I may be mistaken...

[Snoopy]

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."

— AN 5.57

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Yes, this is the difference I was trying (and failing!) to point out. Vipaka is not a judgment, simply the fruit of the karma.

That's just it, judgement is simply the fruit of righteous and sinful actions.

Maybe so. Which possibly leads back to what exactly is meant by “judgement.” If “judgement”, whatever we may mean by that, is by an outside agency, then it is not a part of karma I believe.

I can't help but feel that "outside agency" is a red herring (something for Seattlegal to slap around!). It is an irrelevance to some, insomuch that G-d IS. We seem to be still fixated on the "guy behind the gavel." The reality is far closer to the natural reaction from any given action.

Karma is either “wholesome” or “unwholesome” and the criterion for judging this is the underlying intention (the motive or root of the action). The unwholesome roots are traditionally greed, hatred and delusion, the wholesome roots their opposites. But this “judging” does not involve any external agency; karma is concerned with the operation of a law.

I suppose the analogues in Christianity can become mired in nuance and detail, in that the seven deadly sins as I recall (was not a significant teaching to cross my path) include two of the three mentioned. Delusion though, is a vague term that can be used to smack of "triumphalism" and "exclusivity." (If you don't agree with us, you must be delusional...and we can't have you being delusional, now can we? That would generate negative karma...)

In short, karma does require an external agency...the Tao, the Absolute, the IS...the exact same agency I have been calling by the term G-d.

 

[Snoopy]

I suppose the analogues in Christianity can become mired in nuance and detail, in that the seven deadly sins as I recall (was not a significant teaching to cross my path) include two of the three mentioned. Delusion though, is a vague term that can be used to smack of "triumphalism" and "exclusivity." (If you don't agree with us, you must be delusional...and we can't have you being delusional, now can we? That would generate negative karma...)

Delusion is a a central notion (aren't they all) in Buddhism, it means very specifically ignorance as to the true nature of reality. I don't think it's meant to be triumphalist or exclusive.

In short, karma does require an external agency...the Tao, the Absolute, the IS...the exact same agency I have been calling by the term G-d.

Eeeeeh, this compartive stuff's hard going isn't it??!! I'm off to bed now...

s.

 

[Quahom1]

Delusion is a a central notion (aren't they all) in Buddhism, it means very specifically ignorance as to the true nature of reality. I don't think it's meant to be triumphalist or exclusive.




Eeeeeh, this compartive stuff's hard going isn't it??!! I'm off to bed now...

s.

It's only 1630...oh, yeah, forgot, you civilians need your beauty rest...

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

None the less I like to think that because I pursue honesty I have the base of Judgment covered.

Likewise I want to believe that a pursuit of honesty will indeed go far in covering the bases, if the practical application still results in the basic foundational principles.

Put another way...the foundational principles are what is important. Everything else; astral projection, working of miracles, prescient vision, healing, are all icing on the cake to provide evidence of the value and substance of the foundational principles. Circumstantial evidence I will grant, but real evidence on a personal basis to those who look to see. (Those who don't look to see, wouldn't notice if it smacked them upside the head anyway). Just the same, these added benefits are not essential or necessary to pass muster when the time comes.

If there is this man-like entity thats going to judge my history I feel reasonably confident that it will see my history as that of someone struggling to discern the truth in an ocean of bull. Is there fault in that?

What fault I see is in the assumption of a "man-like entity." I don't see that, and even as a child was never comfortable with that description. As a young man in earnest pursuit of honesty, I didn't find that in the Bible regarding the Heavenly Father either. Yes, we all too often do refer to the IS in human terms, painting a human face (or humanly derived face) so we can better associate with that which has no face as we typically understand "face" to mean.

Conceptually, I find no fault with your pursuit. I suspect those of us who take the time here, are in pursuit in one form or another (else, why do we bother?). Those who seek with sincerity, will find. I simply find it intriguing how similar our essential findings turn out to be, for the most part.

Where we differ, ultimately is unimportant.

Reality ....and I mean reality, is infinitely complex and far beyond the necessities of social laws for man. Which is what all the God books really are....to me. I find religion a bit archaic. I find belief strengthened in every insight into the beautiful and improbable place that is our universe. If we are to be judged then surely it will be on what resides in our hearts. If so I live without fear of that day.

I agree with you regarding religion in the institutional sense. Religion in the personal sense though, what might be termed personal spiritual pursuit, is another matter. I do not *need* religion to pursue a spirit quest. Of course, like someone insistent on learning every lesson the hard way, the quest without a guide can be difficult at best. Not impossible, just more difficult without established guides and markers. Institutional religion in the purest sense, devoid of politics, provides guides and markers that assist in one's spirit quest.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Delusion is a a central notion (aren't they all) in Buddhism, it means very specifically ignorance as to the true nature of reality. I don't think it's meant to be triumphalist or exclusive.

In my meager experience, it seems to me central tenets in Buddhism are difficult to nail down.

