A Question Regarding The Cause of Suffering

[osiris]

So... when it is said that our craving is what causes our suffering... what of the child that is molested? the victim of rape? can you be sure that these people, in every individual case, brought upon themselves the violations they suffered through some sort of craving, some desire? would you say that these people only suffer because they desire for the traumatizing event to not have occured, that they suffer from not choosing to accept it and move on?

i would especially like to hear an answer from those who are well-studied in buddhist text.

much love :)

[osiris]

hm. no takers?


much love :)

[Sebbi]

Good question Osiris.

I think that the traditional response would be something along the line of:

We create our own realities, we do not have no control over what comes our way (e.g. being molested) but we have control over our response. Someone who has full control over their response will not respond with craving (or selfishness), avertion (in this case) or ignorance [akusala (meaning unskilful)]. They will instead respond with selflessness, compassion and understanding [kusala (skilful)].

When talking about compassion that includes being compassionate to yourself (since no person is a self as such but more of a bundle of processes, emotional, physical, volitional and otherwise, you have to be compassionate to these sides of you as not for any more suffering to arise.

OK bottom line, is: don't, just because you are trying to be selfless, treat yourself any worse than you would treat anyone else.

I hope that made sense.

Blessings

Sebbi

[osiris]

ok. but how does that keep the act of being molested or raped from being one of violation and suffering for the victim, especially a child? i think this question alone shoots a lot of holes in certain aspects of buddhist theory and practice.


much love :)

[nephthys]

" but how does that keep the act of being molested or raped from being one of violation and suffering for the victim, especially a child?"

Attachement causes suffering. If you are attached to the physical body then you will suffer as a result of this attachment when you are molested. Once you have ceased to exist you are no longer attached to your physical body and such actions will not make you suffer. I do not see the loophole you see.

[Sebbi]

I agree with Nephthys on this.

I think that a Buddha isn't faced with a lessened set of problems, they are equally suseptable to falling victim to things like rape. The difference is that they won't neccarsarily think of their issues to be problems as such.

I think that you are right that not many children would be able to practice Buddhism in the context we speak of but then again not many could anyway.

Blessings

Sebbi

[MushroomDreams]

Sometimes really shitty things happen. I’ve never mentioned this before but I have MS. I’ve had it for 17 years. If I dwell on it- I feel like shit. After all there is no cure.

Most of the time I try to look at the bright side of life. I’m not just saying this- I really live it. None of us are getting out of here alive anyway and I have a head start at experiencing impermanence.

I have lived a very full life. I’ve lived in some beautiful places and loved some beautiful women. I have lived on a commune in California and later worked on Wall Street. I’ve written a book and created a lot of artwork in my life. I all makes my happy.

I had the opportunity to study with some truly amazing spiritual teachers. I’ve seen miracles performed before my eyes. Maybe it’s my karma to go through this experience. I’ve studied the philosophy (Buddhist/Hindu) for years and now it’s the time to put into practice what I have learned. This world- this reality/illusion will end for all of us. I don’t want to carry the samscaras of my illness into another dream. I want to let it go and surrender to the void when my time comes.

My intent is to overcome all obstacles before I die.

So yeah, shitty stuff happens but that is not who we are. We are spiritual beings having a human experience.

Namaste

[Nosmo King]

If I may,

...."what of the child that is molested? the victim of rape? can you be sure that these people, in every individual case, brought upon themselves the violations they suffered through some sort of craving, some desire? would you say that these people only suffer because they desire for the traumatizing event to not have occured, that they suffer from not choosing to accept it and move on?"

It seems you are tying craving to some sort of earned negative karma.
Craving cacuses bad karma.

Am I right?
If so, I have issues with the concept of karma, but I will not get into those right now.

...."they suffer from not choosing to accept it and move on?"

I believe Buddism operates on many levels. At the highest level I think craving is what creates the universe. At a lower level would come the type of craving you seem be to questioning. If something bad happens should we dwell on it or move on. Should we wish or crave, for the event to have not happened.

What good would it do? It can not be changed, so we must move on.

Craving after what cannot be is not good.

..."ok. but how does that keep the act of being molested or raped from being one of violation and suffering for the victim, especially a child? i think this question alone shoots a lot of holes in certain aspects of buddhist theory and practice"

It dosen't. Except that craving implys someone to crave and something to crave.
If I may speak in utimate terms, there is no one to crave and nothing to be craved. The act of craving causes an artificial split in reality. This split brings on suffering as we all wish to be united in the one reality.


Make any sense?

P.S. For those of you that have been around my old name is "MeAgain" which Skip kindly reactivated for me after I screwed up the re-registering deal, so then I used "Nosmo King" now I can't seem to sign on as "MeAgain" again so I think this will post as Nosmo King.
But wehat the hey, I was becomming attached to that name and I don't want to go craving after it anyway.
LOL

[Fractual_]

a true buddhist would have transcended the ass raping.

[osiris]

ok. i dig the part you are all getting at that is pointless to desire that the past be changed, and this desire will cause unnescessary suffering... but the more important question, in relation to buddhism doctrinally, is the question as to whether or not it is the karma of a past life that causes a child to be molested in this one.

so what i am getting at is the fundamentals of buddhist belief as to the nature of re-incarnation, and how radically it can effect us. i have not, however, made it clear as yet how i feel about all this. I want to hear some explanations first.

much love :)

[nephthys]

Osiris,
"but the more important question, in relation to buddhism doctrinally, is the question as to whether or not it is the karma of a past life that causes a child to be molested in this one."

