Discussion:
Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
(too old to reply)
Arun
2004-04-11 19:06:29 UTC
Permalink
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
Nick Argall
2004-04-13 06:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
Buddhists try not to accumulate karma, thereby attaining release from the
cycle of death and rebirth.

Seems they don't answer questions, either.



Nick
liaM
2004-04-13 08:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Argall
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
Buddhists try not to accumulate karma, thereby attaining release from the
cycle of death and rebirth.
Seems they don't answer questions, either.
Nick
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.




liaM
x***@yahoo.com
2004-04-13 14:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
Post by liaM
liaM
Take Care.
liaM
2004-04-13 15:55:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
Post by liaM
liaM
Take Care.
Karma are traces that intentions acted upon or not, etch into
our consciousnesses. Imagine having lied to a friend, and reflect
upon how karma clutches you, the pang of guilt and ill feeling
that you may feel when you meet that friend again !

Now imagine a positive scenario : imagine thinking it through
and realising that only your pride prevented you to feel
comfortable when required to bow to the ground in respect to
a teacher. This leaves a positive trace; it is a positive karma.
You have succeeded in lifting a barrier that previously
stood between you and a state of consciousness of much greater
inner freedom. (And you are thereby that much closer to
your teachers and teachings that lead to further liberation !)

I could give you numerous other examples of generating
positive karma by purifying your consciousness from strangle-
holds. Howa about a list of these opportunities :
Anger, Hate, Aggressive intent, Sloth, Overeating,
Smoking, Sinning for lust not love, Oversleeping,
Not being able to exchange your viewpoint with the viewpoint
of someone else, Loose talking, Making people wrong,
etc. etc. !!

Everything and anything a person does leaves a mark in
consciousness which ticks away like a bomb or roots down
like a flowering fruit tree.

Why prefer one or the other ?



liaM
Awaken21
2004-04-13 17:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
More like not optimal.
A Fool
2004-04-13 18:15:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@yahoo.com
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
From the Majjhima Nikáya:
(note: 'Kamma' is the Pali spelling of 'Karma'

The Blessed One said this:

8. "Punna, there are four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after
realization
myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark kamma
with
dark ripening, there is bright kamma with bright ripening, there is
dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening, and there is
kamma
that is not dark and not bright with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening
that conduces to the exhaustion of kamma.

9. "What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a
(kammic)
bodily process (bound up) with affliction, [2] he produces a (kammic)
verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic)
mental
process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a
world
with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts [3] touch him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful
as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due
to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed.
When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening.

10. "And what is bright kamma with bright ripening? Here someone
produces
a (kammic) bodily process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) verbal process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) mental process not (bound up) with affliction. By doing so,
he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens,
un-afflicting
contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels un-afflicting
feelings
entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of
Refulgent
Glory. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears
owing
to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch
him.
Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called bright
kamma
with bright ripening.

11. "What is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening?
Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process both (bound up) with
affliction and not (bound up) with affliction...verbal
process...mental
process both (bound up) with affliction and not (bound up) with
affliction.
By doing so, he reappears in a world both with and without affliction.
When that happens, both afflicting and un-afflicting contacts touch
him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting and un-afflicting feelings
with mingled pleasure and pain as in the case of human beings and some
gods and some inhabitants of the states of deprivation. Thus a being's
reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he
has
performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are
beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark-and-bright kamma with
dark-and-bright ripening.

12. "What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with
neither-dark-nor-bright
ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma? As to these (three
kinds
of kamma), any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark
with
dark ripening, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is
bright
with bright ripening, and any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma
that
is dark-and bright with dark-and-bright ripening: this is called
neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening.

"These are the four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization
myself with direct knowledge."
liaM
2004-04-13 19:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by A Fool
Post by x***@yahoo.com
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
(note: 'Kamma' is the Pali spelling of 'Karma'
8. "Punna, there are four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after
realization
myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark kamma
with
dark ripening, there is bright kamma with bright ripening, there is
dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening, and there is
kamma
that is not dark and not bright with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening
that conduces to the exhaustion of kamma.
9. "What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a
(kammic)
bodily process (bound up) with affliction, [2] he produces a (kammic)
verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic)
mental
process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a
world
with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts [3] touch him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful
as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due
to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed.
When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening.
10. "And what is bright kamma with bright ripening? Here someone
produces
a (kammic) bodily process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) verbal process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) mental process not (bound up) with affliction. By doing so,
he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens,
un-afflicting
contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels un-afflicting
feelings
entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of
Refulgent
Glory. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears
owing
to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch
him.
Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called bright
kamma
with bright ripening.
11. "What is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening?
Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process both (bound up) with
affliction and not (bound up) with affliction...verbal
process...mental
process both (bound up) with affliction and not (bound up) with
affliction.
By doing so, he reappears in a world both with and without affliction.
When that happens, both afflicting and un-afflicting contacts touch
him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting and un-afflicting feelings
with mingled pleasure and pain as in the case of human beings and some
gods and some inhabitants of the states of deprivation. Thus a being's
reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he
has
performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are
beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark-and-bright kamma with
dark-and-bright ripening.
12. "What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with
neither-dark-nor-bright
ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma? As to these (three
kinds
of kamma), any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark
with
dark ripening, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is
bright
with bright ripening, and any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma
that
is dark-and bright with dark-and-bright ripening: this is called
neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening.
"These are the four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization
myself with direct knowledge."
Marvelous stuff disembodied to perfection.. all of it is air !




liaM
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-13 20:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by A Fool
Post by x***@yahoo.com
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
(note: 'Kamma' is the Pali spelling of 'Karma'
8. "Punna, there are four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after
realization
myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark kamma
with
dark ripening, there is bright kamma with bright ripening, there is
dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening, and there is
kamma
that is not dark and not bright with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening
that conduces to the exhaustion of kamma.
9. "What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a
(kammic)
bodily process (bound up) with affliction, [2] he produces a (kammic)
verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic)
mental
process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a
world
with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts [3] touch him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful
as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due
to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed.
When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening.
10. "And what is bright kamma with bright ripening? Here someone
produces
a (kammic) bodily process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) verbal process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) mental process not (bound up) with affliction. By doing so,
he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens,
un-afflicting
contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels un-afflicting
feelings
entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of
Refulgent
Glory. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears
owing
to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch
him.
Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called bright
kamma
with bright ripening.
11. "What is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening?
Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process both (bound up) with
affliction and not (bound up) with affliction...verbal
process...mental
process both (bound up) with affliction and not (bound up) with
affliction.
By doing so, he reappears in a world both with and without affliction.
When that happens, both afflicting and un-afflicting contacts touch
him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting and un-afflicting feelings
with mingled pleasure and pain as in the case of human beings and some
gods and some inhabitants of the states of deprivation. Thus a being's
reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he
has
performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are
beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark-and-bright kamma with
dark-and-bright ripening.
12. "What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with
neither-dark-nor-bright
ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma? As to these (three
kinds
of kamma), any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark
with
dark ripening, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is
bright
with bright ripening, and any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma
that
is dark-and bright with dark-and-bright ripening: this is called
neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening.
"These are the four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization
myself with direct knowledge."
Marvelous stuff disembodied to perfection.. all of it is air !
liaM
:)
liaM
2004-04-13 20:35:26 UTC
Permalink
:)
:)


liaM
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-13 20:55:07 UTC
Permalink
:)
:)
liaM
Four kinds of bullshit
is like four kinds of heaven.
it is or it isn't.

"Q: Could you explain a little more about karma?

A: Karma is action. Karma is clinging. Body, speech, and
mind all make karma when we cling. We make habits. These can
make us suffer in the future. This is the fruit of our
clinging, of our past defilement. All attachment leads to
making karma. Suppose you were a thief before you became a
monk. You stole, made others unhappy, made your parents
unhappy. Now you are a monk, but when you remember how you
made others unhappy, you feel bad and suffer yourself even
today. Remember, not only body, but speech and mental action
can make conditions for future results. If you did some act
of kindness in the past and remember it today, you will be
happy. This happy state of mind is the result of past karma.
All things are conditioned by cause -- both long term and,
when examined, moment to moment. *But you need not bother to
think about past, or present, or future. Merely watch the
body and mind.* You must figure karma out for yourself.
Watch your mind. Practice and you will see clearly. Make
sure, however, that you leave the karma of others to them.
Don't cling to and don't watch others. If I take a poison, I
suffer. No need for you to share it with me! Take what is
good that your teacher offers. Then you can become peaceful,
your mind will become like that of your teacher. If you will
examine it, you will see. Even if now you don't understand,
when you practice, it will become clear. You will know by
yourself. This is called practicing the Dhamma."

