to get started in what Buddha taught.

[TEFSADDERFISA]

Hi Bundokji,

Some people get confused and think that karma/kamma is some sort of punishment system, which of course it isn't. The Buddha said that kamma is intention. So first we have an intention- and then we act on it - and if the act was a negative one then we may suffer mentally afterwards through guilt and also possibly through the negative reactions of others, and so on.

The Buddha also said that we shouldn't speculate about the results of kamma.

Buddhism certainly isn't about being depressed and negative ! In fact when one gradually has more understanding through study and practice, it can bring a sense of greater well - being and happiness, which includes feelings of loving-kindness and compassion towards other beings.

As far as the Four Noble Truths are concerned, you might like to look at the brief summary of them "On the Four Noble Truths" which is pinned at the beginning of the topics in this Buddhism for Beginners forum. I also recommend that before you do that, you read the short explanation "What is Buddhism"( and listen along to the MP3 which accompanies it) which is also pinned in the same place.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...at-is-Buddhism

I think also, that if you ask us questions, one, or maybe two at a time is probably best.

with lots of good wishes,

A-D

[Chooriwrocafn]

People who don't know how the Pali suttas actually describe kamma tend to apply it to everything that happens to anybody, which is far from what the Buddha taught. It's not some sort of mystical cosmic accounting system for good and bad deeds. That would require some sort of omniscient mind to keep the tally.

§ 14. Moḷiyasīvaka: There are some contemplatives & brahmans who are of this doctrine, this view: 'Whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before.' Now what does Master Gotama say to that?

The Buddha: There are cases where some feelings arise based on bile [i.e., diseases and pains that come from a malfunctioning gall bladder]. You yourself should know how some feelings arise based on bile. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise based on bile. So any contemplatives & brahmans who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither-pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those contemplatives & brahmans are wrong.

There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the change of the seasons... from uneven ['out-of-tune'] care of the body... from attacks... from the result of kamma. You yourself should know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. So any contemplatives & brahmans who are of the doctrine & view that whatever an individual feels — pleasure, pain, neither pleasure-nor-pain — is entirely caused by what was done before — slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by the world. Therefore I say that those contemplatives & brahmans are wrong. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....021.than.html

Hope this helps, Bundokji.

[BloofPailafum]

Well this thread certainly cleared up some of my misconceptions, just wanted to thank everyone for there helpful input and Budokji for bringing it up

[AlekseyZubkov]

People who don't know how the Pali suttas actually describe kamma tend to apply it to everything that happens to anybody, which is far from what the Buddha taught. It's not some sort of mystical cosmic accounting system for good and bad deeds. That would require some sort of omniscient mind to keep the tally.

Indeed.

And thanks for that sutta excerpt -- I think it clears the question up quite succinctly (despite Thanissaro Bhikkhu's puzzling disclaimer, which seems contradicted by the text).

There are also the five niyamas...

1. Utu Niyama

Utu Niyama is the natural law of non-living matter. This natural law orders the change of seasons and phenomena related to climate and the weather. It explains the nature of heat and fire, soil and gasses, water and wind. Most natural disasters such as floods and earthquakes would be governed by Utu Niyama.

Put into modern terms, Utu Niyama would correlate with what we think of as physics, chemistry, geology, and several sciences of inorganic phenomena. The most important point to understand about Utu Niyama is that the matter it governs is not part of the law of karma and is not overridden by karma. So, from a Buddhist perspective, natural disasters such as earthquakes are not caused by karma.

2. Bija Niyama

Bija Niyama is the law of living matter, what we would think of as biology. The Pali word bija means "seed," and so Bija Niyama governs the nature of germs and seeds and the attributes of sprouts, leaves, flowers, fruits, and plant life generally.

Some modern scholars suggest that laws of genetics that apply to all life, plant and animal, would come under the heading of Bija Niyama.