This would often be the view of more traditionalist Buddhists but essentially Karma is more relevant in explaining things within the Indian context and many do not see it as a fundamental pillar of Buddhism. For example, in Zen the concept of karma exists but essentially isn't really needed as such since it is not really concerned about the next life and pertains to enlightenment in this. Karma became a part of Buddhism mostly through adaption of the Hindu context under which Buddhism evolved. It is a bit like many aspects of Christian views on the universe; as such they are Jewish views and they remained due to the context and religion of the people but the important, new, and fundamental concepts are in a much more practical level.

[osiris]

ah, zen. yes, i love zen. but i am referring to the more deeply involved docrtinal concepts of buddhism. doesn't seem anyone wants to touch this one. doesn't surprise me.


much love :)

[Meagain]

Hey O,

I'd like to get into the question of past life and karma, which is what I think you are talking about, but I don't have the time right now as this is a very deep issue. I'm busy debateing about whether J Christ accually existed or not and I gotta go check that post.

I'll try to get back in a while.

[nephthys]

"ah, zen. yes, i love zen. but i am referring to the more deeply involved docrtinal concepts of buddhism."

In that case the child would have earned it for actions in the past life...

[ericf]

Okay,

First of all... shit happens. Just because something bad happens to you does not mean it is your fault. One of the best models of karma I have ever seen is the blind machine. Karma just rolls along... it is blind to who it affects. If you create lots of positive karma you are more likely to experience positive results but you are not immune to random negative karma running you over. This is a really bad explaination of the concept but it is a minor point.

Not all problems arise because of your own desires (cravings) and attachments. The suffering is caused by "someone's" though. A good example would be something that happened to me. I was working overnights at a gas station. One night, as I was working, I guy hit me with a tazor (stun-gun) in a failed robbery. This was not my fault. I didn't even see it as the result of some personal bad action of my own. In a way it was created by his desire and I had to deal with the negative consequences. It was just random. But how I dealt with it is what is important.

When the wheel of karma runs you over, you can accelerate the wheel or you can stop it. If I got scared, upset, pessimistic, etc... I would be accelerating the wheel. I would be creating more bad karma that would hit myself or someone else later. But I let that bad karma stop with me. I did not allow it to change who I was and I refused to pass it on. I did not become attached to the suffering caused by the violent attack.

When bad things happen to children it is very hard. They have no way to deal with them like adults do. But everything is suffering and children are not immune to reality. It is the duty of older people to scoop that child up and teach them to overcome the problems in their past rather than allow the problems to overcome them. Bad things hardly disprove Buddhism... they are integral to it. When bad things stop happening... that is when we see a fundamental flaw in Buddhism. You just need to see that karma is not a purely personal system.

The affects of karma are impersonal... the result on your next birth is personal. The type and amount of karma you create affects your next birth AND it also randomly affects the world but not you personally. Karma is not preminiscent. And, you need to remember that karma is the result of ALL action. It is not related to only good and evil... but that is another, unrelated, function of karma.

[nephthys]

Your viewpoint seems much like a New Age or even "Black Witchcraft" one, but certainly not a Buddhist one. :)

[ericf]

Interesting because I am nothing like New Age or Wiccan. There are tons of books on karma from a Buddhist perspective... many which deal from it as this perspective. I wonder what school and tradition you are part of to make such a bold statement with any authority?

The Hindu and Buddhist concepts of karma are quite similar, although Hinduism makes a further distinction between different types of karma, such as present karma, latent karma, and future karma. In the understanding of both thought systems, the law of karma describes the connection between actions and the resulting forces, as follows: wholesome actions lead to wholesome states while unwholesome actions lead to unwholesome states, individually as well as collectively.

[ericf]

Here is another comment on the concept of Buddhist karma.

Karma, in the original Buddhist scriptures, is a blind machine; in fact, it is functionally identical with the scientific concept of natural law. Sentimental ethical ideas about justice being built into the machine, so that those who do evil in one life are punished for it in another life, were added later by theologians reasoning from their own moralistic prejudices. Buddha simply indicated that all the cruelties and injustices of the past are still active: their effects are always being felt. Similarly, he explained, all the good of the past, all the kindness and patience and love of decent people is also still being felt.

[nephthys]

Hello,
I am sorry if my previous reply seemed aggresive or offended you in anyway; I assure you that was not my intention. However, my point stands...

"wholesome actions lead to wholesome states while unwholesome actions lead to unwholesome states, individually as well as collectively."

You are misreading that passage. It states that the action and reaction components of Karma can exist in both a collective and individual manner. However it does not seperate the action and reaction components.

"The suffering is caused by "someone's" though."

Your comment suggests that someone else's action can lead to your reaction but by collectively what is clearly written is that your action together with someone else can lead to your reaction, again together with someone else.

As for the second quote, Mr. Wilson is hardly an expert in Buddhism and in his works he often makes dubious interpretations in order to get ancient traditions to agree with his "occult" ideas.

