On the concept of karma

[Billy the Poet]

I assume I am not knowledgeable enough, thus it is easy for me to demonstrate ignorance o unawareness in initiating this thread, but I do struggle trying to understand in concept (no matter how abstract and generalized), how the idea of karma, commonly accepted by certain religions, disciplines and belief systems, has any ground in our world, when a deed that is done with good intentions may very well lead to an adverse effect on our bystanders? What is meant to be done for a good purpose sometimes may have an opposite outcome, either by the matter of accident or our own misperception. How can we judge whether our deeds have appropriate causes and results, if it always comes from subjective views? Thus, I ask, does the concept of karma has any truth to it in such case.

[free]

I suppose that the main point about karma is to discover it and try to get out of its design. Karma is a notion based on the belief in reincarnation. So, if one can remember his or her previous lives, he (or she) discovers the reason why has he been reincarnated. As soon as he gets to know it, he is free from further incarnations and goes to the next level of spiritual development.

[Billy the Poet]

Thank you for the reply.

I do understand your point about the necessity of having to come together with your past incarnations in order to maximize the information of causes that led you to the current design of your existence.

Nonetheless, it is often said that to comprehend your past lives, it is well enough for you to have to look at what you have in your current life. To quote Buddha, "If you want to know your past life, look into your present condition; if you want to know your future life, look at your present actions."

Besides, it is also implied that, even though the awareness of karma and the causes and effects that your soul has experienced throughout all the lives is a significant step, it does not guarantee one will be able to release self from the vicious circle. To do so, one has to change his views, attitude and way of living. To put it simply, bad things will continue to prevail in one's life, if he/she does not preserve self and do good regardless of any selfish interest. Only then, the karma may revamp in its treatment of the soul's possessor.

And, yet, the question I am addressing is how to know whether the act you carry for good intentions will not have an adverse effect on your bystander? Where shall that objective judgement come? And, if it doesn't, won't the entire concept of karma tremendously lose its ground in our comprehension? Although I am interested in the idea of something like karma, I believe it perhaps may lack from not putting enough emphasis on the aspect of 'intention' ion the cause-effect relationship.

[Paulclem]

Thank you for the reply.


And, yet, the question I am addressing is how to know whether the act you carry for good intentions will not have an adverse effect on your bystander? Where shall that objective judgement come? And, if it doesn't, won't the entire concept of karma tremendously lose its ground in our comprehension? Although I am interested in the idea of something like karma, I believe it perhaps may lack from not putting enough emphasis on the aspect of 'intention' ion the cause-effect relationship.

From my understanding, the effect of karma on you depends upon your intention. For example that same physical act - hitting someone - will be negative if the motivation is to hurt through anger, but will be positive if your intention was to stop the person hurting someone else.

So if you do something - your intention will be what affects you. How things affect others depends upon their karma. It is very complex though, and, in Buddhism, only extreme acts of anger or compassion such as taking or saving a life will ripen in this life.

Also, there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism.

[Billy the Poet]

From my understanding, the effect of karma on you depends upon your intention. For example that same physical act - hitting someone - will be negative if the motivation is to hurt through anger, but will be positive if your intention was to stop the person hurting someone else.

So if you do something - your intention will be what affects you. How things affect others depends upon their karma. It is very complex though, and, in Buddhism, only extreme acts of anger or compassion such as taking or saving a life will ripen in this life.

Also, there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism.

Thank you for the insight. As I understand it, we shall be responsible for our intentions only and not the effects our actions, influenced by our intentions, may have on others? In such way, may it actually seem rather ignorant on our behalf to stress little the importance of questioning our intentions, if we believe we are doing the right thing, regardless of the adverse effect it may have on our bystanders? Won't it be ignorant?

Or, for instance, a man decides to adopt a homeless child in his three-children family in order to do good to the child's future. Nonetheless, his other children and especially his wife may bear the consequences of his decision, especially if the child happens to be sick. I am not sure if this is actually a good example. The other one would be, if I decide to save the person's life and only later find out in the news the same person robbed and murdered a relative of mine, what is there to say? Am I still responsible for the series of events? Or, if not, shouldn't I feel bad about what I did, nevertheless? Should I regret perhaps saving that person's life? Should I wish he was killed that time?

[Paulclem]

Thank you for the insight. As I understand it, we shall be responsible for our intentions only and not the effects our actions, influenced by our intentions, may have on others? In such way, may it actually seem rather ignorant on our behalf to stress little the importance of questioning our intentions, if we believe we are doing the right thing, regardless of the adverse effect it may have on our bystanders? Won't it be ignorant?

