DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**SM9WI8oI** · 07-15-2010, 09:44 AM

But the Buddha *did* talk about karma, and he did talk about a cycle of births (samsara) and he even put "birth" in his dependent origination *after* the subject of its steps has had the chance to experience senses and begin to thirst and cling (see last paragraph for more on this), so karma, and birth after awareness has developed *was* a part of his teaching. That's why we're even talking about it.

The Vedic view was that karma was all about action, that you did what you did because of who you were deep down in your eternal soul, and that to free yourself you had to clear out all the attachments to worldly pleasures and get right down to that eternal soul, see it for what it is, purify yourself till none of the worldly stuff got in the way, and then you'd be free. Of course, only a very few could dedicate their lives to such a pursuit, so not many would manage it.

The Buddha thought that was nonsense. If you are what you are because it's what your soul has always been, if you do what you do, because that's what your soul designs, where does that leave responsibility? So he reframed the whole argument saying that yes, there's karma and it's INTENTION not action. So yes, he talked about karma a whole lot.

I do agree with stuka that in the vast number of cases when he's talking about karma and rebirth, he's talking about it to someone for whom it is already a belief. It is almost as though that view of the cosmos, the Vedic view, comes with its own specialized language, and he is translating from "buddha-think" to "vedic-speak", and speaking like a native.

As for our modern understanding that with dependent origination the Buddha was talking about many cycles of creating the self in one life, I do wonder why I've never found even one instance in the suttas where the Buddha says "many times in one life". I can grasp the reasons he did many things, as in the paragraph above, or why he had difficulty explaining the process of self-creating *as* a process (there was no word for "process" -- it was not a known concept at the time, so it keeps getting described metaphorically, as fire, for example) but it would be SO simple, and he had the words for "the fruit of our intentional acts is that we continue to be born, suffer, and die many times *in this life, before the breakup of the body*".

07-15-2010, 09:44 AM	#30
SM9WI8oI Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 412 Senior Member	But the Buddha did talk about karma, and he did talk about a cycle of births (samsara) and he even put "birth" in his dependent origination after the subject of its steps has had the chance to experience senses and begin to thirst and cling (see last paragraph for more on this), so karma, and birth after awareness has developed was a part of his teaching. That's why we're even talking about it. The Vedic view was that karma was all about action, that you did what you did because of who you were deep down in your eternal soul, and that to free yourself you had to clear out all the attachments to worldly pleasures and get right down to that eternal soul, see it for what it is, purify yourself till none of the worldly stuff got in the way, and then you'd be free. Of course, only a very few could dedicate their lives to such a pursuit, so not many would manage it. The Buddha thought that was nonsense. If you are what you are because it's what your soul has always been, if you do what you do, because that's what your soul designs, where does that leave responsibility? So he reframed the whole argument saying that yes, there's karma and it's INTENTION not action. So yes, he talked about karma a whole lot. I do agree with stuka that in the vast number of cases when he's talking about karma and rebirth, he's talking about it to someone for whom it is already a belief. It is almost as though that view of the cosmos, the Vedic view, comes with its own specialized language, and he is translating from "buddha-think" to "vedic-speak", and speaking like a native. As for our modern understanding that with dependent origination the Buddha was talking about many cycles of creating the self in one life, I do wonder why I've never found even one instance in the suttas where the Buddha says "many times in one life". I can grasp the reasons he did many things, as in the paragraph above, or why he had difficulty explaining the process of self-creating as a process (there was no word for "process" -- it was not a known concept at the time, so it keeps getting described metaphorically, as fire, for example) but it would be SO simple, and he had the words for "the fruit of our intentional acts is that we continue to be born, suffer, and die many times in this life, before the breakup of the body".
	Quote