-- Bodhinyana, Ajahn Chah
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/bodhinyana.html#reading
italics mine.
Evelyn Ruut
2004-04-13 20:03:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
--
Regards,
Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-13 20:13:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
bzzzzzzzzzt!
thanks for playing.
Nick Argall
2004-04-14 06:01:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
bzzzzzzzzzt!
thanks for playing.
I wonder what it is about Vajrayana that is so frightening!
Evelyn Ruut
2004-04-14 11:46:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Argall
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
bzzzzzzzzzt!
thanks for playing.
I wonder what it is about Vajrayana that is so frightening!
I also wonder that, but since it is not my problem I don't choose to address
their fear any more.
--
Regards,
Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Nick Argall
2004-04-15 10:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Nick Argall
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
bzzzzzzzzzt!
thanks for playing.
I wonder what it is about Vajrayana that is so frightening!
I also wonder that, but since it is not my problem I don't choose to address
their fear any more.
That's good :)
2004-04-14 18:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by x***@yahoo.com
Post by liaM
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
I was under the impression that karma (at least in Buddhism) was
negative by definition.
No, karma can be positive (good karma) or negative.
bzzzzzzzzzt!
thanks for playing.
And heeerrre's JOHNNY to tell her what she wonlost!

mwhahaha.

"Mors certa, vita incerta"

www.thehungersite.com
Awaken21
2004-04-13 15:34:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by Nick Argall
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
Buddhists try not to accumulate karma, thereby attaining release from the
cycle of death and rebirth.
Seems they don't answer questions, either.
Nick
No Nick. Everything we do and think accumulates positive or negative
karma, the thing that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter.
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.

Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
liaM
2004-04-13 15:57:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Awaken21
2004-04-13 22:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?

Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
liaM
2004-04-13 23:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
in my own words in my own ways it is buddhism as I understand it.
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
every one's ways are different.




liaM

PS. The citation below was "A Fool" 's posting earlier. Ask
the same questions of the Buddha as you did of me :-)





From the Majjhima Nikáya:
(note: 'Kamma' is the Pali spelling of 'Karma'

The Blessed One said this:

8. "Punna, there are four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after
realization
myself with direct knowledge. What are the four? There is dark kamma
with
dark ripening, there is bright kamma with bright ripening, there is
dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening, and there is
kamma
that is not dark and not bright with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening
that conduces to the exhaustion of kamma.

9. "What is dark kamma with dark ripening? Here someone produces a
(kammic)
bodily process (bound up) with affliction, [2] he produces a (kammic)
verbal process (bound up) with affliction, he produces a (kammic)
mental
process (bound up) with affliction. By so doing, he reappears in a
world
with affliction. When that happens, afflicting contacts [3] touch him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting feelings entirely painful
as in the case of beings in hell. Thus a being's reappearance is due
to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he has performed.
When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark kamma with dark ripening.

10. "And what is bright kamma with bright ripening? Here someone
produces
a (kammic) bodily process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) verbal process not (bound up) with affliction, he produces
a (kammic) mental process not (bound up) with affliction. By doing so,
he reappears in a world without affliction. When that happens,
un-afflicting
contacts touch him. Being touched by these, he feels un-afflicting
feelings
entirely pleasant as in the case of the Subhakinha, the gods of
Refulgent
Glory. Thus a being's reappearance is due to a being: he reappears
owing
to the kammas he has performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch
him.
Thus I say are beings heirs of their kammas. This is called bright
kamma
with bright ripening.

11. "What is dark-and-bright kamma with dark-and-bright ripening?
Here someone produces a (kammic) bodily process both (bound up) with
affliction and not (bound up) with affliction...verbal
process...mental
process both (bound up) with affliction and not (bound up) with
affliction.
By doing so, he reappears in a world both with and without affliction.
When that happens, both afflicting and un-afflicting contacts touch
him.
Being touched by these, he feels afflicting and un-afflicting feelings
with mingled pleasure and pain as in the case of human beings and some
gods and some inhabitants of the states of deprivation. Thus a being's
reappearance is due to a being: he reappears owing to the kammas he
has
performed. When he has reappeared, contacts touch him. Thus I say are
beings
heirs of their kammas. This is called dark-and-bright kamma with
dark-and-bright ripening.

12. "What is neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with
neither-dark-nor-bright
ripening that leads to the exhaustion of kamma? As to these (three
kinds
of kamma), any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is dark
with
dark ripening, any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma that is
bright
with bright ripening, and any volition in abandoning the kind of kamma
that
is dark-and bright with dark-and-bright ripening: this is called
neither-dark-nor-bright kamma with neither-dark-nor-bright ripening.

"These are the four kinds of kamma proclaimed by me after realization
myself with direct knowledge."
Ned Ludd
2004-04-14 03:06:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
in my own words in my own ways it is buddhism as I understand it.
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
every one's ways are different.
liaM
PS. The citation below was "A Fool" 's posting earlier. Ask
the same questions of the Buddha as you did of me :-)
Yes, you must ask the same questions of Buddha. Because if you
treat Buddha like God, then you couldn't possibly be a Buddhist.

Ned

(P.S. And, Ev et. al., even if you could classify karma as positive
or negative, you couldn't possibly know which is which. Or, more
accurately: your best idea of good karma has nothing whatsoever
to do with what good karma is, and your best idea of bad karma has
nothing whatsoever to do with what bad karma is.)
Evelyn Ruut
2004-04-14 11:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
in my own words in my own ways it is buddhism as I understand it.
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
every one's ways are different.
liaM
PS. The citation below was "A Fool" 's posting earlier. Ask
the same questions of the Buddha as you did of me :-)
Yes, you must ask the same questions of Buddha. Because if you
treat Buddha like God, then you couldn't possibly be a Buddhist.
Ned
(P.S. And, Ev et. al., even if you could classify karma as positive
or negative, you couldn't possibly know which is which. Or, more
accurately: your best idea of good karma has nothing whatsoever
to do with what good karma is, and your best idea of bad karma has
nothing whatsoever to do with what bad karma is.)
Of course I know this, Ned and I am surprised you thought otherwise. One
is better off speaking differently to a newbie who is asking about karma
differently than a person who has been studying buddhism for a while.

We are speaking of relative and ultimate truths here. Relatively "good"
and "bad" karma exist. Ultimately it is another story; good and bad have
nothing to do with it.

Take note of the signature line I use in my emails;

"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is, having
nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst
into laughter." -Longchenpa
--
Regards,
Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Ned Ludd
2004-04-14 14:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Ned Ludd
Post by liaM
every one's ways are different.
liaM
PS. The citation below was "A Fool" 's posting earlier. Ask
the same questions of the Buddha as you did of me :-)
Yes, you must ask the same questions of Buddha. Because if you
treat Buddha like God, then you couldn't possibly be a Buddhist.
(P.S. And, Ev et. al., even if you could classify karma as positive
or negative, you couldn't possibly know which is which. Or, more
accurately: your best idea of good karma has nothing whatsoever
to do with what good karma is, and your best idea of bad karma has
nothing whatsoever to do with what bad karma is.)
Of course I know this, Ned and I am surprised you thought otherwise.
One is better off speaking differently to a newbie who is asking
about karma differently than a person who has been studying buddhism
for a while.
Well, your best idea of a newbie has nothing whatsoever to do with
what a newbie is. Etc. etc.
Post by Evelyn Ruut
We are speaking of relative and ultimate truths here. Relatively
"good" and "bad" karma exist. Ultimately it is another story; good
and bad have nothing to do with it.
Even your 'relatively good and bad' are unknowable. Teaching
someone about "relative" karma and then snatching it away after
they begin to accept it is a formula for creating a schizophrenic.
(And I have never seen someone honestly teach karma - there is
ALWAYS an agenda to anyone's raising up this dharma as a teaching:
An agenda that goes far beyond their initial proposal of karma as
"action" or "cause and effect".)
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Take note of the signature line I use in my emails;
"Since everything is but an apparition, perfect in being what it is,
having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one
may well burst into laughter." -Longchenpa
Or tears. Why dangle perfection in front of someone you are
trying to convince that all things are an apparition?

Ned
Awaken21
2004-04-14 15:14:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
in my own words in my own ways it is buddhism as I understand it.
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
every one's ways are different.
liaM
PS. The citation below was "A Fool" 's posting earlier. Ask
the same questions of the Buddha as you did of me :-)
That is why I asked the second question. It was a recognition that if
it comes from your interpretation of your experiences with actual
practice, then it's valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
Tang Huyen
2004-04-14 15:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.

So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.

Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.

Tang Huyen
,
2004-04-14 16:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Tang Huyen
Sorry Tang dearie but the symptoms of enlightenment are not a path or a
means by which to achieve awakening. The higher detachment that a monk may
enjoy the presence of is not something that if strived for will achieve it
as a normally occuring trait of one's psyche. The detachment occurs because
the monk is enlightened, but you cannot become enlightened by *practicing*,
or wishing to be detached.
William Tucker
2004-04-15 04:39:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Tang Huyen
Sorry Tang dearie but the symptoms of enlightenment are not a path or a
means by which to achieve awakening. The higher detachment that a monk may
enjoy the presence of is not something that if strived for will achieve it
as a normally occuring trait of one's psyche. The detachment occurs because
the monk is enlightened, but you cannot become enlightened by
*practicing*,
Post by ,
or wishing to be detached.
how would you know?