3. Kamma Niyama

Kamma, or karma in Sanskrit, is the law of moral causation. All of our volitional thoughts, words and deeds create an energy that brings about effects, and that process is called karma.

The important point here is that Kamma Niyama is a kind of natural law, like gravity, that operates without having to be directed by a divine intelligence. In Buddhism, karma is not a cosmic criminal justice system, and no supernatural force or God is directing it to reward the good and punish the wicked.

Karma is, rather, a natural tendency for skillful (kushala) actions to create beneficial effects, and unskillful (akushala) actions to create harmful or painful effects.

4. Dhamma Niyama

The Pali word dhamma, or dharma in Sanskrit, has several meanings. It often is used to refer to the teachings of the Buddha. But it also is used to mean something like "manifestation of reality" or the nature of existence.

One way to think of Dhamma Niyama is as natural spiritual law. The doctrines of anatta (no self) and shunyata (emptiness) and the marks of existence, for example, would be part of Dhamma Niyama.


5. Citta Niyama

Citta, sometimes spelled chitta, means "mind," "heart," or "state of consciousness." Citta Niyama is the law of mental activity -- something like psychology. It concerns consciousness, thoughts, and perceptions.

[Kryfamid]

I will start with the law of Karma. The other day i was watching a video for a buddhist monk talking about the law of karma and that the vast majority of people misunderstand it. He started by talking about the tsunami (he was in Thailand at that time) and that many people were trying to interpret the tsunami as a punishment or as a bad karma. According to this monk, if those people understood the law of Karma they would have started rebuilding the damaged city rather than wasting time asking useless questions!!

Yes. Tsunami is not caused by karma. It is caused by natural geological forces. If you are personally affected by a tsunami, the only karmic cause is you choose to live near the sea.

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. Yes. The monk is correct. The Buddha taught the karma we do determines our destiny or quality of life (see here)

Any beginner to buddhism would probably start with the four nobel truths. Buddhism starts with a very NEGATIVE notion: life means suffering!!! This is incorrect.

The 1st Noble Truth simply lists those things which are suffering, just like a medical dictionary lists diseases. It does not say 'life means suffering'.

The 3rd Noble Truth describes the state of mind which is free from suffering.

The Noble Truths are OPTIMISTIC & POSITIVE because they reveal that, in this life, there is freedom from suffering.

Even if we agree that happiness is impermenant, should not we agree that also misery/suffering is impermenant? Ordinary happiness is impermanent. Suffering is impermanent. But true spiritual happiness is not impermanent.

The 3rd Noble Truth describes the highest state of happiness.

If a person can attain this happiness, this happiness is permanent (until they pass away).

the ultimate goal of buddhism: to break out of the cycle of rebirth by achieving nirvana This is incorrect. This is Hinduism.

The ultimate goal of buddhism is to break out of the cycle of ego/self rebirth by achieving nirvana (see here)

A poor man, Depra, once found an enormously valuable jewel. Being a person of little desire and content with his small income, Depra pondered to whom he should give the jewel. He tried to think who was most in need and suddenly was inspired to give the jewel to king Prasenajit. The king was stounded as there were many poor and needy people, but Depra said: "O king, its you who is the poorest, because you lack contenment". Nice story

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!!

According to the Zen philosophy, we should learn how "to go with the flow" be passive, and never resist whatever life through in your face: You are mixing up the worldly/materialistic with the spiritual here.

In the Buddhist path, one gives up certain pleasure to gain a higher pleasure.

"Going with the flow" is a method for developing the superior happiness of meditation.

So what all of this is about? being self-centred? is this the way to make the world a better place? 'Self-centredness' is something human beings must learn, like children must learn to walk, read, write, etc

But, in the 1st Noble Truth, Buddha said 'self-centredness (attachment) is suffering'.

For example, my father passed away this year. This is not suffering for you. Why? Because my father is not your father.

But if/when your father passes/ed away, that is probably suffering for you. Why? Because he is your father.