The spirit of Karma is captured in way that everyone can understand by the 126th verse of the Dharmapada Sutra:

"Gabbham eke uppajjanti niraya’m pàpa-kammino
Sagga’m sugatino yanti parinibbanti anàsavà."

(Translations vary significantly, so it is best not favour one)

[ericf]

My comment was merely stating that not everything is directly the result of your own action. Things happen that were not caused by you... how you react to them is your action. A person who is attacked may not have been attacked because of their karma... but their karma is affected by how they respond to that attack. When a child is molested, they are going to have suffering until they are taught how to overcome that. We cannot prevent all suffering simply because not all suffering is within our control. Someone else's action may cause you to experience something... which you could react to in a number of ways. A child does not know how to react correctly when attacked so they are going to suffer. I did not suffer when attacked unless that itchy welt really counts as suffering. My reaction was not dependant on the other person's action.

I am aware that Wilson isn't an expert on Buddhism... he just states very clearly what I personally see in the teachings. I see karma as a birthrite... something that affects how you are born and thus many variables in your life. And I see karma as a force around us that affects others around us as well as ourselves. I don't get really legalistic about defining this force. You may define my view of karma as you see fit -- although your preference towards weighted words is unsettling.

As I do not speak nor read in the original language I am dependant on translations. Some are born in a womb. Those who are evil are born in evil realms. People whose conduct is good go to heaven. People who are free from defilement enter Nirvana. Some people are born again in the womb;
wrong-doers go to hell;
the good go to heaven;
those free from worldly desires attain nirvana.
These are the translations I found when I looked -- being at work I am relying on google.

I do not see a major conflict between this and what I believe. And I really don't see how it contradicts anything... seems clear evil->hell, good-> heaven, some->womb, free->nirvana. I don't see how this changes the karma that affects each of us on a daily basis. Unless you want to say this restricts karma to affecting us only in death.

Are you saying that karma doesn't affect us while we live? Because I can accept that and believe it is a different idea or concept that I currently call karma. But if that is the case, the original point (not yours the thread's) is still equally invalid because the rape happens after birth and thus is free from karma's influence.

:D I don't know if we are on the same page here at all.

[nephthys]

"Things happen that were not caused by you..."

If something happens to you, good or bad, in traditional Buddhism it is caused by "you" ("when" is another matter). This idea that Wilson puts forth is that there is a kind of unique pool of good and bad karma for everyone and people just get something out of that pool; not neccesary that which they put in. Instead in traditional Buddhism your output will always depend on your input. Someone else's input cannot affect your output.

"I see karma as a birthrite..."

Traditionally Karma is not just limited to your birth but will remain throughout your life and this is why it is often considered fatalistic.

"As I do not speak nor read in the original language I am dependant on translations."

Yes I think translations always work fairly well as long as you look at some different ones, I just don't want to favour one in particular so just give the verse.

[osiris]

ericf- actually, i hate to tell you this, but your description of karma is quite similar to Aliester Crowley's description of the meanings Wheel of Fortune card in The Book Of Thoth... he says something along the lines of "Nature is not just, but it is fair."

And nepthys, my problem with karma being completely enacted by "you" is that as a child we tend not to have any actual memory of any past lives, (if indeed such memories we have at any point are not at least to some degree fabrications), and therefore such reinforcement of bad karma would be counterproductive as a learning tool, would it not? just saying, even if that is the way the system works, it's pretty inadequate for achieving its goal.

meagain, i look forward to hearing from you. your insights are always welcome. when i hear more from others in regards to this, i may expound my personal philosophy on the subject a little more, but i am really making an effort here to just listen, which is why i would like to see contributions from others...

much love :)

[ericf]

I am aware that karma affects you while you are alive and when you die... which is why I didn't think you meant it only affected you at death. My issue is that I see karma in reverse. I do not see it as past actions determining my present. I see it as my present actions determining my future. The only real difference (since this is almost reversable) is that I don't see the "self" suffering in this life for its past life. Beyond the station of its birth which is determined by the previous life. When I read about karma I can almost always see that it is described in a forward motion...

Note: This is from the same Sutra as above 17th and 18th verse. I am just using this translation because I don't have it in Pali. One day, it would be nice to learn the language and be able to read the original.
17. Here he suffers, and hereafter he suffers. The man who does evil suffers in both cases. "I have done evil", (thinking thus) he suffers. Furthermore, he suffers on the path of suffering.
18. Here he is happy, and hereafter he is happy. The man who does good rejoices in both cases. "I have done good", (thinking thus), he is happy. Furthermore, he is happy on the path of joy.

Hmm, actually explaining this is going to take me all day and get way off topic. I don't believe my understanding of this is going to harm my practice... just as your understanding doesn't harm yours. I cannot say with certainty which is correct but my reason leads me to formulate it this way. I don't believe that arguing it will benefit either of us though. It is interesting and I can understand where you are coming from. If you really want, I will try to explain my understanding but this isn't the time (I have been working all night and am worn out) nor the thread.

osiris, looks like I might have to read some Crowley one of these days. I've always wondered exactly what he had to say. I really can't refute the idea that it might be similar to what he said because I really don't know.

