juantoo3 said:
It is this concept of forgiveness I believe to be foreign to Buddhism, but the concept of bearing the scars of one's "sins" seems to be elemental to your description, if not now then in a future life. Is this correct?
Namaste Juan,
yes, you are correct. though "sin" isn't the word we'd normally use... try, instead.. unskillful action.
iirc stands for: If I recall correctly... something i've picked up in my internet exploration
Understood. Whereas, rather than a "judge" to direct traffic, some form of automatic pilot or rheostat or elemental control directs the same energy manifestation that equates between the two disciplines as "soul," yes? Different traffic cop analogies between the two traditions, yet traffic is still routed and directed.
no soul to direct in our tradition
![Smile :) :)]()
other than that term... yes... the energy can perhaps be conceputalized in the same fashion... however... i feel that i'm leaving you with some inaccurate understandings... and i deeply apologize. there is no traffic cop... no indepedent entity.. that directs your karmic energy in any sort of conscious sense. ones karmic energy arises like a shadow clings to form.... it's a completely natural outcome of the process of intending.
If things aren't born and don't die, then what purpose and why the emphasis on karma. Maybe better stated, why the emphasis on Karma if in the end it really doesn't matter anyway? Even in considering the comment "only that being itself, can create the causes and conditions for it to cease," (which I presume to imply nirvana, or my understanding of it), if energy (and by extension, matter) cannot be destroyed, then either nirvana is an impossible goal, or it is merely the place to begin everything all over again. Which returns me to my earlier question, why, if it doesn't really matter anyway?
this is a very good question... and one which i'm only able to give a partial and inadequate answer.
remember our teaching of the two truths? this is going to be an important aspect to grasp to understand why the teachings are as they are. in any event... the Buddha taught the doctrine of karma to sentient beings that believed that their actions had no consequences.. that, "in the end, it doesn't matter." the Buddha rebuked this notion and taught that all intentions produce karma.. in essence, karma is the fruit of our intentions, whether positive, negative or neutral.
for beings that held the mistaken view that our actions are the sole criteria by which we make progress along the spiritual path, the Buddha taught the teaching of Shunyata or Emptiness. where there is no "self" who makes progress along a spiritual path.
one of the really tricky bits that we tend to overlook or misconstrue is that the Buddhist teachings were expounded for a particular group of beings at a particular time and place. as such, not every teaching is applicable for every being... and this has caused a great deal of confusion amongst later Buddhists, especially those that come from the west.
now... the rest of this converstation should, probably, be under one of the religious sections of the site... nevertheless...
nirvana is not the final teaching.. nirvana was taught as a way point.. a resting place, if you will, along the spiritual journey... it is not, however, the destination or goal of the practice. this gets into some rather technical areas of discussion which i'd rather leave aside for now.. at least on this particular section of the site.
let's talk about this bit for a moment... we both understand that energy is matter.. and that energy cannot be destroyed. from the Buddhist view, this means that energy is not born.. for anything born, dies and decays. our consciousness or mind, if you will, is energy... and thus, also, was never born and will not die. this is, of course, a more modern view of this subject.. but one that has a great deal of relevance for a modern person versed in scientific theories.