Or, for instance, a man decides to adopt a homeless child in his three-children family in order to do good to the child's future. Nonetheless, his other children and especially his wife may bear the consequences of his decision, especially if the child happens to be sick. I am not sure if this is actually a good example. The other one would be, if I decide to save the person's life and only later find out in the news the same person robbed and murdered a relative of mine, what is there to say? Am I still responsible for the series of events? Or, if not, shouldn't I feel bad about what I did, nevertheless? Should I regret perhaps saving that person's life? Should I wish he was killed that time?

Statements like "I believe I am doing the right thing" in the face of a problem or criticism may be based in egotism and self regard. They may not be, and it might be the right thing. Karma is a difficult concept to lay hard and fast rules as the situations we come across are complex and none are standard. You can only act with the best intentions with an appreciation of your own inner state. Self aggrandizement or sincerity? We have to take others into account of course, and, for example, what might appear to be the right thing - regularly attending a meditation class to improve oneself - may actually be a bad thing as you leave your over stressed partner to look after the kids for another night.

Things like saving people's lives can only be a good thing. We can't tell the future, and if that person turns on the family, then that is most unfortunate, but who could blame a blameless act in retrospect?

[cafolini]

Karma is very difficult to grasp, except for PaulClem.

[Billy the Poet]

Well put, Paulclem, I do agree with you here.

I still wonder, nevertheless, how does karma treat those that commit suicide in teh face of inability to bear living the life of pain. In the first place, why does karma lead those that brought so much good in this world to the dead end. Take David Foster Wallace or Sylvia Plath, both prominent figures in the modern literature, who took their lives in perhaps the most difficult struggles anyone ever faces in his/her life. And, for instance, we can say that Wallace possessed a great deal of compassion in him and did emphasize the importance of serving community. It is devastating to know that horrendous things may happen to those who would deserve it the least. Is it possible to explain this within the framework of karma?

[free]

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

[Billy the Poet]

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

Thanks, free. I am very curious as for Christians having accepted reincarnation at some point before changing to heaven/hell. Since I am interested in the notion of possible merging of Christian views and teachings with the Buddhist (particularly, the idea of afterlife), I would much appreciate if you could provide me with the source.

As for your earlier point, I have to say that religion is often confused, as it may represent several areas and practices. I can assume from your post that you refer to religion as an established institution, especially considering the Church, in your comment about preachers and followers. Interestingly, it is in the Bible that Jesus often talked about authority and its adverse impact on the people. He asked not to follow pharisees, as they are liars and hypocrites in his eyes. He also often talked against the necessity of establishment for the purpose of maintaining faith in society. Basically, he was implying there was no need for any authority other than God. Even though my knowledge of Buddhist texts is still lacking, from what I have read so far, especially in the biography of Buddha, it is possible to find correlation between his and Jesus's views, especially in regards to freedom and compassion.

[Billy the Poet]

Another question I have is, does the mere intention behind each of your 'good' deed has any impact on your good karma and consequent reincarnation, if the intention itself is to either improve your karma or be born in better existence? In other words, isn't such intention considered selfish? And, if yes, may it still count in your advancement in karma?

[Paulclem]

Karma is very difficult to grasp, except for PaulClem.

:lol: I wish.

[Paulclem]

I still wonder, nevertheless, how does karma treat those that commit suicide in teh face of inability to bear living the life of pain. In the first place, why does karma lead those that brought so much good in this world to the dead end. Take David Foster Wallace or Sylvia Plath, both prominent figures in the modern literature, who took their lives in perhaps the most difficult struggles anyone ever faces in his/her life. And, for instance, we can say that Wallace possessed a great deal of compassion in him and did emphasize the importance of serving community. It is devastating to know that horrendous things may happen to those who would deserve it the least. Is it possible to explain this within the framework of karma?


It is said that suicide merely removes the cause of the suffering and the person will still be reborn to it. It seems very cruel, but remember the karma was generated by them, and by us all, in past lives. I've heard it described as a field where the seeds of karma from our past lives are sown, and we then create the conditions for that karma to ripen in the next life. That coud explain why good people die young sometimes, and bad people appear to benefit from their nefariousness. What happens in the next life is what counts to them though when they die. Good person - despite dying young - has created good conditions. Bad person - despite living longer - has created bad conditions.

[Paulclem]

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

The Buddha gave up a life as a Prince to become a wandering teacher. Your explanation does not make sense in this context.

Monks and Nuns are not allowed - traditionally - to own property or handle money. In practice in the West, this is unrealistic, as people have to pay their way and there isn't the patronage of wealthy supporters to sustain them. I don't see a lot of profit going around. How is this used? You don't see Monks and Nuns living it up.

The Buddhist explanation of Karma is very different from Hinduism. Also reincarnation is also present in Hinduism, but it too is very different from the Hindu conception. Th reality of reincarnation is only positive in terms of allowing a being to travel along the path to enlightenment. Reincarnation per se - which has been going on since beginningless time - is not a good thing. The aim of The Buddha is to teach beings how to escape from the rounds of rebirth.