On the original topic, I still believe that things happen which were not directly caused by you. Of course, the limitations of "self" are mostly illusion. But that is the easy way out of this problem. :(

[Sebbi]

A BUDDHA would have transcended ass raping, not neccarsarily a BUDDHIST.

Buddha means enlightened one. A Buddhist is someone who tries as best they can to put the Dharma (teachings) that THE BUDDHA, Siddharta Gautama/Shakyamuni, taught.

Blessings

Sebbi

[osiris]

ok, let me try to put it this way: of course we can transcend the ass-raping, but by no means is our ability to transcend it a justification of its occurence.


much love :)

[nephthys]

"On the original topic, I still believe that things happen which were not directly caused by you."

You suggested the idea of someone suffering because of someone else's Karma. I do not see how these passages support this claim. In fact they say that you suffer because you do evil and you are happy because you have done good. The idea of karma is that there is theoretically no undeserved suffering, or undeserved good.

"And nepthys, my problem with karma being completely enacted by "you" is that as a child we tend not to have any actual memory of any past lives, (if indeed such memories we have at any point are not at least to some degree fabrications), and therefore such reinforcement of bad karma would be counterproductive as a learning tool, would it not? just saying, even if that is the way the system works, it's pretty inadequate for achieving its goal."

A Buddhist would probably tell you that it might be better not to explain karma to a child in that case. It is a fairly complicated system and it is one which can lead to fatalism (even if you can argue that it is not fatalistic, it can still be misinterpreted easily that way). People "lie" to children all the time to make them happier, etc... But adults will have to accept the system, whether it is good or not. It would be better if suffering didn't exist, but unfortunately it does, and therefore we can't ignore it.

[Sebbi]

I think that Karma doesn't have much to do with this.

It is a well known Buddhist doctrine that shit happens. If all actions were the paying back of Karma then where does the origional Karma come from?

The abuser is accumilating themself Karma, not relieving the child of theirs (neccarsarily).

Looking at shit happening on a different scale, an earthquake is cause by plate tectonics, part of the physical inorganic order (utu niyama [I think]). Some of the people caught up in it may be put there by Karma, but most will be in the wrong place in the wrong time. If everyone was there because their Karma you would have whole cities of people who have commited bad enough karmas to deserve death all in the same place, and to be honest I will refuse to believe that, that could be the case, the Citta Niyama (the order of things involving thought and in this case, sociological order) would most likely override the Karma niyama.

Anyway, back to the kid being molested... SHIT... I forgotten what I was going to say.

I'll post when I remember again.

Blessings

Sebbi

[ericf]

Sebbi, it looks pretty much like you are saying what I believe. Maybe it isn't karma at all behind the random good and bad things that sometimes happen. The abuse of a child is horrible but claiming that the child is at fault (be it in previous life or not) would only compound the suffering.

There are reasons I don't believe our past life karma is affecting our current lives. When we die, if we are evil we go to hell. Hell is a temporary place of suffering and the level of suffering and length of stay is dependant on how much bad karma we have. After we leave hell we are reborn of the womb. We have already paid for most of our bad karma and the last payment is the station of our birth. Those who are good go to heaven. Heaven is a temporary reward and the level and duration is again based on how much good karma we have. When we leave heaven we have been rewarded for our good karma but are still reborn in the womb. If we die free from the attachment to karma then we escape the cycle and are free. If karma affected our next life then why would we want to leave the wheel? We would have greater and greater joy with less suffering each time. I see no justification to believe that -- in reality or in the teachings. Even the Buddha had bad things happen to him... even he was caught in a thunderstorm.

I do not believe that karma knows the future. When I do something bad today, karma does not arrange a rape 20 years down the road. That bad action will follow me and I will pay for it but karma is blind to the method of payment until it is extracted. If it happens that some person is looking to rape someone (and my previous action was bad enough to warrant it) then karma might increase the odds of our lives intersecting. But karma cannot cause that guy to rape me and it cannot know that guy's decision before it happens. It can know what is likely to happen.

I do suggest that suffering is caused by other people's actions. Since karma and action are interconnected, suffering is caused by their karma. I do like the example of the earthquake as I believe it states it better and avoids the illusion of another person causing your bad fortune. But people can cause it and it can be unrelated to your karma. Was everyone in the World Trade Center so evil in a past life that they deserved to die like that? Or were they in the wrong place at the wrong time? We can believe that those with exceptional karma might have been influenced to be late for work or that the people with the worst karma found themselves more drawn to work than usual. But that leaves a large group of people who were in the middle and just ended up experiencing the bad result of someone else's action. :) I still don't know if this will help you understand where I am coming from. I just hope you aren't implying that my practice is fatally flawed for this understanding. :o

[osiris]

from the dialogue we have shared so far, i must suppose we really need a clear cut definition: what is karma? per buddhist understanding? you see, it seems that buddhists do not agree on what karma is, what it means.

so, eric and sebbi seem to believe that karma is impersonal, and nepthys believes it is personal.

where do we go from here? any intermediate explanations from another source?

much love :)

[Meagain]

Karma means action as best as I have ever been able to determine.

The question then becomes what positive or negative merit do we, as individuals or as a group, aquire through action, and does that merit continue after death?
Further, does group action warrent group, individual, or both types of merit.

I'm thinking of the Bardo Thodo? (Tibetian Book of the Dead), which seems to support the continuation of karma beyond the grave, (I can't find my copy! It's here somewhere...)

