LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 11-14-2011, 12:59 AM   #21
SDorothy28

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
571
Senior Member
Default
"The word rebirth doesn't necessarily mean physical rebirth - being born again in the next life - it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don't even notice them. As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else."
Yes.

As far as my understanding goes, what is taught by Buddha is birth of "conceit", "I-making" and "mine-making", as a discrete event -here & now- and thus, the cessation of such mind outcome: "this is mine", "this I am" and "this is my self" that happens in an unaware mind.

Further elaborations, honestly, seems to be highly speculative and useless to crave into in accordance to the frame of what Buddha taught.

SDorothy28 is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 03:38 AM   #22
juidizHusw

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
328
Senior Member
Default
[...] it seems to me rebirth is to be understood within the context of impermanence, anatta and dukkha.
Isn't Dukkha what has to be understood in terms of anicca and anatta?

"What I have revealed is: 'This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, and this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.' And why, monks, have I revealed it?

"Because this is related to the goal, fundamental to the holy life, conduces to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment and Nibbaana, therefore I have revealed it.

"Therefore, monks, your task is to learn: 'This is Suffering, this is the Arising of Suffering, this is the Cessation of Suffering, this is the Path that leads to the Cessation of Suffering.' That is your task."

Simsapa Sutta
If Dukkha is understood, crave and cling of mind ceases, and ceases Dukkha.

Where is the need of "re-birth"?

juidizHusw is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 04:06 AM   #23
artkolkovk

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
443
Senior Member
Default
Sure: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....=8,714,0,0,1,0

Some highlights:





This is insane. And don't tell me he's talking about scientific cause and effect here, i.e., "they chose the wrong seats".
My impression from the article is that it seeks to discuss, at a time of tragedy on a large scale, which touched many people from all different beliefs and faiths, search for meaning.
artkolkovk is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 04:22 AM   #24
Intockatt

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
653
Senior Member
Default
My impression from the article is that it seeks to discuss, at a time of tragedy on a large scale, which touched many people from all different beliefs and faiths, search for meaning.
My impression was the same
Intockatt is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 04:40 AM   #25
picinaRefadia

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
475
Senior Member
Default
Their kamma is institutionalized morality based on what was considered right and wrong in pan-Indian civilization -- a law indeed, but an artificial one, meaning humans created it, not nature.
karma in buddhism is based in natural law. the five precepts are based in natural law, i.e., human neurological psychology

similarly, the Ten Commandments are based in natural law (even though they use the word 'God' for 'natural law')

I remember reading an essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said that individual and collective kamma was responsible for the deaths in the 2004 tsunami.
i did not gain the impression Thich Nhat Hanh said this (here)

however, Thich Nhat Hanh's manner of speech was certainly not overt & clear and thus easily subject to misinterpretation

after reading it a few times, Thich Nhat Hanh seemed to be saying it is "collective karma" that creates the mental suffering & the sense of "disaster" in those who do not die & are left behind to mourn & ponder

it seems Thich Nhat Hanh was teaching his 'interbeing' as 'no self'

Thich Nhat Hanh was expressing the Mahayana notion of 'emptiness' as 'interbeing'

When an aircraft explodes and crashes and nearly all the passengers die but one or two survive, we ask: "Why? Why did they not all die? Why did one or two live?" This shows us that karma has both an individual and collective aspect. When we discover the principle of individual and collective, we have begun to resolve a significant part of the matter already. If we continue in the direction of the insight of no-self, we shall gradually discover answers closer to the truth.

It is very clear that when someone we love dies, the person who dies suffers less than those who outlive him. Therefore suffering is a collective and not an individual matter.

Victor Hugo also found that human destiny is a collective destiny, and he caught a glimpse of the no-self nature of all that is. If any accident happens to one member of our family, the whole family suffers. When an accident happens to a part of our nation, it happens to the whole nation. When an accident happens to a part of the planet Earth it happens to the whole planet, and together we bear it.

When we see that their suffering is our own suffering, and their death is our death, we have begun to see the no-self nature. When I light incense and pray for those who died in the tsunami disaster, I see clearly that I am not only praying for those who have died; I am also praying for myself because I, too, am a victim of that earthquake.