[Paulclem]

Another question I have is, does the mere intention behind each of your 'good' deed has any impact on your good karma and consequent reincarnation, if the intention itself is to either improve your karma or be born in better existence? In other words, isn't such intention considered selfish? And, if yes, may it still count in your advancement in karma?

With that logic, seeking enlightenment itself could be considered selfish. The fact is though that to achieve enlightenment, a being has to nurture many qualities in themselves and rid themselves of negative traits. One such trait to nurture is compassion - an antidote to selfishness.

[free]

Thanks, free. I am very curious as for Christians having accepted reincarnation at some point before changing to heaven/hell. Since I am interested in the notion of possible merging of Christian views and teachings with the Buddhist (particularly, the idea of afterlife), I would much appreciate if you could provide me with the source.

As for your earlier point, I have to say that religion is often confused, as it may represent several areas and practices. I can assume from your post that you refer to religion as an established institution, especially considering the Church, in your comment about preachers and followers. Interestingly, it is in the Bible that Jesus often talked about authority and its adverse impact on the people. He asked not to follow pharisees, as they are liars and hypocrites in his eyes. He also often talked against the necessity of establishment for the purpose of maintaining faith in society. Basically, he was implying there was no need for any authority other than God. Even though my knowledge of Buddhist texts is still lacking, from what I have read so far, especially in the biography of Buddha, it is possible to find correlation between his and Jesus's views, especially in regards to freedom and compassion.

I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you where have I found it. Somewhere on the internet, but... can't tell you where, maybe some forum or something like that.

Yes, their words (the recorded words of religions establishers) are very tricky and ambiguous. So, it is all left upon the people who transmit them to change them as they like it according to their own interests and, on that road, to abuse them, too.

I am sure that there are those, as Paul says below, who are really devoted to pure religious aims, of course.



The Buddha gave up a life as a Prince to become a wandering teacher. Your explanation does not make sense in this context.

Monks and Nuns are not allowed - traditionally - to own property or handle money. In practice in the West, this is unrealistic, as people have to pay their way and there isn't the patronage of wealthy supporters to sustain them. I don't see a lot of profit going around. How is this used? You don't see Monks and Nuns living it up.

The Buddhist explanation of Karma is very different from Hinduism. Also reincarnation is also present in Hinduism, but it too is very different from the Hindu conception. Th reality of reincarnation is only positive in terms of allowing a being to travel along the path to enlightenment. Reincarnation per se - which has been going on since beginningless time - is not a good thing. The aim of The Buddha is to teach beings how to escape from the rounds of rebirth.

As for reincarnation, I think that it is a very good thing (IF IT IS TRUE), at least from my point of view. Of course, everybody is free to have their own opinions. I respect and understand it.

[Billy the Poet]

I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you where have I found it. Somewhere on the internet, but... can't tell you where, maybe some forum or something like that.

Yes, their words (the recorded words of religions establishers) are very tricky and ambiguous. So, it is all left upon the people who transmit them to change them as they like it according to their own interests and, on that road, to abuse them, too.

I am sure that there are those, as Paul says below, who are really devoted to pure religious aims, of course.


I am afraid the main problem is that people themselves do not know whom to beware of or blame in their shortcomings. If we take religion, it is common these days to blame it for many problems. Nonetheless, the majority seems rather ignorant and irrational for they actually blame authority, institution and people within that institution, instead of religion, while still refering to religion. In other words, it is much easier to address your problems to some invisible and yet ubiquitous idea or force, instead of people themselves who are in charge.

To add, if one did indeed read the whole Bible, for instance, and took it not simply for a rleigious text, but an account, then his argument would have had a greater weight in my eyes. Unfortuantely, seldom this is the case.

[Billy the Poet]

It is said that suicide merely removes the cause of the suffering and the person will still be reborn to it. It seems very cruel, but remember the karma was generated by them, and by us all, in past lives. I've heard it described as a field where the seeds of karma from our past lives are sown, and we then create the conditions for that karma to ripen in the next life. That coud explain why good people die young sometimes, and bad people appear to benefit from their nefariousness. What happens in the next life is what counts to them though when they die. Good person - despite dying young - has created good conditions. Bad person - despite living longer - has created bad conditions.

But, would you say suicide is given less contempt in Buddhism than say in Abhramic religions? I remember reading about a mediator called Godhika, who was given an approval (as I recall) by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion.

I do find it astonishing that, if reincarnation does occur to all of us, what would most famous and prominent figures that died young, often as a result of suicide, could do in their past lives to be given such an uneven fate that led them to both recognition and self-destruction. Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?


With that logic, seeking enlightenment itself could be considered selfish. The fact is though that to achieve enlightenment, a being has to nurture many qualities in themselves and rid themselves of negative traits. One such trait to nurture is compassion - an antidote to selfishness.