I'm also thinking of the "subtle thread" of Buddhism, which I have to look up if I can remember where I saw it. I believe it was something about the ego not continueing but a connection remaining from life to life.

And I'm thinking of Ken Wilbur's theory of individual and collective evolution.

Then I have my own ideas, but I need to go now.

[osiris]

"I'm also thinking of the "subtle thread" of Buddhism, which I have to look up if I can remember where I saw it. I believe it was something about the ego not continueing but a connection remaining from life to life."

yes, yes, i want to hear more about this! refer me to any source of info! felt something... deep...

much love :)

[ericf]

I do think karma is personal. But I think that things happen outside the direct cause and effect view some people see. I prefer to call this karma since it is related to action. If I buy a bunch of apples and hand them out to people who are hungry... that is a good action. But the affect of that action is much farther reaching than affecting only myself. Each person who was given that apple has a new positive event in their life. This may cause them to create more good and thus influence even more people. Even if it stops with them, my action goes good for more than myself. And, just because I have done that good thing, I cannot expect some cosmic law is compelled to repay me. It might be more likely that good things will happen in the future but the universe is not compelled to even the scale -- while I am alive. I believe in death the scale gets balanced determined by where we go if we don't reach nirvana.

I think karma is personal in that it does affect how likely something is to happen and it affects what happens to us when we die. No one's actions but our own play a part in our death. Does that make sense to anyone but me? Am I still thinking in an "occult" manner. :rolleyes:

[MushroomDreams]

I think that Karma is the result of actions that occur and how we deal with these events. Lets look at the victim of violence.

There are those who say that they suffered violence because of something they did to set up those circumstances. I think that this philosophy simply blames the victim and lacks compassion.

I believe that individual events can be the result of a random chaos. You happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is it “your karma” to suffer? Not necessarily. I think that you create karma in how you choose to react.

If you carry a lot of bitterness and anger, others around you will feel this vibration coming from you and react negatively. This is why the Dali Lama never expressed anger toward the Communists who invaded his country. This is why Jesus said to offer the other cheek.

I think the teaching here is don’t let bitterness create bad karma for yourself.

I could be bitter because I have MS. What good what this do me? I’ve been to support groups and there are a lot of people who are very bitter. Yeah it sucks, but it’s teaching me something about impermanence.

Christopher Reeve isn’t bitter. He’s a great example of someone who is using his experience to help others and thereby helping himself.

I think the same can be true for victims of violence.

As Buddhist we need to transcend the illusions of this transitory existence.

[osiris]

as buddhists? man, as people. i dig your line bro... but i'm still looking for something a little more in-depth from someone else that gets deep into the doctrinal implications, or their interpretation thereof, at least. i appreciate all of your contributions so far, though, most assuredly.

much love :)

[Sebbi]

Osiris - I suggest you read "Exploring Karma and Rebirth" by Nagapriya. It's published by Windhorse and is an A3 green book that is roughly the same width as a video game box (at least my copy is, I don't know whether it is different where you are, you never know these things).

This questions Buddhist doctrines of Karma and Rebirth critically and deepened my understanding of the Buddhist version of the doctrine by ALOT. My aunt Locana (who has been a practicing Buddhist for 21 years and has recently been ordained) recommended it to me and she thought it clarified these teachings very well.

It seems that many have a pretty Hindu interpretation of Karma which is, in many ways, different to the Buddhist version. I'm not saying that the Hindu version is any more or less valid, I'm just saying it doesn't quite fit in very well when talking Buddhism.

Can I point something out about the way I will talk about Karma and that is if I say "karma" in the same sort of context of "a karma", I mean an action that contributes to our Karmic activity. If I say "Karma" I mean either the doctrine or I mean someone's Karma as in "it is my Karma that this should happen".

On morality and Karma, I don't believe in good Karma or bad Karma. I think it is simply, if you have instigate a certain ammount of happiness in someone, one way or another, be it externally, by people acting towards you in a way that will make you happy, or internally, by satisfaction of the deed, you will recieve the same ammount of happiness back. Working the other way: if you have instigate a certain ammount of suffering in someone, one way or another, be it externally, by people acting towards you in a way that will make you unhappy, or internally, by guilt of the deed, you will recieve the same ammount of suffering back.

I think there is no scale you could draw. 0 being neutral, minus figures being suffering, plus figures being happiness. According to this model, if you commit a karma worth -1, then commit a karma worth +2 then your Karma will equal +1.

I don't believe in this model. Go slag someone off (hypothetically worth -1) then donate £1000 to Oxfam (hypothetically worth +200 for example) you will still feel shit for slagging the person off, no matter how much you did to make up for it.

Blessings

Sebbi

Blessings

[Meagain]

Okay, here goes:

The buddha:

The Buddha states that the self arises dependantly,
It does not exist on its own.
If the self does not exist on its own,
How can it transmigtrate?

If transmigration does not occur,
karma does not acure from life to life.


Sati's Heresy- "It is this selfsame consciousness which transmigrates, not another."

This is a heresy because the Buddha states that consciousness is not just "he who experiences". Consciousness is dependantly arisen.
But, we have veridical memories of past lives (such as the Dali Lama being "reborn") which are strong evidence of a survival of the self.
The Buddha found Sati to have an incomplete urnderstanding of the self as he did not realize that consciouness functions in terms of memory, but the self is not memory alone.