Wm
,
2004-04-15 05:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Tang Huyen
Sorry Tang dearie but the symptoms of enlightenment are not a path or a
means by which to achieve awakening. The higher detachment that a monk may
enjoy the presence of is not something that if strived for will achieve it
as a normally occuring trait of one's psyche. The detachment occurs
because
Post by ,
the monk is enlightened, but you cannot become enlightened by
*practicing*,
Post by ,
or wishing to be detached.
how would you know?
Wm
How wouldn't I ?
William Tucker
2004-04-15 17:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Tang Huyen
Sorry Tang dearie but the symptoms of enlightenment are not a path or a
means by which to achieve awakening. The higher detachment that a monk
may
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
enjoy the presence of is not something that if strived for will
achieve
Post by ,
it
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
as a normally occuring trait of one's psyche. The detachment occurs
because
Post by ,
the monk is enlightened, but you cannot become enlightened by
*practicing*,
Post by ,
or wishing to be detached.
how would you know?
Wm
How wouldn't I ?
your sentence

that included the phrase

that you could not become enlightened by practising

is proof enough that you don't


Wm

ps. ergo


you wouldn't
2004-04-15 23:52:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:55:28 GMT, "William Tucker"
Post by William Tucker
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
as a normally occuring trait of one's psyche. The detachment occurs
because
Post by ,
the monk is enlightened, but you cannot become enlightened by
*practicing*,
Post by ,
or wishing to be detached.
how would you know?
Wm
How wouldn't I ?
your sentence
that included the phrase
that you could not become enlightened by practising
is proof enough that you don't
Wm
ps. ergo
you wouldn't
Don't forget her B.O. Enlightened people don't stink.



"Mors certa, vita incerta"

www.thehungersite.com
Robert Epstein
2004-04-14 16:26:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?

Robert
Lee Dillion
2004-04-14 16:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.

For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?

I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
,
2004-04-14 17:41:34 UTC
Permalink
"Lee Dillion" <***@rockingchair.com> wrote in message news:c5jpv9$3p6$***@kestrel.csrv.uidaho.edu...
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many hours
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore that
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback that he
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over others as
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Lee Dillion
2004-04-14 18:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many hours
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore that
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback that he
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over others as
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
,
2004-04-14 19:18:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many hours
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore that
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback that he
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over others as
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
I was just teasin' him.
Lee Dillion
2004-04-14 20:33:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many
hours
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore
that
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback
that he
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over
others as
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
I was just teasin' him.
:)
--
Lee Dillion
Tang Huyen
2004-04-14 23:35:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.

As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.

Tang Huyen
,
2004-04-15 00:22:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Tang Huyen
Now I know why all the cheques bounced.
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Tang Huyen
Now I know why all the cheques bounced.
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:07:35 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
no, yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Tang Huyen
Now I know why all the cheques bounced.
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:17:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
no, yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
Thing is, Stinky Pete, I've been groomed and trained by the master himself,
his most high excellency, Tang.

Here, have a bag of Cheetos and a can of store brand cola.
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:21:58 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:17:24 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by cupcake
no, yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
Thing is, Stinky Pete, I've been groomed and trained by the master himself,
his most high excellency, Tang.
Here, have a bag of Cheetos and a can of store brand cola.
well, now that everyone knows that yer an insipid
insufferable little asshole, what'are yu gonna do
with yer life now? huh?


... maybe yu can move in with Norbu, or any
other Vajrayani, for that matter!


bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:30:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:17:24 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by cupcake
no, yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
Thing is, Stinky Pete, I've been groomed and trained by the master himself,
his most high excellency, Tang.
Here, have a bag of Cheetos and a can of store brand cola.
well, now that everyone knows that yer an insipid
insufferable little asshole, what'are yu gonna do
with yer life now? huh?
... maybe yu can move in with Norbu, or any
other Vajrayani, for that matter!
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
This is so easy. Called a vajra and a bwahaha. Ahh...my Stinky Puppet
Pete.

But that's enough store brand cola for you. You're getting a little too
excited.
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
oh shit Brian, please don't start doing this again.

I want to include alt.zen in my posts. they're part of certain
conversations. it's not against the law you know.

if you insist on sending this message, please do not send it to apz. I
don't want to have to read fifty posts that say 'please don't crosspost.'

robert

============
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by ,
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Tang Huyen
Now I know why all the cheques bounced.
Tang Huyen
2004-04-15 02:07:11 UTC
Permalink
"Tang Huyen"
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Now I know why all the cheques bounced.
Some of my stooges are too crafty for any manager to
manage. Which is why they can do such a great job.

Tang Huyen
Lee Dillion
2004-04-15 00:34:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Praise and blame
all the same
--
Lee Dillion
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Praise and blame
all the same
--
Lee Dillion
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:10:55 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:07:18 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
no yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Praise and blame
all the same
--
Lee Dillion
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:14:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
no yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
My first catch. I don't even think I had my line in 5 minutes.

Please don't crosspost to apz.
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:14:41 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by cupcake
no yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
My first catch. I don't even think I had my line in 5 minutes.
Please don't crosspost to apz.
yu insipid insufferable little asshole
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:14:41 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by cupcake
no yu little insipid insufferable little asshole
My first catch. I don't even think I had my line in 5 minutes.
Please don't crosspost to apz.
yu insipid insufferable little asshole
You're so cute. I think I'll call you Stinky Puppet Pete.

Have some more cheetos.
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by ,
I was just teasin' him.
:)
My stooges are many and come in many forms.
As the former Stooge Manager working for me, you
should know that.
Tang Huyen
we're all our own best stooges, Tang.

robert
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Did I get you already? Yes, I did. But please stop crossposting to apz.

Thanks,

Lifeform Bri
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many
hours
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore
that
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback
that he
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over
others as
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
I was just teasin' him.
:)
--
Lee Dillion
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:12:11 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Did I get you already? Yes, I did. But please stop crossposting to apz.
no, yu insipid insufferable little asshole
Thanks,
Lifeform Bri
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many
hours
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore
that
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback
that he
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over
others as
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
I was just teasin' him.
:)
--
Lee Dillion
Raan
2004-04-14 18:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many hours
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel lore that
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback that he
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over others as
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
It may explain why he seldom responds to me... does he to you?
--
Post by Lee Dillion
</>
Raan
2004-04-16 00:36:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by ,
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
and just ignore Tang
Post by Lee Dillion
Lee Dillion
Tang baits and waits. He has the same agenda as SPV. He tries to anger
people and to rile them up so that he can in different ways feel quite
superior spiritually to others. He thinks that because of all the many
hours
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
he has spent pouring over volume after volume of Buddhist or Hegel
lore
Post by ,
that
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
it must be good for something so he uses that yearning for a payback
that he
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
believes is owed to him to satisfy qualms he has about his own failed
attempts at enlightenment and uses his seemigly superior airs over
others as
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by ,
over compensation for the awakening that he has failed to achieve.
Hmm. At various times and for various reasons, I attempt to make
educated guesses about the internal motivations of others, but, even
under the best of circumstances I am often wrong. From the above, you
seem certain about Tang's motivations, which may just be a conceptual
cage of your own making.
It may explain why he seldom responds to me... does he to you?
--
Or why you seldom respond to me for that matter.
--
Post by ,
</>
Raan
2004-04-14 18:46:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
I love this guy!
(Lee is a guy's name right?)
--
Post by Lee Dillion
</>
Robert Epstein
2004-04-14 21:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as a regular diet.

robert
Tang Huyen
2004-04-15 00:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly
succumb to cravings, conceits, and views when pushed
and challenged. How much greater a dhamma lesson could
we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as
a regular diet.
You wrote recently:

<<Which is that what we call "selfless" is not really
"lacking a self." We call it "selfless" as a kind of
shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing through
the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big
difference between being "without identity," in other
words a kind of mindless blob or jellyfish, and having
a personality in full working order, but having no
investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned.>>

Whether one agrees with you on that or not as an
interpretation of Buddhism, it can be helpful for the
people who keep blowing up on mere words on the screen
to withdraw from these boards and mend their self the
way you describe it:

"having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned"

After they get their self in order that way, they can come
back and participate as adults, after all those misspent
decades.

Tang Huyen

*************************************************

From: Robert Epstein (***@verizon.net)
Subject: Re: The Buddhist angle (was Re: Tang)
Newsgroups: alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Date: 2004-04-11 17:20:39 PST
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
Disregard of others is natural if you don't yet realize there
is a separation between self and other. Children learn to
cooperate and share when they see it brings more happiness
than it's opposite. But they may not yet be self-aware.
Selfish children, bullies and the like, probably have no
true self-image and no empathy.
I agree fully with you. It takes a healthy sense of self to be selfless.
This is very good, and I think it makes a further point. Which is that
what we call "selfless" is not really "lacking a self." We call it
"selfless" as a kind of shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing
through the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big difference
between being "without identity," in other words a kind of mindless blob
or jellyfish, and having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the goal of
Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned. At the same time as that one
is functioning in samsara without attachment, they are realizing each
moment as nirvana, which is the other side of that same coin. Without
the pain of attachment and all its consequent emotional suffering,
samsara is experienced as the bliss of suchness, which like a
kaleidoscope keeps on appearing in new and intriguing yet non-impinging
forms. If we simply strive for mindfulness and letting go of clinging,
we can follow the path pretty simply, by whatever means we are most
suited for. To try to dissolve the self or do some other complex mental
acrobatics usually just muddies the waters and confuses the aspirant.