But, what if compassion is present in a person and while he applied it in most circumstances, one of the driving motivation of his may be to attain enlightenment through helping others. It is like selfish selflessness. If this still would be a product of egoism, wouldn't Buddha and the rest of his followers have been likewise called selfish, since they did things for their and bystanders' benefit in order to advance in their progression toward enlightenment? In a similar way, a normal human being takes similar actions (perhaps more directed at helping society in general than, say, mediatting self's soul) in order to improve the quality fo life in general, while also intentionally paving the way to own progression. Does it make sense?



The Buddhist explanation of Karma is very different from Hinduism. Also reincarnation is also present in Hinduism, but it too is very different from the Hindu conception. Th reality of reincarnation is only positive in terms of allowing a being to travel along the path to enlightenment. Reincarnation per se - which has been going on since beginningless time - is not a good thing. The aim of The Buddha is to teach beings how to escape from the rounds of rebirth.

And, yet, is recincarnation natural and inevitable process we all go through? Does it mean one's advancement is unattainable without having to go through suffering?

[free]

We cannot talk seriously about something that we don't know whether it is truth or not. Discussions based on 'I suppose' or 'I believe' are not very fruitful, are they? :)

[Billy the Poet]

Not really. What we are having here is a normal discussion of the laws of karma and questions specifically addressed to its impact on our afterlife. I sense little opinion here, but more and more insights produced by our perception of what karma represents by itself.

[Paulclem]

As for reincarnation, I think that it is a very good thing (IF IT IS TRUE), at least from my point of view. Of course, everybody is free to have their own opinions. I respect and understand it.

The Buddhist conception of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea - the aim is to escape rebirth. Reincarnation in the Buddhist sense postulates he idea that all beings are reincarnated - humans, animals, fish, insects, other beings. Only very few of these incarnations are positive. Just imagine being reborn as a fish, or a rabbit - no prospect of improving one's lot, just inevitable sickness and death if you are not eaten by something else, until the negative karma that landed you in that state runs out.

[Paulclem]

But, would you say suicide is given less contempt in Buddhism than say in Abhramic religions? I remember reading about a mediator called Godhika, who was given an approval (as I recall) by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with the story, and I couldn't find a reference to it on the internet, but suicide, whilst not considered a sin, is not encouraged. It merely tries to escape from suffering which will return to the sufferer due to karma. On the other hand, anyone who is, or has tried suicide would be considered with compassion.

by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion

This does not read correctly. An Enlightened person would not experience the suffering of the body in the same way as an ordinary person. As I said, I couldn't find it referred to on the internet. Have you got a link?

I do find it astonishing that, if reincarnation does occur to all of us, what would most famous and prominent figures that died young, often as a result of suicide, could do in their past lives to be given such an uneven fate that led them to both recognition and self-destruction. Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?

As I said, Karma is very complex, and it is impossible to comment upon an individual. In general though, an individual has a precious human life with which to do good or bad. I don't make the connection with famous and prominent and good necessarily.

Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?

It's much more complex than that. it is said that we have the accumulated good and bad karma from countless lives, and that we can't know what will ripen at any one time. We may have reborn into a positive human life, but if we are not careful, we could generate the karma to become an animal in the next. So yes - negative karma has already accumulated, and it depends upon our conduct as to what else may ripen.

Just to note that there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism. There is such a concept in Hinduism - the Atman.

But, what if compassion is present in a person and while he applied it in most circumstances, one of the driving motivation of his may be to attain enlightenment through helping others. It is like selfish selflessness. If this still would be a product of egoism, wouldn't Buddha and the rest of his followers have been likewise called selfish, since they did things for their and bystanders' benefit in order to advance in their progression toward enlightenment? In a similar way, a normal human being takes similar actions (perhaps more directed at helping society in general than, say, mediatting self's soul) in order to improve the quality fo life in general, while also intentionally paving the way to own progression. Does it make sense?

His Holiness The Dalai Lama has often given this advice. If you are going to be selfish - do it skilfully. What he means is that if you are a horrible person, then people are generally horrible, unhelpful or aggressive to you. if you are kind and helpful, then most people are generally kind and helpful back. He says this is skilful selfishness, and implies a self interest in your spiritual demeanour. At first if you try to change your behaviour it seems false and you are self conscious, but with practice this forms a positive habit which will become a second nature and much more natural. If a person acts in this, then they are in effect training themselves to be kind and helpful. You have to start somewhere.

And, yet, is recincarnation natural and inevitable process we all go through? Does it mean one's advancement is unattainable without having to go through suffering?

Yes - it is said to happen to all beings. And yes, without gaining a precious human life, advancement is virtually impossible. That means that we have to endure the suffering of the body in order to practice. Even the Buddha had to do this. In fact, without the right balance of a capacity to understand and suffering, it is said that there is no way out. That's because more comfortable realms - like the God realm - are too full of pleasure and too distracting to encourage a practitioner to practice, whilst the suffering of the lower realms are said to be too great to afford the opportunity to practice.