Nagarjuna:

There is no subtle personality to transmigrate.
There is no eternal being to attain freedom.

Thus, karma can not acure from life to life.

If the self exists,
It must be permanent.
If something is permanent,
It can not transmigrate.
Transmigration is moving from place to place (i.e. life to life),
Moving from place to place implies disappearing and appearing.
Disappearing and appearing mean change,
Not permanence.
Therefore, transmigration can not occur.

Permanence is eternal presence,
If the self is permanent,
What would transmigrate?

If the self can not transmigrate,
Karma can not acumulate from life to life.

My thoughts:

What is seen as karmic residue from life to life,
Is the unliberated self of each new life clinging to the idea of permanence,
Or impermanence.
As this view is held in each new life until liberation,
It appears to travel from life to life.

When the non-substantial nature of the self is seen through liberation,
The "karmic" cycle ends.


All of the above including the Buddha and Nagarjuna is my understanding.

Now, we still have the problem of veridical memories of past lives which I will address later. I may have a partial solution.

[osiris]

sebbi, if i get the chance and funds i will most certainly take your helpful suggestion...

meagain- "When the non-substantial nature of the self is seen through liberation, The "karmic" cycle ends."

yes! i feel something there... but in regards to the memories, the specifics.... could it be said, perhaps, that, it not being the ego-self that transmigrates, but the spirit that animates each ego-self passing through many ego-selfs, as in an energy flowing through a pathway, water through a riverbed for analogies sake, that some of the residue of each ego-self must be carried on to each successive culminative point?

much love :)

[osiris]

and eric- i erred in saying that it was crowley's description of the fortune card that resembled your philosophy.... it was the card that was in medeival times refered to as "Justice", which he changed into "Adjustment", and moved from number 11 to number 8(which is certainly fitting) and this is his reasoning as to why:

"This card in the old pack was called Justice. This word has none but a purely human and therefore relative sense; so it is not to be considered as one of the facts of Nature. Nature is not just, according to any theological or ethical idea; but Nature is exact."

I placed the italics there for emphasis on the exact line that was trying to come to mind before. whatta ya think?
much love :)

[ericf]

Hmm, I know absolutelly nothing about tarot or Crowley's reasoning behind that statement. It is something I will have to look into for the future. Basically I cannot say I completely disagree with the statement. I don't believe that life is "fair" but I can't say I completely believe it is "exact" (whatever that means) either. I would have to know more about what Crowley means when he says stuff. I went and looked up some of his writing and most people agree that he writes things in a very confusing manner... which made me even less comfortable trying to dissect his meaning from my standing in ignorance. :D

[Peace]

If --love-- was here he could explain it the best. Here is my opinion though.

What is suffering? Every morning we wake up. We create our own happiness as well as our own sufferings. To find the cause of suffering, you must first find what suffering is. How can you study a bicycle if you don't know what a bicycle is? Suffering is in our mind. Its what we call something that generally brings sadness.

I hope you don't get confused by what I'm about to say here though. It might contradict what i previously said but oh well. Suffering is the absense of happiness. Happiness is the absense of suffering. When both are present, the mind tells us which one out weighs the other.

You can say that there is a definite suffering, however you can go on to say that because you consider everything to be "Happy" that the existance of suffering is not.

May you be granted Good Luck on your journey of Life.
-Peace

[osiris]

I am aware of what is suffering and what is happiness. the question at hand was directly relating to the doctrinal implications of buddhism, really. just getting some interpretations. i'm not being snippy though. we have gotten a little off topic as it is, but then again, it's all connected, isn't it? lol.

And, eric, he was refering to nature, within which there is life. i guess the nature of the universe, er, specifically. yea, crowley can be a bit confusing. but he was also a fountain of what people refer to as "occult" wisdom. many think he was a despicable human being as well, labeled him the "wickedest man in the world" and all that, but, having studied much of him... well, that's another topic, another day.

anywho, more input from any quarter is welcome.

much love :)

[Meagain]

O said:
"could it be said, perhaps, that, it not being the ego-self that transmigrates, but the spirit that animates each ego-self passing through many ego-selfs, as in an energy flowing through a pathway, water through a riverbed for analogies sake, that some of the residue of each ego-self must be carried on to each successive culminative point? "


This is what I am trying to decipher, O. What is the mechanism? The self does not continue, but something does.








The following is a working presentation of some thoughts I have on the subject of memory from former lives. I am not quite satisfied with it, as some aspects remain unclear and certain contradictions seem to be present….but here it is.

I’m still working on it. See what you guys think.


The self develops as it stores memories of what it experiences through the senses.

Without memories, the notion of self cannot occur,

As there is no continuation of awareness.




The self is not memories as such,
But it uses memories to link each moment to the next.



When the senses are terminated,

Memory production ceases.



In an enlightened individual the stopping of memory production means the extinction of the self, as the linking mechanism is absent.

In an unenlightened individual the stopping of memory production does not mean the extinction of the self.

The self has become an entity on its own.

Former memories become the new experience, through attachment, which in turn provide new memories.

This is a result of clinging to the self as an independent thing.

