The self

SalixIncendium said:
And the perspective on the narrative is changed as a result of no longer identifying the self as the body/mind complex.
Click to expand...
Yerse ... a bit of a Holy Grail.

I agree, theoretically, but an imp on my shoulder reminds me of the person sitting in zazen going, "Hey look! I'm not thinking!"

SalixIncendium said:
But if the Buddha were alive today, I'm confident that the test would reveal different results.
Click to expand...
Interesting ...
 
Thomas said:
Good points ... behind this line of thought was the Buddhist theory, which involves karma, so where does the burden lie?
Click to expand...
Karma is essentially causality...cause and effect. In Eastern philosophy, the one performing the action will also be the one to reap the fruits of that action, so essentially any action done is done to oneself.
 
SalixIncendium said:
Karma is essentially causality...cause and effect. In Eastern philosophy, the one performing the action will also be the one to reap the fruits of that action, so essentially any action done is done to oneself.
Click to expand...
There's that self again!

I'm not disputing, @SalixIncendium, really ... if its Buddhist doctrine, then it's sound, whether I get it or not is another matter ... and largely I do, but there's always though around karma and the moral sphere ... and the evidence that some bad people flourish – we assume, we believe, they will get their comeuppance somewhere down the line, but that's an article of faith.

Anyway, for to to work on ... life the selfless self ...
 
SalixIncendium said:
Karma is essentially causality...cause and effect. In Eastern philosophy, the one performing the action will also be the one to reap the fruits of that action, so essentially any action done is done to oneself.
Click to expand...
So one is not punished for one's sin, one is punished by one's sin.

Hmmmm....where have I heard that before....
 
juantoo3 said:
So one is not punished for one's sin, one is punished by one's sin.

Hmmmm....where have I heard that before....
Click to expand...
My worldview, and that of may dharmics, have no concept of 'sin.' All actions are subject to karma regardless of society's moral assignment.
 
SalixIncendium said:
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Can you please rephrase or clarify?
Click to expand...
Although I cannot speak for @Thomas, I guess I always made the assumption that karma was connected to morality or about morality. Good and bad karma is spoken of for example. Like if you do something that causes harm, you get bad karma, if you do good things, you gather good karma. The movies "Along With The Gods" seem to harmonize with that view. Is that not an accurate understanding of karma?
 
SalixIncendium said:
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Can you please rephrase or clarify?
Click to expand...
I'm sure that question has gone down through the ages! :)

At the risk of sounding naive, I can understand cause and effect as a law of action ...

Say giving alms to the poor – to offer a classic model.

Man A gives alms to be poor because he wants to be seen to be generous, a benefactor, he wants people to think well of him.
Man B gives alms to the poor because of a desire to alleviate their suffering.

So man A acts out of pride, man B acts out of compassion.

For Man C, the receiver of the alms, the motive is immaterial, the effect is the same, his situation is improved.

In terms of a mechanical karmic consequence, the outcome is the same.

In a moral sphere, the purposes are quite different, one is man serving his own aggrandisement, the other is man serving the needs of his neighbour. So in moral terms, Man A is a lesser good, if indeed a good at all.

So I'm wondering about the karmic consequence of the reasons behind the actions?

+++

As I said above ... I am sure the Dharma has got this covered ...
 
TheLightWithin said:
Although I cannot speak for @Thomas, I guess I always made the assumption that karma was connected to morality or about morality. Good and bad karma is spoken of for example. Like if you do something that causes harm, you get bad karma, if you do good things, you gather good karma. The movies "Along With The Gods" seem to harmonize with that view. Is that not an accurate understanding of karma?
Click to expand...
Karma is connected to morality, but not exclusively. Karma is causality. Certainly good actions bring joy and evil actions bring suffering, but there is nothing moral or immoral about dropping a hammer, and the consequence of it falling on my toe and causing pain has nothing to do with morality either.

Karma is action and consequence...cause and effect.
 
Thomas said:
I'm sure that question has gone down through the ages! :)

At the risk of sounding naive, I can understand cause and effect as a law of action ...

Say giving alms to the poor – to offer a classic model.

Man A gives alms to be poor because he wants to be seen to be generous, a benefactor, he wants people to think well of him.
Man B gives alms to the poor because of a desire to alleviate their suffering.

So man A acts out of pride, man B acts out of compassion.

For Man C, the receiver of the alms, the motive is immaterial, the effect is the same, his situation is improved.

In terms of a mechanical karmic consequence, the outcome is the same.

In a moral sphere, the purposes are quite different, one is man serving his own aggrandisement, the other is man serving the needs of his neighbour. So in moral terms, Man A is a lesser good, if indeed a good at all.

So I'm wondering about the karmic consequence of the reasons behind the actions?

+++

As I said above ... I am sure the Dharma has got this covered ...
Click to expand...
Okay, so I see you're talking about intent behind action.

Certainly motive is factored into one's karmic account. In my experience, there are different consequences between selfish acts and selfless acts, even if the act is the same.

That said, man A would certainly have a more favorable karmic balance than a man that simply did not give alms.
 
The question reminds me of the content creators today who give hundreds to the homeless to make videos. They give them a pile of money hoping to catch then spending it on a fancy hotel or eatery...but often they give the money away to others, or go buy food or clothing for other homeless...and that video goes viral.
 
Thomas said:
Say giving alms to the poor – to offer a classic model.

Man A gives alms to be poor because he wants to be seen to be generous, a benefactor, he wants people to think well of him.
Man B gives alms to the poor because of a desire to alleviate their suffering.

So man A acts out of pride, man B acts out of compassion.

For Man C, the receiver of the alms, the motive is immaterial, the effect is the same, his situation is improved.

In terms of a mechanical karmic consequence, the outcome is the same.
Click to expand...
To mix it up a little, Man D could give alms to the poor to feel good about HIMSELF
Then Man E could give alms to the poor for ALL the above reasons--mixed motives, and perhaps any one motive at any one time isn't enough
Then Man F could give alms to the poor for ALL the above reasons--mixed motives, and at any one time, any one motive is enough to act
 
TheLightWithin said:
To mix it up a little, Man D could give alms to the poor to feel good about HIMSELF
Then Man E could give alms to the poor for ALL the above reasons--mixed motives, and perhaps any one motive at any one time isn't enough
Then Man F could give alms to the poor for ALL the above reasons--mixed motives, and at any one time, any one motive is enough to act
Click to expand...
OK, that certainly adds layers of organic complexity, but doesn't impact the initial premise?

My problem is understanding how a mechanistic universe accounts for a moral dimension – I am assured, on the one hand, that Buddhism takes the moral dimension into account, but I can never get a clear steer as to how the moral dimension is determined, as it's not quite cause-and-effect.
 
SalixIncendium said:
Okay, so I see you're talking about intent behind action.

Certainly motive is factored into one's karmic account. In my experience, there are different consequences between selfish acts and selfless acts, even if the act is the same.

That said, man A would certainly have a more favorable karmic balance than a man that simply did not give alms.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

Perhaps not.

Depends if boasting of one's giving defeats any moral virtue. As Ben Franklin said, "To be proud of one's virtue is to poison oneself with the antidote."

And since I have no way of understanding the Buddhist ranking of such "karma," I'm left with a reasonable doubt...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top