[Paulclem]

We cannot talk seriously about something that we don't know whether it is truth or not. Discussions based on 'I suppose' or 'I believe' are not very fruitful, are they? :)

There is a logic to a Buddhist's belief in that if the part of the path they are on works - the meditation produces results that are described etc - then it is logically likely that the further teachings are also correct. In the same way you can trust a sat nav that gets you from Leeds to London, to take you further to Southampton.

I'm also stating things I've studied, heard from Buddhist teachers and read about Buddhism. So yes, I think we can fruitfully talk about such concepts, and that it is useful to do so.

[free]

I am not a Buddhist, and, as I said above, the religions founders only pass over things about life that they experienced. Very personal and very much subject to vitiation, deformation, abuse...

[Billy the Poet]

I'm not familiar with the story, and I couldn't find a reference to it on the internet, but suicide, whilst not considered a sin, is not encouraged. It merely tries to escape from suffering which will return to the sufferer due to karma. On the other hand, anyone who is, or has tried suicide would be considered with compassion.

This does not read correctly. An Enlightened person would not experience the suffering of the body in the same way as an ordinary person. As I said, I couldn't find it referred to on the internet. Have you got a link?

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Did you try googling a combination of "buddhism", "suicide" and "godhika"? I do have the links below:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/g/godhika_th.htm

http://suttanta.tripod.com/khuddhaka/dhammapada/dha043.html

There is also a similar case of Chana:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Channovada_Sutta

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.



As I said, Karma is very complex, and it is impossible to comment upon an individual. In general though, an individual has a precious human life with which to do good or bad. I don't make the connection with famous and prominent and good necessarily.

It's much more complex than that. it is said that we have the accumulated good and bad karma from countless lives, and that we can't know what will ripen at any one time. We may have reborn into a positive human life, but if we are not careful, we could generate the karma to become an animal in the next. So yes - negative karma has already accumulated, and it depends upon our conduct as to what else may ripen.

Just to note that there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism. There is such a concept in Hinduism - the Atman.

I do agree that the very fact that we are right now in the human form of reincarnation gives us more room for improvement and development compared to other, lower forms. Besides, among them, human is the one that gives us the most empowerment over decisions that will directly or indirectly affect the rest of beings and disposition of events.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

It can also be that one would be born in the negative circumstances, but later progress to impove his conditions. In this case, I would like to ask if there is a concept of fate or destiny or anything else related to it in Buddhism?

And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.



His Holiness The Dalai Lama has often given this advice. If you are going to be selfish - do it skilfully. What he means is that if you are a horrible person, then people are generally horrible, unhelpful or aggressive to you. if you are kind and helpful, then most people are generally kind and helpful back. He says this is skilful selfishness, and implies a self interest in your spiritual demeanour. At first if you try to change your behaviour it seems false and you are self conscious, but with practice this forms a positive habit which will become a second nature and much more natural. If a person acts in this, then they are in effect training themselves to be kind and helpful. You have to start somewhere.


So, as I understand, it is normal for one to be putting his enlightenment before all the rest in doing good to others, if he/she is only in the beggining stage of training self's behavior? And, so naturally this training may grow to become a natural attitude and likewise the person's ultimate goal will also become to serve others. Do I get it all right?



Yes - it is said to happen to all beings. And yes, without gaining a precious human life, advancement is virtually impossible. That means that we have to endure the suffering of the body in order to practice. Even the Buddha had to do this. In fact, without the right balance of a capacity to understand and suffering, it is said that there is no way out. That's because more comfortable realms - like the God realm - are too full of pleasure and too distracting to encourage a practitioner to practice, whilst the suffering of the lower realms are said to be too great to afford the opportunity to practice.

Well, we can say that, in our current and previous, lower life forms, suffering, especially in its perhaps extreme forms, not only happens to our physical bodies, but also to our inner pains and unpleasant personal experiences. According to the Buddhist teachings, do we also carry these along to the realm of enlightenment? Or, we fully abandon everything that is of this world and let ourselves be free, including from our memories of the lives we have had? Can one downgrade from the enlightenment realm back to lower life form, if he/she overindulges in these pleasures? Or, this is no more a case?

[Billy the Poet]

There is a logic to a Buddhist's belief in that if the part of the path they are on works - the meditation produces results that are described etc - then it is logically likely that the further teachings are also correct. In the same way you can trust a sat nav that gets you from Leeds to London, to take you further to Southampton.

I'm also stating things I've studied, heard from Buddhist teachers and read about Buddhism. So yes, I think we can fruitfully talk about such concepts, and that it is useful to do so.

I agree with you, Paulclem. In fact, I am very thankful to your replies and all the information you provide. Realy gets me thinking about taking a course in Buddhism eventually (when it will be finally offered).