All of us, to some extent, have contributed to the collective karma. A disaster that happens to any part of our planet earth or the human species is something for which we all have to bear responsibility to some extent. When others die, we die; when others suffer, we suffer. When others are in despair, we are in despair. That is the insight of no-self.
instead of saying: "we all have to bear responsibility to some extent", Thich Nhat Hanh probably should have said: "we all have to bear the impact to some extent"

we are not responsible for natural disasters as they (for the most part) do not follow the law of karma

kind regards


The laws of nature, although uniformly based on the principle of causal dependence, can nevertheless be sorted into different modes of relationship. The Buddhist commentaries describe five categories of natural law, or niyama. They are:

1. Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.

2. Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."

3. Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.

4. Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."

5. Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.

Good, Evil and Beyond: Kamma in the Buddha's Teaching: P. A. Payutto
picinaRefadia is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 05:09 AM   #26
darieBarexish

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
428
Senior Member
Default
Where is the need of "re-birth"?

Kaarine,

I guess my approach to this question is "since the Buddha appears to have taught karma and rebirth, what was his reason for doing so?"

It's not that I'm a gung-ho advocate of these particular teachings, insisting that everyone must accept them or be kicked out of Buddhism. When I first started investigating the dharma, rebirth and karma were big obstacles for me. I would have been happy to find evidence in the Canon that the Buddha didn't teach in this way.

What I saw in the suttas, however, seemed to show clearly that he did. Which returns us to your question -- why? What is the need?

I think even fairly conservative/orthodox teachers -- at least in Theravada -- might agree that rebirth/karma are not the knowledge that leads to liberation. Basically it was what the Buddha saw "during the second watch of the night". The Four Noble Truths came on the third watch.

Doesn't seem to me, though, that karma and rebirth contradict dukkha or the 4NT. It's more that the former represent a partial glimpse and the latter represent the full view. In Mahayana, also, when sunyata is fully and directly realized, karma is no longer an issue.
darieBarexish is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 05:15 AM   #27
gorbasevhuynani

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
406
Senior Member
Default
I remembered something from Ajahn Sumedho's book 'Don't take your life personally' and so I looked it up........

"Hardly ever are we fully appreciative or tuned in to the reality of life as we are experiencing it; and during the ending of something we usually start planning our next move so we don't fully experience ending and separating.

This is the samsaric (round of rebirth) tendency of attachment. When you become bored - and you don't observe boredom unless you are practising mindfulness - you seek something interesting or exciting, or at least something to attract your attention from the boredom of the present moment. Life is a process of searching for rebirth in this way, a continuous sense of being reborn again into some new thing, something that interests you."
Wise words, Aloka! I struggle with this every day.
gorbasevhuynani is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 05:34 AM   #28
penpizdes

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
468
Senior Member
Default
karma in buddhism is based in natural law. the five precepts are based in natural law, i.e., human neurological psychology
This is a very interesting idea, but right now I think what you're saying is only partly true. I'm still not convinced that the actions considered more or less inherently negative by Buddhists, and that are said to always generate some bad kamma, are not based on social customs. I have a really hard time believing there is a standard universal moral system inherent in human psychology.

For example, if you're raised in a group/society where theft (like shoplifting) is actively encouraged (maybe your mom is an anarchist and you live in a hippie village), I have a really hard time believing you're going to experience a lot of negative "mental" kammic retribution just because you spend your days stealing, totally convinved you're doing the right thing based on the customs of your society. I know the Buddha taught about intention, but there still seems to be a general conviction that certain acts (like stealing) will always cause you some kammic suffering, unless you're totally unaware of what you're doing (like when you step on an ant in a field of grass).

I guess what I'm saying is I've never been a hardcore fan of the idea that human beings are 100% morally hardwired. Moral relativism always made a lot of sense to me, or at least "relative" moral relativism. I think it's possible to make some generalizations about human morality for sure, but there is some obvious variation.

I guess this makes me the anti-Buddha or something.