I would posit that that "true" nature of reality is as yet still unknown to humans. To wit; Buddhism is continually willing to modify its "beliefs" as new understandings come about. Ergo, Buddhism still hasn't nailed down just what reality actually is yet, any better than any other path. We still don't know, we are all guessing, every one us. We take on faith a path that appeals to some part of us, and we apply ourselves according to our understanding and ability, and hope that it will all turn out alright in the end. We trust in what we believe to get us to where we intuitively feel we need to be.

The motive to strive for reality as reality is, to continually seek it out and express it as currently understood, is noble in the sense that Buddhism tries to maintain a flexibility in its view. Perhaps one day to actually find reality as it is? I don't know, but I think what is crucial is whether this pursuit is truly important in the end if the foundational principles are ignored in the process? Without the application of the foundational principles, such pursuit is hollow and meaningless, no? Would it not be equivalent to "dogmatising and doctrinalizing" the menu, rather than enjoying the meal?

Kinda like superstitiously putting one's faith in a book because it has "Bible" written on the cover, rather than actively practicing what the book teaches inside... The "power" is not in the paper, binding and cover. The power is in the teachings within...

Eeeeeh, this compartive stuff's hard going isn't it??!!

You could say that again!

 

[Tao_Equus]

Juantoo,

Seek and yee shall find!!

Whenever I use the word religion I am always referring to the organised structures. I use the word faith for peoples personal relationship to divine principles. Maybe it causes some confusion.

People that take the effort to think and to debate with everybody here are making some effort however much each of us may argue if that effort is worth sharing You are right that to tread the path alone and unguided may not prevent the completion of the journey but will make it a lot harder. In some ways its like a real journey in the here and now. Having travelled a lot, without a strict regimen, I met some wonderful people who took me down paths I never otherwise would have discovered. Many of these resulted in my most profound experiences and most treasured memories. There are a few folk here I hold in very high regard and I have the feeling few of them would guess it I love this place because it challenges me to make some kind of sense out of what I have collected down the years. And I love many of the people here because they force me to think in directions I might not have considered. I might not always agree with much of what is said... but I see no fault in cherry-picking.

What I was referring to as being anthropic was this notion of Judgement. I just feel that the entity that could be responsible for the entirety of creation, or even for life on Earth alone would not have such human notions. The concept of Judgement is a tool of social regulation and that alone. That is why it is universal amongst man, because all societies pass judgement on those that transgress the laws. A real God, in my opinion, would be well above this. A God as omnipotent as portrayed in the big religions has the power to cleanse and heal every broken mind, but instead he rejects them and casts them to eternal suffering!! This is the language of a cold dictator not a God of love. So I just cant swallow judgement as being something we face under the gaze of God. It's just too human.

I cant focus on screen anymore...so time to wrap it for the night.

regards

te

edit: failed to answer 1 particular point...will return to it next time nite nite.

 

[Snoopy]

It's only 1630...oh, yeah, forgot, you civilians need your beauty rest...

if it's for beauty then don't wake me till 2100 (the year, that is)

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Conceptually, I find no fault with your pursuit. I suspect those of us who take the time here, are in pursuit in one form or another (else, why do we bother?). Those who seek with sincerity, will find. I simply find it intriguing how similar our essential findings turn out to be, for the most part.
Where we differ, ultimately is unimportant.
I agree with you regarding religion in the institutional sense. Religion in the personal sense though, what might be termed personal spiritual pursuit, is another matter. I do not *need* religion to pursue a spirit quest. Of course, like someone insistent on learning every lesson the hard way, the quest without a guide can be difficult at best. Not impossible, just more difficult without established guides and markers. Institutional religion in the purest sense, devoid of politics, provides guides and markers that assist in one's spirit quest.

Hi juan, Tao and anyone else!,

To me, some people are like, and seem happy to be like, transmitters of a belief system. They communicate, in a literalist sense, their mantras from their holy books and there is no “input” or evaluation of the material by themselves as it is considered unnecessary and probably wrong. Fine, if that works for you (and doesn’t cause a war…) but this is not meaningful to me. For me, presently, I’m interested in the teachings of the Buddha. That doesn’t mean I rote learn the sutras. It means I evaluate what I read from various sources and see to what extent they have meaning or value to me. I accept, reject, or put on hold what I read. I have a sceptical, critical turn of mind I suppose which is just one reason why I can relate to the dharma (the words of the Buddha) – the kalama sutra and all that. I like to think that I could read something in a “Buddhist book” and say “well that seems like a lot of ********” and if the Buddha was there next to me I reckon he’d say “Fine, if that’s where your head’s at”. Of course if he didn’t like it he’d have to go away!
So for me, for now, I’m interested in the dharma, I’m not interested in taking on board a belief system (which is what I would call a religion, e.g. Buddhism).

s.

 

[Snoopy]

In my meager experience, it seems to me central tenets in Buddhism are difficult to nail down.

Ha yes! It’s like a wriggly worm! Dependent arising, the four seals and the four noble truths would be my desert island choices. (Does that count as evangelising?)

I would posit that that "true" nature of reality is as yet still unknown to humans. To wit; Buddhism is continually willing to modify its "beliefs" as new understandings come about. Ergo, Buddhism still hasn't nailed down just what reality actually is yet, any better than any other path. We still don't know, we are all guessing, every one us. We take on faith a path that appeals to some part of us, and we apply ourselves according to our understanding and ability, and hope that it will all turn out alright in the end. We trust in what we believe to get us to where we intuitively feel we need to be.