[Paulclem]

I am not a Buddhist, and, as I said above, the religions founders only pass over things about life that they experienced. Very personal and very much subject to vitiation, deformation, abuse...

The Buddha had 45 years in which to expound his experiences after he achieved enlightenment. The uptake of the religion by different cultures seems to me to indicate tat many different people can connect with and benefit from the religion. Do you have any examples of where you think vitiation, deformation and abuse may have occurred?

[Paulclem]

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Did you try googling a combination of "buddhism", "suicide" and "godhika"? I do have the links below:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pali_names/g/godhika_th.htm

http://suttanta.tripod.com/khuddhaka/dhammapada/dha043.html

There is also a similar case of Chana:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Channovada_Sutta

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.



I do agree that the very fact that we are right now in the human form of reincarnation gives us more room for improvement and development compared to other, lower forms. Besides, among them, human is the one that gives us the most empowerment over decisions that will directly or indirectly affect the rest of beings and disposition of events.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

It can also be that one would be born in the negative circumstances, but later progress to impove his conditions. In this case, I would like to ask if there is a concept of fate or destiny or anything else related to it in Buddhism?

And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.



So, as I understand, it is normal for one to be putting his enlightenment before all the rest in doing good to others, if he/she is only in the beggining stage of training self's behavior? And, so naturally this training may grow to become a natural attitude and likewise the person's ultimate goal will also become to serve others. Do I get it all right?



Well, we can say that, in our current and previous, lower life forms, suffering, especially in its perhaps extreme forms, not only happens to our physical bodies, but also to our inner pains and unpleasant personal experiences. According to the Buddhist teachings, do we also carry these along to the realm of enlightenment? Or, we fully abandon everything that is of this world and let ourselves be free, including from our memories of the lives we have had? Can one downgrade from the enlightenment realm back to lower life form, if he/she overindulges in these pleasures? Or, this is no more a case?

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't used those terms.

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.

The human life and body are regarded as precious as they are the vehicle to enlightenment, and though the aim is to leave reincarnation behind, the body must be carefully nurtured and protected. It is an opportunity and a tool for advancement, and so from that perspective is precious.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

I wouldn't say rarely. Consider those unfortunates who are born into wartime, famine, natural disasters or poverty. None of these things are conducive to spiritual practice, though the experience may serve the person well if they are able to improve their conditions.

I'll write more when I have time. Busy, busy! :biggrin5:

[Billy the Poet]

I am certainly looking forward to it. Will wait to sum up all points :)

[Billy the Poet]

I do have another question. From your knowledge and experience, what would you say is the way for one to change certain patterns in his life that are signified by karma from past lives? In other words, what to do to improve (aside from meditation; something more active)? For instance, what if one has a problem of having continuously encountered really undesired and unpleasant company in his life due to perhaps karma carried on from the past lives. Thus, he/she doesn't really like the circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances he has to cope with and cannot change anything, because once he/she is out of circle and joins another, the same group of qualities this circle will possess. What would the person have to do in order to change his/her circle or surrounding, if he/she neither can escape it nor stay within it?

[cafolini]

I do have another question. From your knowledge and experience, what would you say is the way for one to change certain patterns in his life that are signified by karma from past lives? In other words, what to do to improve (aside from meditation; something more active)? For instance, what if one has a problem of having continuously encountered really undesired and unpleasant company in his life due to perhaps karma carried on from the past lives. Thus, he/she doesn't really like the circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances he has to cope with and cannot change anything, because once he/she is out of circle and joins another, the same group of qualities this circle will possess. What would the person have to do in order to change his/her circle or surrounding, if he/she neither can escape it nor stay within it?

It can be done, but it's very tough.
That's why:

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."


-Unknown

[Sascha Germer]

For me at least, the concept of Karma has always served as a strong reminder that everything you do in your life will affect other people.

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?

These are the fuzzy thoughts of a newbie to this forum.^^

[cafolini]

For me at least, the concept of Karma has always served as a strong reminder that everything you do in your life will affect other people.

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?

These are the fuzzy thoughts of a newbie to this forum.^^

Karma is a concept pretty similar to inertia, i.e., a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion unless an external force acts on it. Unchecked karma is your character and that is your destiny.
You cannot be concerned about your effect on other people because your karma will inevitably take you to have an effect you cannot control unless you get rid of the karma. In the west, the idea of being born again is an equivalent. It is nihilistic against false values, i.e., those you carry around by the inertia of your character, your unchecked destiny. Once you have fabricated a bad karma, you need a lot of suffering to get rid of it because all the references you have, on your own, come from within yourself. You need a psychologist to reveal you. That's called therapy. You need a teacher, and the real problem is how do you know that the karma of the teacher is a good karma. You don't. You have to risk.