Robert
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly
succumb to cravings, conceits, and views when pushed
and challenged. How much greater a dhamma lesson could
we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as
a regular diet.
<<Which is that what we call "selfless" is not really
"lacking a self." We call it "selfless" as a kind of
shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing through
the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big
difference between being "without identity," in other
words a kind of mindless blob or jellyfish, and having
a personality in full working order, but having no
investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned.>>
Whether one agrees with you on that or not as an
interpretation of Buddhism, it can be helpful for the
people who keep blowing up on mere words on the screen
to withdraw from these boards and mend their self the
"having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned"
After they get their self in order that way, they can come
back and participate as adults, after all those misspent
decades.
Tang Huyen
*************************************************
Subject: Re: The Buddhist angle (was Re: Tang)
Newsgroups: alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Date: 2004-04-11 17:20:39 PST
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
Disregard of others is natural if you don't yet realize there
is a separation between self and other. Children learn to
cooperate and share when they see it brings more happiness
than it's opposite. But they may not yet be self-aware.
Selfish children, bullies and the like, probably have no
true self-image and no empathy.
I agree fully with you. It takes a healthy sense of self to be selfless.
This is very good, and I think it makes a further point. Which is that
what we call "selfless" is not really "lacking a self." We call it
"selfless" as a kind of shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing
through the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big difference
between being "without identity," in other words a kind of mindless blob
or jellyfish, and having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the goal of
Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned. At the same time as that one
is functioning in samsara without attachment, they are realizing each
moment as nirvana, which is the other side of that same coin. Without
the pain of attachment and all its consequent emotional suffering,
samsara is experienced as the bliss of suchness, which like a
kaleidoscope keeps on appearing in new and intriguing yet non-impinging
forms. If we simply strive for mindfulness and letting go of clinging,
we can follow the path pretty simply, by whatever means we are most
suited for. To try to dissolve the self or do some other complex mental
acrobatics usually just muddies the waters and confuses the aspirant.
Robert
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Lifeform Bri"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:07:01 GMT
Organization: Shaw Residential Internet
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
[19]<407D
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
no yu little insipid insufferable asshole
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly
succumb to cravings, conceits, and views when pushed
and challenged. How much greater a dhamma lesson could
we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as
a regular diet.
<<Which is that what we call "selfless" is not really
"lacking a self." We call it "selfless" as a kind of
shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing through
the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big
difference between being "without identity," in other
words a kind of mindless blob or jellyfish, and having
a personality in full working order, but having no
investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned.>>
Whether one agrees with you on that or not as an
interpretation of Buddhism, it can be helpful for the
people who keep blowing up on mere words on the screen
to withdraw from these boards and mend their self the
"having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned"
After they get their self in order that way, they can come
back and participate as adults, after all those misspent
decades.
Tang Huyen
*************************************************
Subject: Re: The Buddhist angle (was Re: Tang)
Newsgroups: alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Date: 2004-04-11 17:20:39 PST
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
Disregard of others is natural if you don't yet realize there
is a separation between self and other. Children learn to
cooperate and share when they see it brings more happiness
than it's opposite. But they may not yet be self-aware.
Selfish children, bullies and the like, probably have no
true self-image and no empathy.
I agree fully with you. It takes a healthy sense of self to be selfless.
This is very good, and I think it makes a further point. Which is that
what we call "selfless" is not really "lacking a self." We call it
"selfless" as a kind of shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing
through the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big difference
between being "without identity," in other words a kind of mindless blob
or jellyfish, and having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the goal of
Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned. At the same time as that one
is functioning in samsara without attachment, they are realizing each
moment as nirvana, which is the other side of that same coin. Without
the pain of attachment and all its consequent emotional suffering,
samsara is experienced as the bliss of suchness, which like a
kaleidoscope keeps on appearing in new and intriguing yet non-impinging
forms. If we simply strive for mindfulness and letting go of clinging,
we can follow the path pretty simply, by whatever means we are most
suited for. To try to dissolve the self or do some other complex mental
acrobatics usually just muddies the waters and confuses the aspirant.
Robert
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-17 05:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
no yu little insipid insufferable asshole
You should be careful about the company you keep.
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
you mean you don't want to include tang in the conversation anymore?
but this topic involves him intimately.

robert
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly
succumb to cravings, conceits, and views when pushed
and challenged. How much greater a dhamma lesson could
we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as
a regular diet.
<<Which is that what we call "selfless" is not really
"lacking a self." We call it "selfless" as a kind of
shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing through
the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big
difference between being "without identity," in other
words a kind of mindless blob or jellyfish, and having
a personality in full working order, but having no
investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned.>>
Whether one agrees with you on that or not as an
interpretation of Buddhism, it can be helpful for the
people who keep blowing up on mere words on the screen
to withdraw from these boards and mend their self the
"having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned"
After they get their self in order that way, they can come
back and participate as adults, after all those misspent
decades.
Tang Huyen
*************************************************
Subject: Re: The Buddhist angle (was Re: Tang)
Newsgroups: alt.zen, alt.philosophy.zen, talk.religion.buddhism,
alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Date: 2004-04-11 17:20:39 PST
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
Disregard of others is natural if you don't yet realize there
is a separation between self and other. Children learn to
cooperate and share when they see it brings more happiness
than it's opposite. But they may not yet be self-aware.
Selfish children, bullies and the like, probably have no
true self-image and no empathy.
I agree fully with you. It takes a healthy sense of self to be selfless.
This is very good, and I think it makes a further point. Which is that
what we call "selfless" is not really "lacking a self." We call it
"selfless" as a kind of shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing
through the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big difference
between being "without identity," in other words a kind of mindless blob
or jellyfish, and having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the goal of
Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned. At the same time as that one
is functioning in samsara without attachment, they are realizing each
moment as nirvana, which is the other side of that same coin. Without
the pain of attachment and all its consequent emotional suffering,
samsara is experienced as the bliss of suchness, which like a
kaleidoscope keeps on appearing in new and intriguing yet non-impinging
forms. If we simply strive for mindfulness and letting go of clinging,
we can follow the path pretty simply, by whatever means we are most
suited for. To try to dissolve the self or do some other complex mental
acrobatics usually just muddies the waters and confuses the aspirant.
Robert
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:50:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lee Dillion
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly
succumb to cravings, conceits, and views when pushed
and challenged. How much greater a dhamma lesson could
we get? and for free.
I think it's a good lesson from time to time, but not as
a regular diet.
<<Which is that what we call "selfless" is not really
"lacking a self." We call it "selfless" as a kind of
shorthand, but what is really meant is "seeing through
the illusion of separate selfhood." There is a big
difference between being "without identity," in other
words a kind of mindless blob or jellyfish, and having
a personality in full working order, but having no
investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned.>>
Whether one agrees with you on that or not as an
interpretation of Buddhism, it can be helpful for the
people who keep blowing up on mere words on the screen
to withdraw from these boards and mend their self the
"having a personality in full working order, but having
no investment or attachment to it, which is I think the
goal of Buddhism, so far as samsara is concerned"
After they get their self in order that way, they can come
back and participate as adults, after all those misspent
decades.
Tang Huyen
well I guess I would have to basically agree with that. what to do
about it when it shows up here [in "us" or "them"] is another matter.

robert
Evelyn Ruut
2004-04-15 02:29:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......

LOL!
--
Regards,
Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:40:11 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Evelyn Ruut"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:29:25 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
LOL!
Evvie, sweets, Lee has been one of our most valued
undercover operatives for many years now


bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
--
Regards,
Evelyn
cupcake
2004-04-15 02:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]cupcake
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:40:11 GMT
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Evelyn Ruut"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:29:25 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
LOL!
Evvie, sweets, Lee has been one of our most valued
undercover operatives for many years now
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
and, i'm gonna have to check the roster, but, as
i recall, i think yer husband Peter is one of our
undercover operatives too...
--
Regards,
Evelyn
Evelyn Ruut
2004-04-15 02:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by cupcake
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Evelyn Ruut"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:29:25 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
LOL!
Evvie, sweets, Lee has been one of our most valued
undercover operatives for many years now
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
There's nothing undercover about it Cuppie!
He revealed his allegiances once.... that was all it took.
--
Regards,
Evelyn

(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Dear Evelyn,

Please remove apz from crossposts.