I think in the early stages at least, one may find a resonance with our own thinking and the “truth” of it seems self-evident. Anything that is new or different to our experience we might have to try and glean our opinion from how it pans out. Yes, the words you have underlined have a part to play in all our “paths”. As Seung Sahn said “Maintain don’t know mind.” I do try…

The motive to strive for reality as reality is, to continually seek it out and express it as currently understood, is noble in the sense that Buddhism tries to maintain a flexibility in its view. Perhaps one day to actually find reality as it is? I don't know, but I think what is crucial is whether this pursuit is truly important in the end if the foundational principles are ignored in the process? Without the application of the foundational principles, such pursuit is hollow and meaningless, no? Would it not be equivalent to "dogmatising and doctrinalizing" the menu, rather than enjoying the meal?

As there is no single authority (book or person) regarding the dharma, asking a “Buddhist” something is like asking an economist. Ask 100 economists the same question and you’ll get 100 answers! The suttas of the Pali canon may not change, but their translation may, and so their meaning, and their interpretation…(in my opinion!)

Kinda like superstitiously putting one's faith in a book because it has "Bible" written on the cover, rather than actively practicing what the book teaches inside... The "power" is not in the paper, binding and cover. The power is in the teachings within...

Oh yes. If it’s not your life then it’s just an interesting book that you once read.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Having travelled a lot, without a strict regimen, I met some wonderful people who took me down paths I never otherwise would have discovered. Many of these resulted in my most profound experiences and most treasured memories.

Hi Tao,

Do tell.

There are a few folk here I hold in very high regard and I have the feeling few of them would guess it

What, like niranjan?

s.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Tao,

Do tell.



What, like niranjan?

s.

I am setting up a blog site that will have some of my stories with associated pics. When I have it ready you will be first to know

No Niranjan was not 1.

 

[Snoopy]

I am setting up a blog site that will have some of my stories with associated pics. When I have it ready you will be first to know

Cheers, bud!

No Niranjan was not 1.

You do surprise me

s.

 

[Snoopy]

In short, karma does require an external agency...the Tao, the Absolute, the IS...the exact same agency I have been calling by the term G-d.

Thanks to Vaj for providing these links elsewhere...


Do Buddhist believe in god?



"What is it that may be rightly called the Ultimate?

Buddhist: Dharma, the highest truth, the purest form of goodness, is what may best be called the Ultimate. Yet as the literal embodiment of this purest goodness, a buddha too may be called ultimate. But regardless of whether buddhas existed in the world, or whether they did not, there would still be Dharma, purely in and of itself.

Theist: God alone may be called the Ultimate. It is the existence of God which defines goodness. Goodness is not a principle which is embodied or embraced by God. Rather it is from the nature of God that any and all goodness issues forth. Were it not for God, there could be no ultimate, no goodness, nor any thing at all."

Oil and Water

s.

 

[Muslimwoman]

whether it be the ruthless damnation of Islam

Hi TE

I don't want to get into another 'rose tinted specs' convo with you so I shall just say



Salaam

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi TE

I don't want to get into another 'rose tinted specs' convo with you so I shall just say



Salaam

Sorry... I read it again the next day and wished I had phrased it differently .... if thats any consolation.

Regards

TE

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Thanks for this.

Thanks to Vaj for providing these links elsewhere...


Do Buddhist believe in god?



"What is it that may be rightly called the Ultimate?

Buddhist: Dharma, the highest truth, the purest form of goodness, is what may best be called the Ultimate. Yet as the literal embodiment of this purest goodness, a buddha too may be called ultimate. But regardless of whether buddhas existed in the world, or whether they did not, there would still be Dharma, purely in and of itself.

Theist: God alone may be called the Ultimate. It is the existence of God which defines goodness. Goodness is not a principle which is embodied or embraced by God. Rather it is from the nature of God that any and all goodness issues forth. Were it not for God, there could be no ultimate, no goodness, nor any thing at all."

Oil and Water

s.

I suppose that is one theistic interpretation, but not the interpretation I have been attempting to convey. This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Kindest Regards, Snoopy!

Thanks for this.

I suppose that is one theistic interpretation, but not the interpretation I have been attempting to convey. This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible.

Paradox indeedy!! So who/what did create God?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao!

Paradox indeedy!! So who/what did create God?

I suppose we could speculate many things, but that would rank among the highest irrelevances...

I realize this answer seems a cop out, but it is not given without merit and thought. Using the metaphor of the potter and the clay, what is the clay to demand of the potter? In other words, so what if G-d did have a creator? What bearing would that have on our existence? I see none. What is relevant is what directly concerns us in this existence...

 

[Tao_Equus]

I agree entirely that it is an irrelevant question, but since you posed the statement "This theist position would require G-d creating Himself...a paradox I simply do not see as possible" I just wondered to what extent you had mused on the question. Can you imagine a mandlebrot set of Gods?

TE