[Paulclem]

And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.



So, as I understand, it is normal for one to be putting his enlightenment before all the rest in doing good to others, if he/she is only in the beggining stage of training self's behavior? And, so naturally this training may grow to become a natural attitude and likewise the person's ultimate goal will also become to serve others. Do I get it all right?



Well, we can say that, in our current and previous, lower life forms, suffering, especially in its perhaps extreme forms, not only happens to our physical bodies, but also to our inner pains and unpleasant personal experiences. According to the Buddhist teachings, do we also carry these along to the realm of enlightenment? Or, we fully abandon everything that is of this world and let ourselves be free, including from our memories of the lives we have had? Can one downgrade from the enlightenment realm back to lower life form, if he/she overindulges in these pleasures? Or, this is no more a case?


And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

There's no notion of a soul on the basis of its unfindability. Today you hear the word soul bandied, but I wonder what people think it means. I presume they think of something like spirit combined with some psychological element in phrases like "deep in my soul" etc. The Buddha in his meditations and teachings did not find a soul, but rather developed the notion of not self. This is based upon the idea that our postulated sense of I or self has no inherent reality, but is a convenient construction upon which we project a sense of I. This begs the question - what sense of we - and this would be the mind which perceives the body and aspects of personality and names them the I or self. It is a hard idea to take, I think, in our world of individualism and the cult of the individual to say that the individual has no deeper meaning beyond the context of a life - especially considering reincarnation. With some thought, though, it makes the theory of reincarnation work better - how could a self, and individual, a soul deal with rebirth as an insect? The idea that "you" dissolve like the body fits this model.

the quest for ultimate enlightenment

Your statement suggests that there is an inherent quest within a being, which I think is not present. I think strong spiritual wishes backed by positive karma will project a being into a positive life where they can advance upon a spiritual path, but this is rare, and requires the being already have some acquaintance with the spiritual path.

There are different schools of Buddhism, though, and different emphases and explanations for non-self.

[Paulclem]

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.

I think the karma a being creates in this life will apply to future lives, and that the karma experienced in this life is the result of past lives. That does explain why bad people sometimes seem to succeed whilst good people don't.

Bad karma can be purified by spiritual practices and dedicating good deeds. The extent of a person's karma is vast though - they will have the accumulated and multiplied karma of countless lives, and it depends upon what is nurtured. Karma is purified when it takes effect upon you and ends, or it is purified through spiritual practice.

[Paulclem]

I agree with you, Paulclem. In fact, I am very thankful to your replies and all the information you provide. Realy gets me thinking about taking a course in Buddhism eventually (when it will be finally offered).

My pleasure. I only know what I've read and heard though, and so you should check whatever is important.:biggrin5:

[Paulclem]

I do have another question. From your knowledge and experience, what would you say is the way for one to change certain patterns in his life that are signified by karma from past lives? In other words, what to do to improve (aside from meditation; something more active)? For instance, what if one has a problem of having continuously encountered really undesired and unpleasant company in his life due to perhaps karma carried on from the past lives. Thus, he/she doesn't really like the circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances he has to cope with and cannot change anything, because once he/she is out of circle and joins another, the same group of qualities this circle will possess. What would the person have to do in order to change his/her circle or surrounding, if he/she neither can escape it nor stay within it?

The situation you describe - of people displaying similar negative qualities - seems quite specific, but it suggests that the person concerned is the cause of the problem. Cafolini's quote is useful, because if this is the case that the person is creating the problems for themselves, then it will take careful observation of what they say and do, and how they react to, or manage social situations. Self awareness is the key, but this takes time, perhaps introspection and meditation, but certainly a truthful review of how the person engages and sustains relationships. A situation I have occasionally observed - when younger - was of a young girl eliciting the same response from male members in different groups. I think it was a lack of awareness and also learned behaviours that caused these reactions. (It was nothing serious - just inappropriate flirting etc).

[Paulclem]

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?


I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

It's not really about improving the conditions of your current life.(By this I mean not that having good conditions is bad - we need wealth and leisure in order to be able to devote any time to practice - but that good worldly conditions is not the ultimate aim). If you are in a position to practice - then those are the best conditions to progress upon the path. The concept of Renunciation recognises what the Four Noble Truths explain, that life leads to suffering, but there is a way out. Renunciation - as it has been translated - does not mean "I give up this life". This is a false view of the concept. it is much more about not remaining deluded about life - that there isn't any hope of the lasting happiness it seems to promise us.

If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

I've heard this argument related to vegetarianism too. What will happen to all the animals if everyone becomes veggie? Well the truth of it is that not everyone will become veggie all at once at the same time, and very few people will be able to practice high level meditations all at once at the same time. HH The Dalai Lama often says things like "kindness is my religion". His constant quest is to get ordinary people to be kinder/ more compassionate. that in itself is completely Buddhist and a very big ask given the way the world challenges many people.