A self-replicating feedback loop has become established.

The self becomes stuck in this loop,

And cannot escape.



At death we would think that the memories would dissolve,

as the memory storage unit must be the brain.

However, as in everything else, the brain and its memories are interdependent.

They cannot exist on their own.

Some trace,

A subtle element must remain in the overall “field” of the universe.



The self, being “attached” to the memories in this “field” “rides” them until it is born into a new body.

At this point a new self develops, due to new experiences, bringing with it the residue of former memories.


Well, not quite right, I'll have to think some more!

[osiris]

haha! like "meet the new self, same as the old self"! if it's not quite right, it's is only because you attempt to describe it with the ambiguity of words. i am totally understanding what you are attempting to implicate.... i find that i am awakening to a "self" deeper than that which i at once assumed existed...

thank you for your contribution. i hope to hear more.

much love :)

[Chodpa]

Answering the primary question about the causes that result in rape. Buddhism and karma don't seek to determine or predetermine why a suffering exists because to the Buddhist all of existance is suffering. It doesn't matter if the suffering was having been raped or whether the suffering is hunger, or not being able to buy your third property on Park Place, life is suffering. Those rich will be poor, and those beautiful and famous will become old, ugly and forgotten. Nothing lasts forever, and if one is seeking just a causal answer for their own delimma then that isn't Buddhism but psychotherapy.

Buddhism is about how to remove oneself from this whole mess.

But here's a direct answer that might make some sense to you based on causes and results. First. the person raped was born on Earth, a place shaped by many conditions. Not the least of which is human crime. The human crime is propagated everywhere, and so as such will spill over into every person's life. Second, the person raped is usually a female, so having a female body is a condition. And so on, this doesn't justify the why or wherefore of rape, and Buddhism does not permit rape or condone it. Just the opposit in fact, it prohibits the causing of harm. Karma is a law of nature like sticking a finger in a wall socket and getting shocked. It just is.

Buddhism can change karma by changing the aprehension of the mind and loosening the self clinging tendency thereby making one more free of their suffering and preventing the practitioner from creating future causes of suffering.

[osiris]

so, with you, it seems to me, we are back to "nature is not fair, but it is exact." That justice is merely a human concept. That, as i myself had observed many times before any introduction to buddhism, life is suffering- it is how we deal with it that matters.

thank you for your contribution.

much love :)

[8D-8d]

The suffering brought of experiencing catastrophic events is like a negative strain of nostalga. Allowing the way we feel in the here and now to be affected by our memories. To do this when there is only here and now seems absurd. The root of most Eastern philosophies is to introduce different ways of seeing everything. I believe Buddhism focuses on the mind, how we control it, and why controlling it is merely an illusion (well, that and 10billion other things). Once you start rooting around inside your mind, you will be amazed and disgusted at yourself. Life is supposed to be fun no matter what. But without personal suffering, how would you ever know what feelgood can be?

As a person who is not a Buddhist, maybe my information is misleading / utterly wrong. As a person who is not officially affiliated with any religion or formal doctirine, I believe there are good lessons in all of them. As a psycopharmacologist I'll say 'if in doubt smoke a reefer'. Until recently I would have said nothing is better than a phat reefer. But I listened to 'Alan Watts teaches meditation', did it and feel ever so much better than stoned.

Only my opinions, I could be wrong, but I prefer to think not :D

How do we escape Maya? We'll use this here parachute :)

Compassion Eternal UniverseTraversers

[Chodpa]

so, with you, it seems to me, we are back to "nature is not fair, but it is exact." That justice is merely a human concept. That, as i myself had observed many times before any introduction to buddhism, life is suffering- it is how we deal with it that matters.
Well, I agree except insofar as the "nature is not fair" part. Because nature is fair, in the sense of beautiful. But it's also ugly as well. Under the sun duality dominates in night and day and all other opposites. Look at the beauty of animals, and also the ugliness of them.

However in terms of degree no animal or event of nature no matter how terrific compares to the abilities of humankind for evil or good. For instance the atom bomb, and the cure for small pox. It's due to the ability to choose that humans slide downhill rapidly or mount to the heavens in a fast manner.

Some few people in a fiduciary duty to others with great power can create tremendous amounts of positive or negative energy, for instance consider the ability of an American president to effect, or even maim, torture, rape, and murder, based upon a few words and a few ideas. Not much energy spent, and yet so much harm done. This is the great power of free will.

But free will exists in a set of circumstances. I'm always thinking of the Wicca initiation ceremony where one has a bound foot and it says, neither totally free nor totally bound, or some such thing. This is the paradox that we live in, and karma doesn't change this.

Karma, as such, is a set of conditions which work based on other conditions. Like classic Newtonian physics of cause and effect. There are other playing fields as described in quantum physics, such as spontaneous self expression and collapse of a field of possibilities into a discrete point through acknowledgement, as explained better than myself in Heisenberg's rattlings.

The path to nirvana is the path of rising above Newtonian cause and effect to the state of spontaneous manifestation of the entire array of life. Either way liberation is effected through practice of Dharma.

And the sufferings of humanity are caused through ignorance, lust, envy, and covetousness.

It is said, that when people truely follow the Dharma even the seasons come on time, and natural disasters don't happen. But what population has ever truely followed the Dharma?