Thanks,

Lifeform Bri
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by cupcake
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]"Evelyn Ruut"
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 02:29:25 GMT
Organization: Road Runner - NYC
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.philosophy.zen,
[5]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [6]newsgroups
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in
this
Post by cupcake
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they
do?
Post by cupcake
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears
to
Post by cupcake
Post by Lee Dillion
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they
understand
Post by cupcake
Post by Lee Dillion
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
--
Lee Dillion
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
LOL!
Evvie, sweets, Lee has been one of our most valued
undercover operatives for many years now
bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! ha!
There's nothing undercover about it Cuppie!
He revealed his allegiances once.... that was all it took.
--
Regards,
Evelyn
(to reply to me personally, remove 'sox")
Lee Dillion
2004-04-15 03:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
cupcake
2004-04-15 03:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Re: Karma in Buddhism and Hinduism.
Reply to: [1]Lee Dillion
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 21:11:56 -0600
[2]talk.religion.buddhism,
[3]alt.zen,
[4]alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan
Followup to: [5]newsgroups
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
yeh, Evvie, -- we think yer a paranoid megalomaniac,
and that's what Tibetan Vajraynism did to you


... and we are here to help you, Evvie -- anytime yu
are ready to reach out to us...
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-15 03:15:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Evelyn Ruut
Post by Lee Dillion
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Tang Huyen
Compare that with the massive reactions of some
people on these boards who jump up and down to
defend themselves and justify themselves
whenever anybody says anything critical about
them. Much ado about nothing, and furthermore
it displays to the public such a person's huge and
bleeding ego that needs constant servicing, aka
tender loving care.
Dear Tang,
Why are you obsessed with this? Don't you think that a person in this
condition will follow their own tendencies to wind up wherever they do?
Why do you focus so much attention on this situation, and why do you
distract yourself by interacting with it?
Questions that I used to ask as well - but I have come to believe that
the answer is irrelevant to me. Even more interesting, it is my
experience that Tang's public agenda (whatever his private motivation)
serves a useful function beyond just the value I may or may not find in
the actual content of what he writes.
For example, why do you think, after all of these years of Tang using
the same techniques, that people still react to him with what appears to
be such strong emotions? And if they truly wish to discuss the dhamma
from a Tibetan or Zen or other perspective and have what they understand
as skillful discussions on usenet, why don't they do that and just
ignore Tang if they do not see the value of his contributions?
I think the answer is that most of us seem to quickly succumb to
cravings, conceits, and views when pushed and challenged. How much
greater a dhamma lesson could we get? and for free.
You have become brainwashed, Lee. You have read his stuff so many times
that it has become like a mantra. You even sound like him now......
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
true indeed, but worse things could happen.

Mind, I only replied to passionately crosspost to apz
since Brian has taken it upon himself to act as gatekeeper
today and in memory of Ben Hun's conquering of abrt...

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?'
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down. I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me ~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
--Robert Frost
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-17 05:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Lee Dillion
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
true indeed, but worse things could happen.
Mind, I only replied to passionately crosspost to apz
since Brian has taken it upon himself to act as gatekeeper
today and in memory of Ben Hun's conquering of abrt...
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?'
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down. I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me ~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
--Robert Frost
"Zen master Hae Bong visited Zen Master Man Gong and, standing in front of
the gate, cried three times, "Aigo! Aigo! Aigo!" Man Gong got up from his
cushion, lay down on his bed, and correctly answered him. The Hae Bong
clapped his hands and laughed, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" Upon hearing this, Man Gong
instantly got out of bed and answered him again.

What was Man Gong's first answer?

What was Man Gong's second answer?

Commentary
Man Gong and Hae Bong fall into the ocean upside down."
Robert Epstein
2004-04-18 05:23:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Lee Dillion
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
true indeed, but worse things could happen.
Mind, I only replied to passionately crosspost to apz
since Brian has taken it upon himself to act as gatekeeper
today and in memory of Ben Hun's conquering of abrt...
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?'
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down. I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me ~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
--Robert Frost
"Zen master Hae Bong visited Zen Master Man Gong and, standing in front of
the gate, cried three times, "Aigo! Aigo! Aigo!" Man Gong got up from his
cushion, lay down on his bed, and correctly answered him. The Hae Bong
clapped his hands and laughed, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" Upon hearing this, Man Gong
instantly got out of bed and answered him again.
What was Man Gong's first answer?
I'm assuming it wasn't: "Shut the fuck up, I'm trying to sleep."?

robert
Post by Lifeform Bri
What was Man Gong's second answer?
Commentary
Man Gong and Hae Bong fall into the ocean upside down."
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-18 06:25:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Lee Dillion
Perhaps that is because you listen with your passions engaged.
true indeed, but worse things could happen.
Mind, I only replied to passionately crosspost to apz
since Brian has taken it upon himself to act as gatekeeper
today and in memory of Ben Hun's conquering of abrt...
"Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
'Stay where you are until our backs are turned!'
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, 'Good fences make good neighbors'.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
'Why do they make good neighbors? Isn't it
Where there are cows?'
But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I'd ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down. I could say 'Elves' to him,
But it's not elves exactly, and I'd rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me ~
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father's saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, "Good fences make good neighbors."
--Robert Frost
"Zen master Hae Bong visited Zen Master Man Gong and, standing in front of
the gate, cried three times, "Aigo! Aigo! Aigo!" Man Gong got up from his
cushion, lay down on his bed, and correctly answered him. The Hae Bong
clapped his hands and laughed, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" Upon hearing this, Man Gong
instantly got out of bed and answered him again.
What was Man Gong's first answer?
I'm assuming it wasn't: "Shut the fuck up, I'm trying to sleep."?
robert
I'm assuming I don't know.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
What was Man Gong's second answer?
Commentary
Man Gong and Hae Bong fall into the ocean upside down."
Robert Epstein
2004-04-18 17:23:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
"Zen master Hae Bong visited Zen Master Man Gong and, standing in front
of
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
the gate, cried three times, "Aigo! Aigo! Aigo!" Man Gong got up from
his
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
cushion, lay down on his bed, and correctly answered him. The Hae Bong
clapped his hands and laughed, "Ha! Ha! Ha!" Upon hearing this, Man
Gong
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Lifeform Bri
instantly got out of bed and answered him again.
What was Man Gong's first answer?
I'm assuming it wasn't: "Shut the fuck up, I'm trying to sleep."?
robert
I'm assuming I don't know.
oh, c'mon man, that was funny.....

robert

Awaken21
2004-04-14 22:34:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Hmmm. I'd say it's more like everything matters, but not one way or the other.
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
Post by Awaken21
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Hmmm. I'd say it's more like everything matters, but not one way or the other.
Awaken21
2004-04-15 14:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lifeform Bri
Please remove apz from your crossposts.
This one is actually relevent.
Post by Lifeform Bri
Post by Awaken21
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Hmmm. I'd say it's more like everything matters, but not one way or the
other.
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-17 05:22:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
This one is actually relevent.
So much for...
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Tang Huyen
Post by Awaken21
That is why I asked the second question. It was a
recognition that if it comes from your interpretation
of your experiences with actual practice, then it's
valid, even if it's not traditional buddhism.
What liaM says: "Everything we do and think
accumulates positive or negative karma, the thing
that we seek to achieve is that it doesn't matter",
may or may not be impeccable in theory on the first
part of it ("Everything we do and think accumulates
positive or negative karma"), because the Buddhist
sage in theory no longer creates new deed
(karman), but it really doesn't matter, because
whether he creates new deed or not, he doesn't
care about it.
So the second part ("the thing that we seek to
achieve is that it doesn't matter"), where the "it" is
universal and covers everything, is perfectly
correct. It is a rephrasing of the deepest Buddhist
insight, namely, that to the Buddhist sage nothing
matters, one way or another.
Hmmm. I'd say it's more like everything matters, but not one way or the other.
I agree with Luke, but it doesn't matter.

robert
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-13 22:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
why not? laiMchop's as good a buddha as any...
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
buddha presented nothing but his experience,
and it wasn't "buddhist".

"Q: Did I hear you say that you are afraid of very diligent
disciples?

A: Yes, that's right. I am afraid. I am afraid that they are
too serious. They try too hard, but without wisdom. They
push themselves into unnecessary suffering. Some of you are
determined to become enlightened. You grit your teeth and
struggle all the time. This is trying too hard. People are
all the same. They don't know the nature of things
(sankhara). All formations, mind and body, are impermanent.
Simply watch and don't cling.

Others think they know. They criticize, they watch, they
judge. That's OK. Leave their opinions to them. This
discrimination is dangerous. It is like a road with a very
sharp curve. If we think others are worse or better or the
same as us, we go off the curve. If we discriminate, we will
only suffer."


"Q: What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?

A: Opinions. Views and ideas about all things. About
themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the
Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the
community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates,
teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled
with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to
others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with
dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water
is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your
minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes
beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think, "I am
clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about
Buddhism." You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All
you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of
self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana."