The aim of a Buddhist though is to escape from Samsara - to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human. This world we live in is fatal and full of countless suffering - most of the suffering being caused by ourselves in all our unwise, irrational, jealous, selfish, angry and uncompassionate acts. To stay as a human and not progress further is to risk rebirth as an animal or an insect, or to take rebirth in other unfortunate realms. This aspect of Buddhism has been called anti-human, but, as I said, it offers the opportunity to end suffering and become more than human.

[mal4mac]

If everybody just sat under some tree, then everybody would stop harming each other. Looks like progress to me!



The aim of a Buddhist though is to escape from Samsara - to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human...

And the aim of a Christian is to go to heaven. No doubt, being a Buddhist, you don't believe in this Christian idea. But there is equally little evidence for a "superhuman state of Enlightenment". There *is* evidence for states of joy & calm during meditation. I've even experienced them, in fits and starts, myself. But these are just human feelings. In fact, it wouldn't be possible for a human to have other than human feelings!

Karma, reincarnation, nirvana, 'supernatural enlightenment'- these are all metaphysical, religious concepts with no basis in fact. Just as heaven, angels, and the holy ghost are metaphysical, religious elements with no basis in fact.

The aim of your kind of Buddhist, to escape from Samsara, to become an Enlightened Being, and not to be human, is an impossible aim. But there are other kinds of Buddhist - Stephen Batchelor, Glen Wallis, etc,... who don't believe in karma, enlightenment, nirvana, reincarnation, etc..., and who are happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God. The aim 'to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human' is nothing but an attempt to be a God. Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that. Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

[Paulclem]

And the aim of a Christian is to go to heaven. No doubt, being a Buddhist, you don't believe in this Christian idea. But there is equally little evidence for a "superhuman state of Enlightenment". There *is* evidence for states of joy & calm during meditation. I've even experienced them, in fits and starts, myself. But these are just human feelings. In fact, it wouldn't be possible for a human to have other than human feelings!

There's a logic to thinking - if this is correct, then that may be correct, and this is moderated by The Buddha's words to be a lamp to yourself. There's also the teachings given by teachers today, and personal experience of practice. If this doesn't encourage - then fine. You have to make your own decisions, as do all Buddhists.

Karma, reincarnation, nirvana, 'supernatural enlightenment'- these are all metaphysical, religious concepts with no basis in fact. Just as heaven, angels, and the holy ghost are metaphysical, religious elements with no basis in fact.

It's a suck it and see religion. If it doesn't work for you - fine. There are other voices that disagree with yours, and it is up to everyone to make their own judgement - not have it imposed. Basis in fact? Basis in experience, the logic I've mentioned, teachings and the testimony and writing of teachers, but no, not fact. Again it is up to the individual to make the judgement.

The aim of your kind of Buddhist, to escape from Samsara, to become an Enlightened Being, and not to be human, is an impossible aim. But there are other kinds of Buddhist - Stephen Batchelor, Glen Wallis, etc,... who don't believe in karma, enlightenment, nirvana, reincarnation, etc..., and who are happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God. The aim 'to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human' is nothing but an attempt to be a God. Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that. Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

My kind of Buddhist? That would be one who follows the Buddha's path - the common definition of what a Buddhist is. You are correct that there are those who follow the Buddha's path, but who don't believe in Karma etc. This is a good thing in that it generates questioning and revisits concepts rather than just accepting them. I knew a Nun who could not accept reincarnation, and this was ok - she remained a Nun for the time I knew her. The thing is, if it is true, then it will be discovered through the practice. If not - it won't. I like that kind of openness to questioning.

It is also ok to be content to be an ape as you put it - human without the aspirations laid out by The Buddha. In fact you can't not be human without the effort to see if it is possible to become something more/ other. The Buddha's path says that it is possible and that this will end suffering. That's the crux of the matter - to end suffering and enter a deathless state. The only certain thing about it is that suffering and death will come whether a person works on the path or not. Again it's up to the practitioner.

happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God

The Buddha did not claim that Enlightenment made a person into a God. The God realm is clearly described, whereas Enlightenment is usually described in terms of what it is not or oblique effects. There is no claim of omnipotence, or actually any ability, to aid humans except through teachings whereby delusions can be reduced and Buddhas perceived. I'm surprised you combined the terms. There really is little in common with Christianity, except in general terms, as I'm sure you know.

Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that.

That's correct. Beyond is difficult to evidence.

Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

Miracle powers or photoshop wouldn't persuade anyone. My own experience is what persuades me and me only. I haven't seen levitation, but I have had interesting experiences that lead me not to be cynical about what can be achieved. I'm not trying to be mysterious - there would be no point in presenting it to others. Cynicism can be good if it allows open mindedness as well. I'm a bit surprised by your comments though to be honest.