In a different article i ve read the following: "Buddha sitting under his bodhi tree...if the whole world suddenly disappears, will it make any difference to Buddha? -none. It will not make any difference at all. If the whole world disappears, it will not make any difference because he has attained to the center"

Great!! so if the Buddha sees someone suffering why should he bother helping? to help others we should be motivated, we should have some sort of desire, isnt it. Again, your understanding is incorrect here. When Buddha cannot help, his mind is unaffected & at peace. But when the Buddha can help, he does so and is happy for the happiness of others.

Buddha teaches four qualities for helping others: (1) loving-kindness; (2) compassion; (3) appreciative joy; and (4) equinimity.

The last quality 'equinimity' is used when we cannot help.

But the first three qualities are used when we help. 'Appreciative joy' is to be happy for the happiness of another.

Buddha is happy when he sees others are happy.

Buddha has compassion when he sees others are suffering.

But when people do not listen to his advice, Buddha has equinimity. His mind remains at peace.

...so if i liberate myslef from all desires (which sounds good to me) and i become free, why should i bother doing anything in life!! I would just sit there doing nothing (a complete dispassion, no attachement whatsoever) and wait for death to come... true

but what you do not realise is the liberation from all desires is the highest happiness a human being can experience.

if you could experience, here & now, freedom from all desires, your mind would be far more happier than if you watched your favourite movie, listened to your favourite music, ate your favourite food, made love to your favourite wife, etc...

One last point is in relation to "living in the presnt moment" and in the "here and now" what buddhism say about planning? is planning for the future a bad thing according to buddism? Definitely not. Buddha taught to plan for the future, that is, to set oneself in the right direction (see here)

Planning for the future is generally about material things, such as where to live, what job we do, managing our money, etc.

But to have spiritual happiness, the mind dwells in the present moment.

The mind 'plans for the future' in the present moment.

Why? Because, in reality, the present moment is the only moment.

Your input will be highly appreciated. Thank you

[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.

[WournGona]

According to the Zen philosophy, we should learn how "to go with the flow" be passive, and never resist whatever life through in your face (i dont know how can this be reconciled with the law of Karma as explained above) to explain my point a bit further please read the following story:

Well, they said we should learn and do not resist because whatever happens is because there is a cause of such happening. However, they did not restrict us to do new good things to have new good karma in the future. This does ‘not’ mean that if our roof is broken and we do not need to fix it. Or if we are sick and we do not need to see a doctor or cure ourselves. Such interpretation is misunderstanding.

Zen is usually presented in a short statement and is difficult to understand, in particular for beginners. I do not suggest you to read them in short ‘without reading long explanations’.

The master said, "That is his problem, not mine." !!!!
So what all of this is about? being self-centred? is this the way to make the world a better place?

It would be a long answer for this as I said earlier that Zen is not easy. However, I would answer in short in ‘Zen style’ that ‘the master’ has no problem and he is happy. It was a problem for the disciple earlier but now it seems to be your problem.

Great!! so if the Buddha sees someone suffering why should he bother helping? to help others we should be motivated, we should have some sort of desire, isnt it.

You need to understand ‘Lokuttara Dhamma’ to clearly understand this answer. For Lokuttara Dhamma, after enlightening, the Buddha understands that there is no ‘self’, his body, mind and knowledge are actually not belonging to him but they are belonging to this world. So, what should he do about his body, mind and knowledge. So, he uses them for the benefits of other people in the world who are not enlightened.

For simple example, if we have a last meal before we die, and we have already eaten lots of foods until we are so full. But there are still much remaining foods which we do not need them anymore, and there are so many other people nearby who are still very hungry and suffering. What will we do about those remaining foods? Will we put them in bin, or we will give them to those other people who are still hungry and suffering?

If anyone will put them in a bin, please stop reading, you will never understand what we are talking. But if you will give them to the others who are hungry and suffering. This is the way that the Buddha and other ‘Arahanta’ have done. They have no desire but they do not waste their time, body, mind, strength and knowledge for nothing.