-- Ajahn Chah Q&A
Raan
2004-04-14 00:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Awaken21
Post by liaM
Post by Awaken21
The Buddhas suttas say that there are also actions or non-actions that
expiate or resolve Karma and actions or non-actions that don't create
any Karma. 'It doesn't matter' is absent from any discussions I've
seen in any of the source material.
Where did you get 'it doesn't matter' from?
Experience
Why present that as Buddhist teaching on Karma?
why not? laiMchop's as good a buddha as any...
Post by Awaken21
Is this statement based on experience at Buddhist behavorial and
meditational practice?
buddha presented nothing but his experience,
and it wasn't "buddhist".
"Q: Did I hear you say that you are afraid of very diligent
disciples?
A: Yes, that's right. I am afraid. I am afraid that they are
too serious. They try too hard, but without wisdom. They
push themselves into unnecessary suffering. Some of you are
determined to become enlightened. You grit your teeth and
struggle all the time. This is trying too hard. People are
all the same. They don't know the nature of things
(sankhara). All formations, mind and body, are impermanent.
Simply watch and don't cling.
Others think they know. They criticize, they watch, they
judge. That's OK. Leave their opinions to them. This
discrimination is dangerous. It is like a road with a very
sharp curve. If we think others are worse or better or the
same as us, we go off the curve. If we discriminate, we will
only suffer."
"Q: What is the biggest problem of your new disciples?
A: Opinions. Views and ideas about all things. About
themselves, about practice, about the teachings of the
Buddha. Many of those who come here have a high rank in the
community. There are wealthy merchants or college graduates,
teachers and government officials. Their minds are filled
with opinions about things. They are too clever to listen to
others. It is like water in a cup. If a cup is filled with
dirty, stale water, it is useless. Only after the old water
is thrown out can the cup become useful. You must empty your
minds of opinions, then you will see. Our practice goes
beyond cleverness and beyond stupidity. If you think, "I am
clever, I am wealthy, I am important, I understand all about
Buddhism." You cover up the truth of anatta or no-self. All
you will see is self, I, mine. But Buddhism is letting go of
self. Voidness, Emptiness, Nibbana."
-- Ajahn Chah Q&A
Let's take a step back and decide if the above is not too opinionated to
qualify as truthful and insightful according to its own criterion. Meantime
consider that many who post are not claiming to be Buddhist or disciples of
it but approach the subject from a Westernized standpoint generally known as
Existentialism. It has the beauty of not being such an alluring promising
insight to grasp and likely more to dread but it does promise truth as its
particular Holy Grail even if it means certain death to attain it. Let us
redefine our general disposition toward the insights of the Buddha so that
none of us can be called disciples but many can be called enlightened.
--
Post by Ch'an Fu
</>
Robert Epstein
2004-04-14 04:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Raan wrote:


Meantime
Post by Raan
consider that many who post are not claiming to be Buddhist or disciples of
it but approach the subject from a Westernized standpoint generally known as
Existentialism. It has the beauty of not being such an alluring promising
insight to grasp and likely more to dread but it does promise truth as its
particular Holy Grail even if it means certain death to attain it. Let us
redefine our general disposition toward the insights of the Buddha so that
none of us can be called disciples but many can be called enlightened.
Many could be called enlightened, but they would not be according to
Buddhism. They would be self-deluded, and many of them would have
intellectual insight only, which has nothing to do with zen.

Most who post here [apz] claim to take their inspiration from zen, as
befits a list about zen philosophy. If the major tenet of your approach
is existentialism, I think that would more befit an existentialist
newsgroup, or one with a hybrid name, such as alt.zen.existentialism.
This is still primarily a zen list, though many have one or another
eclectic or individualistic approach to the subject.

Robert
Raan
2004-04-14 18:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another is
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive one.
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial irrational
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real application
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of living.
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms spirits
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me you
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
--
Post by Raan
</>
Meantime
Post by Raan
consider that many who post are not claiming to be Buddhist or disciples of
it but approach the subject from a Westernized standpoint generally known as
Existentialism. It has the beauty of not being such an alluring promising
insight to grasp and likely more to dread but it does promise truth as its
particular Holy Grail even if it means certain death to attain it. Let us
redefine our general disposition toward the insights of the Buddha so that
none of us can be called disciples but many can be called enlightened.
Many could be called enlightened, but they would not be according to
Buddhism. They would be self-deluded, and many of them would have
intellectual insight only, which has nothing to do with zen.
Most who post here [apz] claim to take their inspiration from zen, as
befits a list about zen philosophy. If the major tenet of your approach
is existentialism, I think that would more befit an existentialist
newsgroup, or one with a hybrid name, such as alt.zen.existentialism.
This is still primarily a zen list, though many have one or another
eclectic or individualistic approach to the subject.
Robert
Robert Epstein
2004-04-14 21:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another is
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive one.
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial irrational
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real application
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of living.
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms spirits
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me you
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.

Robert
,
2004-04-14 23:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another is
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive one.
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial irrational
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real application
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of living.
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms spirits
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me you
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
You can take the Zen out of the Zen
But you can't take the Zen out of the Zen
Robert Epstein
2004-04-15 05:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raan
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another
is
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive
one.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial
irrational
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real
application
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of
living.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms
spirits
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me
you
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
You can take the Zen out of the Zen
But you can't take the Zen out of the Zen
I agree with that! but it really doesn't matter....


robert
Lifeform Bri
2004-04-15 02:11:02 UTC
Permalink
Robbie. Do you mind if I call you Robbie. Listen, how about we cut a deal.
You stop crossposting and I won't tell the police about what you've been
doing to those poor snakes.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another is
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive one.
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial irrational
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real application
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of living.
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms spirits
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me you
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
Raan
2004-04-16 00:32:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another is
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive one.
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial irrational
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real application
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of living.
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms spirits
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me you
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
Just the Buddhism and the Taoism.
--
Post by Robert Epstein
</>
Robert Epstein
2004-04-17 03:38:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raan
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another
is
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive
one.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial
irrational
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real
application
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of
living.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms
spirits
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me
you
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
Just the Buddhism and the Taoism.
well, all that's left of zen when you take those out are....hey, there's
nothing left!

robert
Raan
2004-04-17 10:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Existentialism is almost by definition the hybrid of philosophy and Zen.
The faith in enlightenment and anyone's ability to discern it in another
is
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
exactly the kind of discipleship attitude that blinds one from the the
attainment of awakened truth. The arbitrary separation of intellectual
insight and intuitive insight is without any real foundation except as
another faith based tenet. The fact is that intellect is based on
intuition, and the existential experience is essentially an intuitive
one.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
Those who follow Zen as disciples are more prone to artificial
irrational
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
constructs involving magical spiritual views that have no real
application
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
either to the enlightenment of others or to the everyday facts of
living.
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
In fact it may more likely tend to insanity and beliefs in phantoms
spirits
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
and ghosts. Since you made a personal recommendation it seems to me
you
Post by Robert Epstein
Post by Raan
would be more on topic in a Subjectivist group or a Taoist group anyway.
This is a zen group, and I guess it has room for those interested in
zen, whether it be from a bybrid Western perspective, or even from the
perspective of....zen itself. I mean, you don't want to take the "zen"
out of zen altogether.
Robert
Just the Buddhism and the Taoism.
well, all that's left of zen when you take those out are....hey, there's
nothing left!
robert
--
Post by Robert Epstein
</>
Awaken21
2004-04-13 15:28:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
The main purpose of Buddhist practice is the extinguishment of
suffering or stress depending on how one translates the original
language. Buddhist karma is about fruits of seeds.

There are things we do and don't do that create karma, and things we
do and don't that expiate or resolve it, and things we do and don't do
that don't create karma at all. The goal is to naturally act or not in
such way as to resolve karma or not create it. Thereby breaking free
of suffering created by it.
Allen L. Barker
2004-04-13 23:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Awaken21
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
The main purpose of Buddhist practice is the extinguishment of
suffering or stress depending on how one translates the original
language. Buddhist karma is about fruits of seeds.
There are things we do and don't do that create karma, and things we
do and don't that expiate or resolve it, and things we do and don't do
that don't create karma at all. The goal is to naturally act or not in
such way as to resolve karma or not create it. Thereby breaking free
of suffering created by it.
For a traditional Zen perspective, one might also look at Case 2 of
The Gateless Gate (Mumonkan) koan collection, included below. The
version below is translated by Katsuki Sekida. For someone unfamiliar
with Zen koans it may be a bit confusing, especially without a good
teisho (commentary). At some level, though, I suppose they are
supposed to be :-). For someone interested in koan study, there
are koan collections available with teishos. Zenkei Shibayama, for
example, has authored and had translated _Zen Comments on the
Mumonkan_, which I recommend highly. By the way, Shibayama describes
this koan as a nanto koan. Nanto koans are koans "used for refining
a students' spirituality after satori."


----------


Case 2: Hyakujõ's Fox
http://www.pinehillzendo.org/mumonkan/case_2.html

When Hyakujõ Oshõ delivered a certain series of sermons, an old man
always followed the monks to the main hall and listened to him. When
the monks left the hall, the old man would also leave. One day,
however, he remained behind, and Hyakujõ asked him, "Who are you,
standing here before me?" The old man replied. "I am not a human
being. In the old days of Kashyapa Buddha, I was a head monk, living
here on this mountain. One day a student asked me, 'Does a man of
enlightenment fall under the yoke of causation or not?' I answered,
'No, he does not.' Since then I have been doomed to undergo five
hundred rebirths as a fox. I beg you now to give the turning word to
release me from my life as a fox. Tell me, does a man of
enlightenment fall under the yoke of causation or not?" Hyakujõ
answered, "He does not ignore causation." No sooner had the old man
heard these words than he was enlightened. Making his bows, he said,
"I am emancipated from my life as a fox. I shall remain on this
mountain. I have a favor to ask of you: would you please bury my
body as that of a dead monk."

Hyakujõ had the director of the monks strike with the gavel and
inform everyone that after the midday meal there would be a funeral
service for a dead monk. The monks wondered at this, saying,
"Everyone is in good health; nobody is in the sick ward. What does
this mean?" After the meal Hyakujõ led the monks to the foot of a
rock on the far side of the mountain and with his staff poked out
the dead body of a fox and performed the ceremony of cremation.
That evening he ascended the rostrum and told the monks the whole
story. Õbaku thereupon asked him, "The old man gave the wrong
answer and was doomed to be a fox for five hundred rebirths. Now,
suppose he had given the right answer, what would have happened
then?" Hyakujõ said, "You come here to me, and I will tell you."
Õbaku went up to Hyakujõ and boxed his ears. Hyakujõ clapped his
hands with a laugh and exclaimed, "I was thinking that the barbarian
had a red beard, but now I see before me the red-bearded barbarian
himself."

Mumon's Comment

Not falling under causation: how could this make the monk a fox?
Not ignoring causation: how could this make the old man
emancipated? If you come to understand this, you will realize how
old Hyakujõ would have enjoyed five hundred rebirths as a fox.

Mumon's Verse

Not falling, not ignoring:
Two faces of one die.
Not ignoring, not falling:
A thousand errors, a million mistakes.
--
It is easy to know the Nirvana mind but difficult to attain the wisdom
of differentiation. (http://www.pinehillzendo.org/mumonkan/index.html)
--
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
Ch'an Fu
2004-04-14 00:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Allen L. Barker
Post by Awaken21
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
The main purpose of Buddhist practice is the extinguishment of
suffering or stress depending on how one translates the original
language. Buddhist karma is about fruits of seeds.
There are things we do and don't do that create karma, and things we
do and don't that expiate or resolve it, and things we do and don't do
that don't create karma at all. The goal is to naturally act or not in
such way as to resolve karma or not create it. Thereby breaking free
of suffering created by it.
For a traditional Zen perspective, one might also look at Case 2 of
The Gateless Gate (Mumonkan) koan collection, included below.
One might, indeed.
But one might also ask what you make of it.
From that, what's your own teisho?
Allen L. Barker
2004-04-14 01:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ch'an Fu
Post by Allen L. Barker
Post by Awaken21
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
The main purpose of Buddhist practice is the extinguishment of
suffering or stress depending on how one translates the original
language. Buddhist karma is about fruits of seeds.
There are things we do and don't do that create karma, and things we
do and don't that expiate or resolve it, and things we do and don't do
that don't create karma at all. The goal is to naturally act or not in
such way as to resolve karma or not create it. Thereby breaking free
of suffering created by it.
For a traditional Zen perspective, one might also look at Case 2 of
The Gateless Gate (Mumonkan) koan collection, included below.
One might, indeed.
But one might also ask what you make of it.
From that, what's your own teisho?
I'll stick with referring anyone interested to Shibayama's
teisho for now, especially given the general nature of the
original inquiry.
--
Mind Control: TT&P ==> http://www.datafilter.com/mc
Home page: http://www.datafilter.com/alb
Allen Barker
norbu_tragri
2004-04-15 10:19:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Arun
I am interested in finding out the interpretations of Karma in
hinduism and Buddhism. Could someone enlighten me? I know Karma in
Hinduism is about achieving moksha(salavation). How is it in Buddhism?
Liam, Nick, Tang, and others have posted good responses that agree
with what the Buddha taught. Here is a summary of those teachings,
followed by some excerpts from the Buddha's teachings in the suttas.

(i'll try to post on the differences, sims to 'hindu' ideas of 'karma'
in a day or two.)
----

The following is based on the Pali Suttas, and sources are posted
below.

1. Frustration/suffering

Three types of actions and results:
Karma is of three types: actions with good results, actions with bad
results, and actions with mixed/uncertain results.

2. The Origin Of Frustration/Suffering

A. Complexity of karma
These three results may seem larger or smaller than their causes,
results may follow quickly, or may take ages... Our own actions are
like a seed that has traveled on a wind, then we interact with the
ground; most of what happens is due to our forming karma, but some
things happen that are not such results.
Trying to predict exact results of such complex karma leads only to
frustration. Seeing this, we begin to sense that karmic formations
occur in a background of ignorance/bewilderment...

B. Conditioned Co-production
Resultant karma: following our actions are an interactive mesh of
consciousness(about them) -- concept/paradigm -- senses --
contact-with-sense-objects...leading up to a feeling as the result.
It is here that buddhist practice is directed: to experience all
resultant feelings with equanimity.
Not to block out good or bad or uncertain feelings, or to make
everything grey...just to be open to whatever resultant feelings
happen and to let it go at that.

C. Self views
If we react to resultant feelings with further
bewiderment/self-concepts we form motives ("craving/thirst")
based on hope/fear/ignoring ; from this we grasp at situations to
fulfill our desires; this then is further karma-formation
("becoming")....then the viscious circle (samsara) of being evolved in
stressful situations continues ("birth" and "decay-and-death"). [See
the sutta posted below on the twelve links of the chain of conditioned
co-production.]

3. Liberation from frustration/suffering

The reactions that suck us into frustration/suffering do not have to
happen:

4. The Path of Liberation

The Eightfold Path Does Not Produce Good Or Bad (or Uncertain) Karma:

The Buddha taught a path of cutting the chain reactions between
resultant feelings and new cravings.
This path has three main aspects: study/intellect, meditation, and
ethics/everyday-life. These are refered to as "complete" (samyak,
usually translated as "right") ways in that they do not create further
imballances and karma-formation.

study/intellect:
complete view
complete resolve

meditation:
complete effort
complete mindfulness
complete integrity/awareness

ethics:
complete speech
complete action
complete livelihood

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are the quotes from the suttas that are the basis for this
summary (sorry, i didn't have time to put them in order to the
categories of the summary):

Three kinds of fabrications: meritorious fabrications [ripening in
pleasure], demeritorious fabrications [ripening in pain], &
imperturbable fabrications [the formless states of jhana].
[DN 33]

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts:
There is right view with fermentations, siding with merit, resulting
in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right view,
without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit,
& results in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered,
what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions.
There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There
are spontaneously reborn beings; there are priests & contemplatives
who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the
next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This
is the right view that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results
in acquisitions."

[MN 117]

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark
nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right
resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort,
right mindfulness, right concentration."

[AN IV.237]

"Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of
saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming --
i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed
meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing,
charming results.....
Train in acts of merit
that bring long-lasting bliss --
develop giving,
a life in tune,
a mind of good-will.
Developing these
three things
that bring about bliss,
the wise reappear
in a world of bliss
unalloyed.

[Iti 22]

"Monks, there are these eight rewards of merit, rewards of
skillfulness, nourishments of happiness, celestial, resulting in
happiness, leading to heaven, leading to what is desirable,
pleasurable, & appealing, to benefit & happiness. Which eight?
"There is the case where a noble disciple has gone to the Buddha for
refuge. This is the first reward of merit...

"Furthermore, the noble disciple has gone to the Dhamma for refuge.
This is the second reward of merit...

"Furthermore, the noble disciple has gone to the Sangha for refuge.
This is the third reward of merit...

"Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts -- original,
long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from
the beginning -- that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to
suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives &
priests. Which five?

"There is the case where a noble disciple, abandoning the taking of
life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from
danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless
numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from
animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he
gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from
animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the
first great gift -- original, long-standing, traditional, ancient,
unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning -- that is not open to
suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by
knowledgeable contemplatives & priests. And this is the fourth reward
of merit...

"Furthermore, abandoning taking what is not given (stealing), the
noble disciple abstains from taking what is not given... from illicit
sex... from lying...

"Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the noble disciple
abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from
danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless
numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from
animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he
gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from
animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the fifth gift, the
fifth great gift -- original, long-standing, traditional, ancient,
unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning -- that is not open to
suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by
knowledgeable contemplatives & priests. And this is the eighth reward
of merit, reward of skillfulness, nourishment of happiness, celestial,
resulting in happiness, leading to heaven, leading to what is
desirable, pleasurable, & appealing; to benefit & to happiness.

[AN VIII.39]

"Beings are the owners of their kamma, heir to their kamma, born of
their kamma, related through their kamma, and have their kamma as
their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in
terms of coarseness & refinement."

[MN 135]

[Uttara the deva's son:]
"Life is swept along,
next-to-nothing its span.
For one swept on by aging
no shelters exist.
Perceiving this danger in death,
one should do deeds of merit
that bring about bliss."

[The Buddha:]
"Life is swept along,
next-to-nothing its span.
For one swept on by aging
no shelters exist.
Perceiving this danger in death,
one should drop the world's bait
and look for peace."

[SN II.19]

"There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person --
who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in
their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not
well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- does not discern what
ideas are fit for attention or what ideas are unfit for attention.
This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention and
attends [instead] to ideas unfit for attention...
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not
in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having
been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I
not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in
the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else
he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not?
What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it
bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
established, or the view I have no self ... or the view It is
precisely by means of self that I perceive self ... or the view It is
precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self ... or the view It
is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him
as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self
of mine -- the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening
of good & bad actions -- is the self of mine that is constant,
everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long
as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views,
a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound
by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not
freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
stress.