Any thoughts?
penpizdes is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 05:43 AM   #29
yahyynzer

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
521
Senior Member
Default
...if you're raised in a group/society where theft (like shoplifting) is actively encouraged (maybe your mom is an anarchist and you live in a hippie village), I have a really hard time believing you're going to experience a lot of negative "mental" kammic retribution just because you spend your days stealing....
so do thieves live happy & peaceful lives, without internal fear & worry, accruing no external enemies & retribution?

what about this? Melbourne gangland killings

The Melbourne gangland killings were the murders in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia of 36 criminal figures or partners between 16 January 1998 and 13 August 2010. The murders were in a series of retributional murders involving various underworld groups. The deaths caused a sustained power vacuum within Melbourne's criminal community, as various factions fought for control and influence. also, the Buddha's views on moral relativism the can be found in the Veludvareyya Sutta

Furthermore, householders, a noble disciple reflects thus:

‘If someone were to take from me what I have not given, that is, to steal from me, that would not be desirable nor agreeable to me. Now, if I were to take from another what he has not given, that is, to steal from him, that would not be desirable nor agreeable to him, too.

What is undesirable and disagreeable to me is undesirable and disagreeable to others, too. How can I inflict upon another what is undesirable and disagreeable to me?’

Having reflected thus, he himself refrains from taking the not-given, exhorts others to refrain from taking the not-given and speaks in praise of refraining from taking the not-given. regards

yahyynzer is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 05:58 AM   #30
AriaDesser

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
433
Senior Member
Default
so do thieves live happy & peaceful lives, without internal fear & worry, accruing no external enemies & retribution?
If they're convinced they're doing the right thing, sure, why not? I don't see why they would be overly anxious about it. They could definitely experience internal fear for practical reasons (like an NFL football player), but that doesn't mean their fear is a form of kammic punishment or whatever.

The enemies don't really have anything to do with mental kammic retribution. Of course actions have consequences, but I wouldn't say the fact someone is possibly going to get pissed off because you steal from them is a natural law.
AriaDesser is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 06:04 AM   #31
brurdefdoro

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
528
Senior Member
Default
If they're convinced they're doing the right thing, sure, why not? I don't see why they would be overly anxious about it.
when men go to war, they are convinced they're doing the right thing. then they return with PTSD for the rest of their lives

of course enemies have everything to do with mental kammic retribution. if theft did not create external retribution, how could internal fear & worry arise?



Buddha suggested theft is against our internal nature because we do not want others to steal from us. to steal harms psychological normality

similarly, as you personally do not want others to steal from you, your promoting stealing goes against your own internal views

brurdefdoro is offline


Old 11-14-2011, 03:37 PM   #32
Mimsykzr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
474
Senior Member
Default
Thanks for mentioning the Veludvareyya Sutta, Element. I always come back to that one.

Any comments on Ven. Yogavacara Rahula's definition below? I took it from his free PDF book "One Night's Shelter".

This word means action or conscious volition. Karma begins in the mind and is expressed through the body and speech. Conscious actions leave a residual impression in the nervous system and subconscious mind which will be capable of producing or bringing effects of the same likeness back to us. The nature of karmic action can be wholesome or unwholesome and they bring pleasant or unpleasant results respectively. Unwholesome actions are those performed under the influence of ignorance, greed and hatred while wholesome actions stem out of wisdom, non-attachment and friendliness/love. These actions with their potential for future manifestation represent the energy which will shape the destiny for each person and will be the fuel for generating rebirth. Is this Yogacara (not Yogavacara!) thought?
Mimsykzr is offline


Old 11-15-2011, 04:06 AM   #33
Buincchotourb

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
553
Senior Member
Default
Hi soundtrack, I do not have much time to discuss right now , you are referring to " mind only " theory and different levels of conciousness? My understanding of this view of karma is that our intentional actions plant seeds in one section of our consciousness and as these ripen they then drive and influence our decisions about future actions. Once a seed fruits it's karma is then extinguished. The continuity of an individual personality after death, or the human body's apparent unconsciousness, is unrippened karma which still exists in a level of subtle conciousness which is drawn back into existance.

Ken Mcleod's articles present a different understanding for Tibetan buddhists.
Buincchotourb is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:47 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity