[wpFWNoIt]

For the unawakened mind karma may appear to be speculative but the awakened one - the Buddha - has informed us of karma and the rules of karma. Now it is up to each of us - the unawakened ones - to speculate, meditate and contemplate the Buddha's words and try to see for ourselves if there is truth in what is known as the laws of karma.

We could also see if there is any truth in the fact that the Buddha or awakened one no longer prodiuces karma because he is without attachment or aversion and sees all phenonema as inherently empty.

[GDRussiayear]

Okey dokey ..I'm moving it to 'Beyond Belief' with a reminder for everyone about the guidelines for this forum.

This is a forum for more experienced practitioners from all traditions to share their personal experience and interpretation of the meaning and purpose of different Buddhist teachings.

If you disapprove of any of the discussions taking place in this forum and prefer to take a more orthodox position, then you can simply avoid it ! There are plenty of other forums in which one can interact or post topics .

Many thanks.

[fereupfer]

Acintita Sutta (AN 4.77):

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

[UFJon]

For the unawakened mind karma may appear to be speculative

contemplate the Buddha's words and try to see for ourselves if there is truth in what is known as the laws of karma.

The Buddha clearly demonstrated that karma was speculative at best in the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta.

We could also see if there is any truth in the fact that the Buddha or awakened one no longer prodiuces karma because he is without attachment or aversion

And how do you propose to do that? The Buddha has been dead some 2500 years. And we could not experience what he experienced if he were alive and standing in front of us.

and sees all phenonema as inherently empty.

Do you know what the Buddha meant by this "emptiness"? What is your understanding of this statement, "all phenomena are inherently empty" and what it means?

[LorencoLoricelli]

Hi Dude,

I think everyone has one hour to edit or delete posts. There haven't been any problems at all in this particular topic that I can see at the moment. It's really great to have lively debate, but we should remember to question and discuss the posts and not make personal remarks about the posters

This isn't a blog by the way dude, its a discussion group.

[Asianunta]

It is possible through practicing Buddhism to glimpse the truth that all compounded things are inherently empty - in other words they are not self-standing but interdependent with everything else. And it is also possible to understand intellectually that the laws of karma exist to us as an alternative to the theist notion of an outside creator. Indeed the Buddha has kindly provided a guide to help us realise just this. He also told us to test his words and if we find them deficient in any way to ignore them.

As a Buddhist we take tefuge in the three jewels - the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. I think this taking refuge is simply agreeing with ourselves to put the Buddha-dharma to he test and enquire if there isn't something of benefit in it, something which will relieve our suffering.

[Zhgrlpil]

This is a forum for more experienced practitioners from all traditions to share their personal experience and interpretation of the meaning and purpose of different Buddhist teachings.

Don't want the blind leading the blind eh? lol

OK

[Dreaming]

in other words they are not self-standing but interdependent with everything else

...so you see sunnata as equating to "interdependence"? That is quite a different notion from how the Buddha defined it. Should we not be contemplating the Buddha's words, as you say in #2?

And it is also possible to understand intellectually that the laws of karma exist to us as an alternative to the theist notion of an outside creator.

Two sides of the same coin of superstition.

Indeed the Buddha has kindly provided a guide to help us realise just this.

The Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta is an excellent guide to show us the inefficacy of karmic superstitions, yes.

I think this taking refuge is simply agreeing with ourselves to put the Buddha-dharma to he test and enquire if there isn't something of benefit in it, something which will relieve our suffering.

Then should we not put the actual Buddhadhamma -- that is to say, the teachings of the Buddha himself -- to the test, rather than later fabrications like "interdependence"?

[Saduyre9de]

from post #12

Unless we are Enlightened l do think it's premature to dismiss 'foreign.
' concepts as "superstition"
It's most proable true to say that nobody posting on this site has the least idea about the strides Quantum Physic's is making these days.
Multi-dimensional space/String theory is only one of the ways forward.So please until we truly understand the full import of these concepts,it's most probably better not to dismiss things as "superstition",better keep an open mind about these matters.
Personally l'm convinced that the 'primitive' religions had an awareness far greater than we give credit for

[KraskiNetu]

from post #13

I don't think I need to be enlightened to see that some things stem from superstition, Frank. For example if I spill salt, picking up a pinch of it and throwing it over my shoulder would be a 'foreign' practice to me. Its an old English superstitious belief ...as was the belief that its unlucky to see more than 2 black birds together, or to bring hawthorn blossom into a house etc etc

I could give lots more examples but I don't have time at the moment!

[ViagraFeller]

from post #14

Certainly many of the type of example you mention are superstitions based on....ignorance.
But there is also a substantial body of such that reflected folk-beliefs of the time. that is the crux of my case,what was true at the time,and in those societies.
Those were times when in general people were more aware of the earth than we are now.
I don't want to posit some 'Noble Savage',but l do think that to throw out those beliefs without having lived that reality is a little presumptuous.

[mikeydesignzinc]

Those were times when in general people were more aware of the earth than we are now.
I don't want to posit some 'Noble Savage',but l do think that to throw out those beliefs without having lived that reality is a little presumptuous.

You're speculating, Frank....

[CtEkM8Vq]

l do think that to throw out those beliefs without having lived that reality is a little presumptuous.

Human Sacrifice | I reject this without having lived the reality. I expect you would, as well... or no?

[CruzIzabella]

from post #15

I feel your point Frank.


Here is how I understand the older Western traditions and superstition...


If you are aware of the interconnectedness of all things and understand the world view from which "superstitions" arose, then maybe one can understand the purpose they served in a specific place & time. As things are impermanent, eventually such practices become meaningless old traditions. There is no need to judge older practices, if they are no longer beneficial we can discard without condemnation. When we condemn we close ourselves off to the wisdom that was inherent in the tradition in the form of myth & metaphor.


Comparison of science & myth

We tend to believe we understand phenomena so well through our world view and SCIENCE. However, prior to science cultures had religious beliefs about the world, and prior to that they had mythological beliefs. Those who pursued such ways of understanding certainly felt as if they understood the world well, as do our scientists. In many cases real meaning & benefit came through understanding the personal relevance of metaphors imbibed in myths. With science we understand the literal level of external phenomena better, but have lost the connection with metaphor, which is what could really be used as a guide. The underlying, unstated assumptions of the scientific mindset do not provide such guidance, rather they label such things as superstitious/meaningless because they are not measurable.


If we want to, we can actually see some of how these traditions lost their meaning:

How did this transition from a mythological perspective of the world to a literal scientific one occur? A significant portion of it grew out of the industrial revolution. Here a mechanistic view of the world was emphasized in favor of the religious view that had caused so much suffering through it's abuse. The way I understand it there were several reactions to the abuse by the Church: some decided that there was benefit in spirituality (some of these revived nature traditions such as Druidry while others re-organized Christianity) and the others rejected any potential non quantifiable approach to life. This eventually led to the industrial revolution and scientific movement. This is the real reason why science tends to be distrusting of religion, because it grew up thinking that spirituality is dangerous (otherwise there could be a blend of spirituality and empiricism like exists in Buddhism and other spiritual systems).

It is like our culture is a kid that has been mistreated who grows up and wants nothing to do with his parents, because they abused him in some way. This is, of course, an understandable response but it leave the kid disconnected from his past. Even though his parents may have mistreated him in some way, in closing that door he chooses to close off everything that was beneficial as well. So this is what has happened with science & spirituality and it is so ingrained in our thinking! We inherit it unconsciously. We think that these old traditions are meaningless because we don't understand the context in which they were meaningful. Our ancestors through out the baby with the bathwater, so how can we understand?


Putting science & superstition into perspective

Another perspective I find useful is to remember that with science, humanity can understand certain aspects of our world better, but that it is still metaphor! Scientific concepts are still concepts. They are only more enlightened in so far as they lead to happiness and remove suffering. Due to our habit of confusion we tend to forget that it is all metaphor, as all language is (like the finer pointing at the moon I'm sure you are all aware of). Eventually, science will pass and people will look at our times and think, what strange customs they did out of their obsession with science!

Having said all of that... if one does not understand the meaning of the myth or metaphor behind an old custom, then traditional beliefs become something very close to what I believe people mean when they say superstition and have little benefit if any. However, it is worth understanding that they are/were not totally useless.


Hope this is helpful to someone, it was so hard to get these concepts out in a semi-clear way... hahaha.

[BV6lwvXf]

It is like our culture is a kid that has been mistreated who grows up and wants nothing to do with his parents, because they abused him in some way. This is, of course, an understandable response but it leave the kid disconnected from his past. Even though his parents may have mistreated him in some way, in closing that door he chooses to close off everything that was beneficial as well. So this is what has happened with science & spirituality and it is so ingrained in our thinking!

Hi KoolAid,

This isn't a good example.I don't think you can compare our culture to an abused child in this way and then somehow connect it with science and spirituality...and just as an afterthought, I was an abused child myself. One size doesn't fit all.

Kind regards,

Aloka-D

[bgsavings]

rather they label such things as superstitious/meaningless because they are not measurable.

No, they label them as such because they are such. You're saying there is a subtle wisdom in dancing and drumming for rain and good crops, and that somehow the science of meteorology and agriculture has something to learn from the dancing drummers. I think not.

one can understand the purpose they served in a specific place & time.

Of course. That doesn't change a superstition into something else, however.

A significant portion of it grew out of the industrial revolution.

The Scientific Revolution happened two centuries earlier, and is the source of the scientific method beginning to replace myth and speculative metaphysics. The rest of your conclusions in this section do not follow, as they are based on this false premise.

Scientific concepts are still concepts. They are only more enlightened in so far as they lead to happiness and remove suffering.

Knowledge is not the same as wisdom. Science pursues knowledge, not wisdom. You are criticizing a hammer for being a really bad set of pliers.

Eventually, science will pass and people will look at our times and think, what strange customs they did out of their obsession with science!

Speculation, and spurious at that. Science isn't a belief structure, it's a process for eliminating subjectivity from human observations of the natural world. It is not a belief, any more than the fact I have an endocrine system is a belief. It is merely a fact, one that I can be aware of, or ignorant of.

Science seeks to maximize the availability and awareness of facts, and to discard ideas and practices which are not in accord with them. Hyper-skepticism of the scientific method is not warranted.

[VovTortki]

from post #19

I apologize Aloka-D, that was an insensitive way of saying things, pretty unclear too. The point I was trying to make is that it was unnecessary to get rid of all things with having to do with spirituality because of the Church's abuse of spiritual ideas.

[zoolissentesy]

KoolAid900 #18:
Speculation, and spurious at that. Science isn't a belief structure, it's a process for eliminating subjectivity from human observations of the natural world. It is not a belief, any more than the fact I have an endocrine system is a belief. It is merely a fact, one that I can be aware of, or ignorant of.

Science seeks to maximize the availability and awareness of facts, and to discard ideas and practices which are not in accord with them. Hyper-skepticism of the scientific method is not warranted.

I think maybe I did poor job of expressing myself. I did not intend to criticize the scientific method really, because it is really effective in accomplishing its purpose. Better to say that it may be beneficial to examine the belief structures that often motivate its use. Sometimes it is hard for me to separate the two.

I am going to have to disagree with you basic point about the belief system though. While it may be true that the scientific method is a process there are so many beliefs involved in reaching any conclusions and that is the main point. Why do we give these beliefs so much more creditability than the idea that praying for rain can bring rain?

I'll be interested to hear your response...

[omaculer]

I think I can help you clarify: there is a very real, on-going discussion about the inherent bias that scientists bring to bear on their work. This is reflected in the choice of which questions to ask, and it is on this note that you can bring up such things as pressure to abandon fringe research, lack of funding for unpopular projects, and other related issues.

However. This affects the hard sciences least. Fields such as mathematics, physics, and chemistry are largely devoid of politics and instead the community is one of friendly and fierce competition to contribute to the intellectual store of humanity. There is no room for a secret cabal when there is more international merit in disproving someone trying to pull a fast one, than helping them cover it up.

(The area where Buddhism has a contribution to "the sciences" is in the field of social science, namely psychology, although at present there is very little crossover in terminology or theories of mind; the trade-off thus far has largely been limited to mindfulness-based therapies.)

The reason we give science more credibility than a mythologically-based explanation is primarily because science explains events more accurately and simply (I'm thinking of such things as "dragon eating sun v. eclipse" and "demon/humours v. bacterial infection"). Examples can be easily multiplied as needed.

Fundamentally, you're confused about the difference between "believing an assertion" and "believing a fact". Any religion requires believing assertions that have either been disproved or are unprovable. "God exists" is an easy example, but "re-birth" is equally so, as well as any suggestion that "karma" is some weird objective judge-force.

Science, on the other hand, is the opposite: every assertion is always potentially disprovable. Furthermore, assertions in science are explanations for why and how facts are as they are. It is important to note, here, that the facts are not generally disputed.

(It is a fact, for example, that the air we breath is mostly nitrogen {if you care to disagree, you are engaging in what is called 'hyper-skepticism', and we will be at an impasse}. An explanation for why and how nitrogen should be the primary element in our atmosphere would be a scientific assertion, or hypothesis, attempting to explain the observation. This assertion would require evidence before anyone took it seriously, and it would be under attack if anyone in the scientific community had even a minor quibble with it.)

Credibility is obviously better lent to the second of these two structures. The first is a belief structure, and the second is a scientific one. Believing in one is, therefore, not the same as believing in the other, despite the verb 'to believe' being employed in both cases.

I hope this explanation has been clear.

[Z3s9vQZj]

Unless we are Enlightened l do think it's premature to dismiss 'foreign.
' concepts as "superstition"

I don't dismiss superstitions because they are "foreign", I dismiss them because they are superstitions. "Enlightenment" does not enter into the equation. It's easy to put up a front of defending a superstition by claiming we can't see it unless are are "Enlightened", and this "Enlightenment" is just as much a pie-in-the-sky superstition as hindukarma is. This is simply a Courtier's Reply that "you cannot see The Emperor's New Clothes simply because you are not wise". The Buddha said many times that "the ending of the asavas is for one who knows and sees, not for one who does not know and does not see." The latter includes one who clings to wild-ass guesses as if they were "truths". The Buddha called supersitions such as hindukarma and reincarnation/"re-birth" sammaditthi sasava (MN 117), and it is clear that this is because superstitions are sasava, and they are by the Buddha's definition asava:

asava [aasava]:
Mental effluent, pollutant, or fermentation. Four qualities — sensuality, speculative views, becoming, and ignorance


We also see avijja (ignorance) translated in many places as "nescience", which word is the opposite of science, which literally means knowledge (vijja).

Again, as the Buddha said, the ending of the effluents (asavas -- pollutants, defilements) is for one who knows and sees, not one who does not know and does not see.

No, in what context did he us this phrase? Always in the context of a liberative teaching.

It's most proable true to say that nobody posting on this site has the least idea about the strides Quantum Physic's is making these days.

I'll spare you telling you how irrelevant quantum physics are. This time.

Certainly many of the type of example you mention are superstitions based on....ignorance.

...and what superstition is not...?

that is the crux of my case,what was true at the time,and in those societies.

There is a difference between "belief" and "truth". Things may have been thought to be true, but Copernicus did not change the shape of the world; it was always the same, no matter what oddball story humans concocted about it.

Those were times when in general people were more aware of the earth than we are now.

More aware of the earth??? Does that statement really mean anything, beyond New Age hippy-trippy hype? All of our technology -- for better or for worse -- stems from our improved "awareness of the earth".

to throw out those beliefs without having lived that reality is a little presumptuous.

That sure would make it easy to keep superstitions on the table, wouldn't it? So, since I didn't life 600 years ago, I should not throw out the superstition that the world is flat, against all evidence to the contrary? It is even presumptuous of me to do so?