To be honest, during my own personal sufferings I have always wondered what I did to get into this mess. And even now I hate to own up to causes and conditions. For instance I am a cook, who can't get fine jobs because I have burned too many bridges. I have forged a shitty reputation and I have no good references. And yet, I'm a really good cook, and I'm a really caring, nice guy. Just I keep opening my big mouth to the wrong people because I don't see others in authority as being authorities. I'm insubordinate. This is my fault and yet, the conditions that made me have forged me into something which cannot be contained. But I can't even see that far back. Someday things just must work out, or I will die a broken man and a loser. But even then, am I to blame? Partially? Fully? Or not at all?

None of this thinking matters as far as the Dharma goes because noone can fathom the workings of karma. How many millions of conditions work together to bring the man in the car and the moose into a headlong collision. Not only local circumstances but 6 billion years of evolution. It's all too much.

So when karma is touted at the answer, well it is! But it's not a good answer for specific instances of experience. The law of karma is something that exists like electromagnetism, but that doesn't explain how the radio gets into the bathtub and electrocutes the baby.

Better minds than mine have tried to explain. All I can do is give the baby my sympathy, and try to never place a radio near the tub again. This was a good question. I feel I have wasted my time, and your eyes with my answer though. So Be Well. :)

[Spiritforces]

Quote from Chodpa (who didn't wasted anything ;) )
"Look at the beauty of animals, and also the ugliness of them. "

Do never forget there is one to think it's beautiful or ugly

I think:
Nature is


and not : "nature is fair or not"

Observe experiment and Explain all what is

It's our job, becuase this is what we are given
Love (really, do no take a hurt)

Blessings ;)

[8D-8d]

Nature is fair. It is just our human perspective that warps the meaning of the word 'fair'.

[osiris]

after returning here from one of my lil sabbaticles, i find an answer to the question posed that warms my heart. thank you, chodpa, hardly was it a waste of time. as for nature not being fair, but exact, the way you explaigoes right along with crowley's. he wasn't using fair in terms of beauty, but in terms of justice, or the human concept thereof, which pretty much dovetails with 8d's last comment, really.

"I think:
Nature is"
-spiritforce

indeed, i feel the same way. and i think this statement makes all the above postulations now less true- lol, how could it? there comes a time, i suppose, when we must stop attempting to define what nature is, and just accept that it is.

tear in my eye, smile on my face, doing what i can.

much love, many blessings, healing vibrations :)

[MattInVegas]

our craving is what causes our suffering...
much love :)
I'm not Bhudist, but, what I read in that phrophsy (SP) is meant as a GENERAL warning for humankind...
Mankid, craves status, wealth, Fame, and above all else, POWER. Those may be the downfall of mankind.

[Sebbi]

It not the wealth, fame or whatever that causes the suffering. It is the craving. It is craving for anything.

Suffering manifests on many different levels, not just the big ones. Craving anything causes suffering on one level or another.

As does rejecting anything, or being ignorant.

Blessings

Sebbi

[isness]

The cause of suffering is the label, or the word, which leads to interpretation in accordance to the ego, which itself has been created by the word. We learned language, we learned thought, but we clung to the thought, and we began thinking in terms of ourselves, "how can it help us". The only positive use of thought is for logical thinking and communication, but we invented our "self"s, the I, with our thinking, only because we were not aware of the suffering it would cause. To be aware of something, without interpretation, triggers the subconcious to take action rather than allowing the I to make the decision. This action is pure, genuine. The only thing that hinges this action is the minds own awareness. Without the I, without the ego, the mind isn't forced to bias anything, and it sees everything as equal. It does not desire anything for it to remain content, because it is already aware that any desire will only lead to suffering. Any negative action onyou or another person will only lead to their suffering, which may consequently lead to your own. You are aware of this, yet the only reason for negative action is for the I to get its way. Without the I, you are your awareness, you are everything. There can be no negative action if you are aware that it will only cause suffering. This is what is meant by Karma in Buddhist terms. You take negative action, you are worse off. Your reincarnations are the Karma in effect. If you are your awareness, you are aware of constant change. Consequently, you constantly change, you are reborn every second. By creating negative karma, you reincarnate, suffering more than before. By being liberated from suffering, you cannot create negative karma, and you will not be affected by negative karma, from you or anyone else. You are simply aware, and nothing can break through the wall of pure awareness. There is nothing on the other side but suffering, which was not necessary in the first place.

[sylvanlightning]

I am what I think about what I eat.

[osiris]

Ah, that this discussion was resurrected from its long internment in the graveyard of this particular forum is quite nice.


Her, then, is my reply:

There is no justification for rape, being that it is a violation of will, in every sense both specific and general.

Much Love :)

[sylvanlightning]

My daughter has already been molested. She is eight. What can I give to her besides what I have experienced, and the liberation that it is all good in the greater scope that it is all spirit; sometimes darkness is what allows us to find the light and hope within, that will allow her to be gentle with herself and potential partners. I honor her by my unchanged presence.

I will be cast down again and again for my Self knows its will only result in an astral orgy to rise before it is time.

[osiris]

I was not in any way implying that lack of justification should result in uncompromised bitterness on the part of the victim. Quite the contrary.


Much Love :)