One of my favourite movies is "Samsara" its about the spiritual jounry of a buddhist monk. In the movie he recieved a letter his teacher asking him "what is more important: to satisy one thousand desires or conquering just one!" from my understanding (and please correct me if i am wrong, the only desire a buddist would have is LIBERATION from all desires!!! so if i liberate myslef from all desires (which sounds good to me) and i become free, why should i bother doing anything in life!! I would just sit there doing nothing (a complete dispassion, no attachement whatsoever) and wait for death to come and wish that i break out of the cycle of death and never come back to this miserable world.

Already answered in the previous question.

One last point is in relation to "living in the presnt moment" and in the "here and now" what buddhism say about planning? is planning for the future a bad thing according to buddism?

Planning is not prohibited in Buddhism. For example, to build a temple, the monks need to plan as well. You just misunderstand how to use this statement. Future is a consequence of present. We do good at present so that the future will be good.

Moreover, can a person live in the future? When the future comes, it is present. Can we go back to live in the past? If we can, that past is our present. A person may live in the past or the future only in his thinking.

[Discus]

You might be getting a little overwhelmed with all the information now, Bundokji
-- so just as an aside from your questions, it's possible that you might
enjoy listening to some Dhamma talks at some point, , so I'm going to leave you a link to investigate at your leisure:

http://www.dhammatalks.org.uk/index....thor:"Sumedho"


I particularly recommend the talks given by Ajahn Sumedho because he's an excellent teacher and they're very clear and easy to understand.

[Amerworma]

My Buddhism is simple

Karma = How you act right now influences what happens in the future.

Life is suffering = discontentment, unsatisfactory, a longing or a thirst for something. Much of the confusion comes from the interpretation of Pali into English.

Living in the present moment = Mindfulness, Being awake to now, being in the reality of now and not lost in daydreams of the past or in fantasies or dreaming of the future.

Try not to take things to literally when you first read them. I've found it helps to read about these things from different authors as it builds up a good all round picture from slightly different view points.

Metta

[acneman]

I would like to thank every single one of you for answering my questions and the time you have spent sharing your wisdom with me. Now i realize that a big part of my confusion is caused by the metaphoric language used by some of the books and articles that i ve read. Some of the concepts in buddhism are so deep that language might not be good enough to make me fully grasp them as a beginner.

When i described the first noble truth as "life means suffering" i used the same exact wording in many websites on the net, but after reading Element's and Ngodngam's explanations i have a much better understanding. To me this point is very important because to be honest with you guys, i found buddhism more appealing to me at times when my mind was troubled, not when i am feeling joy or happiness . What i am trying to say is if i want to become a buddhist, then i want it to be for the right reasons (to be convinced that its the right spiritual path), not as an escape when i feel depressed.

What i am planning to do now is to start practising mindfulness maybe this will help me to understand what i am reading in a much clearer way and make me less confused.

Once again, thank you very much for your help.

[f6HLLFcw]

Bundokji, I'm glad to hear you say that you don't want to use the practice as an escapism. The practice is the exact opposite of an escapism. It's a progressive removal of all the barriers and filters that the mind uses to distance itself from stark reality. It's tricky, seeing as how the mind prefers to defend its own barriers and filters, but the rewards are there if you persevere.

[TOPERink]

For my understanding every natural calamity however tragic , they are unavoidable. Our mother earth's vulnerability to impermanence is just like with everything in the universe. We are all together in this experience. This has nothing to do with any personal karmic debts or punishment. If a large number of humans are to suffer from seemingly untimely demise like in Haiti, Pakistan or recently in Japan and the USA these are signs of the fragility of life itself. No one knows the time of departure. Actually these natural calamities are nothing special. Every minute a million or more people depart from us and probably just a little more than that are arriving....
The same applies to the animal kingdom. It is the shock of the calamity that wakes us up and we try to analyze why this happens.....not realizing that it happens all the time.