"The well-instructed noble disciple -- who has regard for noble ones,
is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men
of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma -- discerns
what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for
attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for
attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention...

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination
of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way
leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in
this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt,
and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the
fermentations to be abandoned by seeing."

[MN 2]

A certain brahman: "Now then, Master Gotama: Is the one who acts the
same one who experiences [the results of the act]?"
The Buddha: "[To say,] 'The one who acts is the same one who
experiences,' is one extreme."

The brahman: "Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other
than the one who experiences?"

The Buddha: "[To say,] 'The one who acts is someone other than the one
who experiences,' is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these
extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by means of the middle:

"From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.

"From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.

"From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.

"From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.

"From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.

"From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.

"From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.

"From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.

"From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.

"From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.

"From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the
origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form... the cessation
of the six sense media... the cessation of contact... the cessation of
feeling... the cessation of craving... cessation of
clinging/sustenance... the cessation of becoming... the cessation of
birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow,
lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the
cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

[SN XII.46]

The Buddha: "From ignorance as a requisite condition come
fabrications... From birth as a requisite condition, then old age &
death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
When this was said, a certain monk said to the Blessed One: "Which
aging & death, lord? And to whom does this aging & death belong?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. If a monk were to ask,
'Which aging & death? And to whom does this aging & death belong?' and
if a monk were to ask, 'Is aging & death one thing, and does it belong
to someone/something else?' both of them would have the same meaning,
even though their words would differ. When a monk is of the view that
the soul is the same as the body, there is no leading the holy life.
And when a monk is of the view that the soul is one thing and the body
another, there is no leading the holy life. Avoiding these two
extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma in between them: From
birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death."

"Which birth, lord? And to whom does this birth belong?"

"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said.

(Similarly with all the requisite conditions down to fabrications.)

"...Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata points out the Dhamma
in between them: From ignorance as requisite condition come
fabrications. Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that
very ignorance, every one of these writhings & wrigglings & wigglings
-- 'Which aging & death? And to whom does this aging & death belong?'
or 'Is aging & death one thing, and does it belong to
someone/something else?' or 'The soul is the same as the body,' or
'The soul is one thing and the body another' -- are abandoned, their
root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions
of existence, not destined for future arising."

(Similarly with all the requisite conditions down to fabrications.)

[SN XII.35]

"Or... he may have a view such as this: "This self is the same as the
cosmos. This I will be after death, constant, lasting, eternal, not
subject to change." This eternalist view is a fabrication... Or... he
may have a view such as this: "I would not be, neither would there be
what is mine. I will not be, neither will there be what is mine." This
annihilationist view is a fabrication... Or... he may be doubtful &
uncertain, having come to no conclusion with regard to the true
Dhamma. That doubt, uncertainty, & coming-to-no-conclusion is a
fabrication.

"What is the cause... of that fabrication? To an uninstructed,
run-of-the-mill person, touched by what is felt born of contact with
ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication is born of that. And that
fabrication is inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. That
craving... That feeling... That contact... That ignorance is
inconstant, fabricated, dependently co-arisen. It is by knowing &
seeing in this way that one without delay puts an end to the (mental)
fermentations."

[SN XXII.81]

"If a person immersed in ignorance fabricates a meritorious
fabrication, his consciousness goes on to merit. If he fabricates a
demeritorious fabrication, his consciousness goes on to demerit. If he
fabricates an imperturbable fabrication, his consciousness goes on to
the imperturbable. When ignorance is abandoned by a monk, clear
knowing arises. From the fading of ignorance and the arising of
knowledge, he neither fabricates a meritorious fabrication nor a
demeritorious fabrication nor an imperturbable fabrication. Neither
fabricating nor willing, he is not sustained by anything in the world.
Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound
right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life
fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

[SN XII.51]

"Venerable sirs, whatever has been brought into being, is fabricated,
willed, dependently co-arisen, that is inconstant. Whatever is
inconstant is stress. Whatever is stress is not mine, is not what I
am, is not my self. Having seen this well with right discernment as it
actually is present, I also discern the higher escape from it as it
actually is present."

[AN X.93]

"This, monks, the Tathagata discerns. And he discerns that these
standpoints, thus seized, thus held to, lead to such & such a
destination, to such & such a state in the world beyond. And he
discerns what surpasses this. And yet discerning that, he does not
hold to that act of discernment. And as he is not holding to it,
Unbinding (nibbuti) is experienced right within. Knowing, for what
they are, the origin, ending, allure, & drawbacks of feelings, along
with the emancipation from feelings, the Tathagata, monks -- through
lack of clinging/sustenance -- is released."
[DN 1]

"Monks, these three are causes for the origination of actions. Which
three? Greed is a cause for the origination of actions. Aversion is a
cause for the origination of actions. Delusion is a cause for the
origination of actions.
"Any action performed with greed -- born of greed, caused by greed,
originating from greed: wherever one's selfhood turns up, there that
action will ripen. Where that action ripens, there one will experience
its fruit, either in this very life that has arisen or further along
in the sequence.

"Any action performed with aversion; .... delusion ......

"Now, these three are [further] causes for the origination of actions.
Which three? Non-greed is a cause for the origination of actions.
Non-aversion is a cause for the origination of actions. Non-delusion
is a cause for the origination of actions.

"Any action performed with non-greed -- born of non-greed, caused by
non-greed, originating from non-greed: When greed is gone, that action
is thus abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree,
deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future
arising.

"Any action performed with non-aversion; .... non-delusion ......

A person unknowing:
the actions performed by him,
born of greed, born of aversion,
& born of delusion,
whether many or few,
are experienced right here:
no other ground is found.[1]
So a monk, knowing,
sheds
greed, aversion, & delusion;
giving rise to clear knowledge, he
sheds
all bad destinations.[2]

Notes
1. According to the Commentary, "right here" means within the stream
of one's own "selfhood" (attabhava), i.e., one's own chain of rebirth.
"No other ground is found" means that the fruit of the action is not
experienced by any other person's chain of rebirth. [Go back]
2. The Commentary notes that this verse refers to the attainment of
arahantship, and that an arahant -- in reaching nibbana -- sheds not
only bad destinations, but also good ones.

[AN III.33]

§ 13. The Buddha: 'For anyone who says, "In whatever way a person
makes kamma, that is how it is experienced," there is no living of the
holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But
for anyone who says, "When a person makes kamma to be felt in such &
such a way, that is how its result is experienced," there is the
living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending
of stress.

'There is the case where a trifling evil deed done by a certain
individual takes him to hell. There is the case where the very same
sort of trifling deed done by another individual is experienced in the
here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.

'Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual takes him
to hell? There is the case where a certain individual is undeveloped
in [contemplating] the body, undeveloped in virtue, undeveloped in
mind, undeveloped in discernment: restricted, small-hearted, dwelling
with suffering. A trifling evil act done by this sort of individual
takes him to hell.

'Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is
experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is
developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed
in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted,
dwelling with the unlimited. A trifling evil act done by this sort of
individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part
barely appears for a moment.

'Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of
water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?'

'Yes, lord...'

'Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River
Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become
salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?'

'No, lord...'

'In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by
one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case
where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual
is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears
for a moment.'

-- AN III.99

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

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

There are cases where some feelings arise based on phlegm... based on
internal winds... based on a combination of bodily humors... from the
change of the seasons... from uneven ('out-of-tune') care of the
body... from attacks... from the result of kamma. You yourself should
know how some feelings arise from the result of kamma. Even the world
is agreed on how some feelings arise from the result of kamma.

***So any priests & contemplatives who are of the doctrine & view that
whatever an individual feels -- pleasure, pain, neither
pleasure-nor-pain -- is entirely caused by what was done before --
slip past what they themselves know, slip past what is agreed on by
the world. Therefore I say that those priests & contemplatives are
wrong.***

-- SN XXXVI.21
-----------------

So formations exist only when ignorance exists, not
when it does not; and that is how it can be known that these
formations have ignorance as their condition.
This is said too:
" Not knowing, bhikkhus, in ignorance, he
forms the formation of merit, forms the formation of demerit,
forms the formation of the imperturbable. As soon as a
bhikkhu's ignorance is'abandoned and clear vision arisen,
bhikkhus, with the fading away of ignorance and the arising
of clear vision he does not form even formations of merit."
(cf.S.ii,82).
[Visuddhimagga, XII, 64.]


By whom was wrought this puppet?
Where is the puppet's maker?
And where does the puppet arise?
Where is the puppet stopped?

Not made by self is this puppet,
Nor is this misfortune made by others.
Conditioned by cause it comes to be,
By breaking of cause is it stopped.
........
By whom was wrought this being?
Where is the being's maker?
Where does the being arise?
Where is the being stopped?

Why do you harp on 'being'?
lt is a false view for you.
A mere heap of samkharas,
this Here no 'being' is got at.

For as when the parts are rightly set
We utter the word 'chariot',
So when there are the khandhas
By convention, 'there is a being' we say.

For it is simply suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that perishes and wanes,
Not other than suffering comes to be,
Naught else than suffering is stopped.

[SN I, 134 ; 35]
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...