Two Views on suffering

[Netti-Netti]

.... karma would be analogous to Christianity's 'sinning against the Spirit.'

When we look at karma and sin in their respective ideological context, it becomes apparent that they have very different implications. Practically speaking, in Buddhism karma signifies a mistake that is best not repeated in the future, a lesson to be learned. Karma functions as a corrective which can be implemented in future conduct. It offers directives for purifying intention. The task of purifcation is our own.

By comparison, in Christianity sin is something that tends to increase one's dependence on G-d. In fact, the Fall described in Genesis sets the stage for Christ's redemptive work. Christ makes it possible for us to regain that which we cannot regain without him because of what was lost as a result of the Fall. Again, we are dependent.

The Buddhist and Christian scriptures are very different, too, as far as focus. The Bible describes G-d's involvement with His Creation and His ongoing effort to restore the relationship that was shattered by the Fall. The Pali Canon describes the steps an individual can take toward increased self-responsibility.

If we accept Paul's renderings, we look to Christ as the source for our transformation into G-d's image and we hope his redemptive action will bring this transformation to completion. By contrast, if we take the Buddha's teachings at face value, "keeping the faith" means that we have something to look forward to, but it isn't approximating the glory of G-d: if we work at it, we might figure out how not to add more to our karmic burden.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

You asked,

"Do you read any truth in what Simone Weil expresses in the following: 'Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it...."

--> No, for two reasons.

(1) The word "Grace" does not exist within my belief system. The closest thing to it would be "Buddha-nature." However, the two do not mean the same thing.

(2) There is no void that does not already contain Buddha-nature. The idea that Grace seeks to 'fill empty spaces,' while Buddha-nature does not is a key difference between my belief system and yours.

"This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass through no matter what suffering without being purified."

--> I have the same viewpoint in my belief system. However, there is a difference in my belief system, in that such people are benefiting from burning off bad karma, while in your belief system they do not. I like my belief system because it makes sense to me.

"Gestalt Therapy has the potential IMO to allow for a temporary state free of imagination."

--> I have watched Gestalt Therapy make some pretty permanent changes, changes for the better. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"What is so offensive about the concept of sin? It means "missing the mark."

--> I have three responses.

(1) Sin is what happens when God gets mad at people -- sorry, the idea that all woman born after Eve are cursed just because they had the 'misfortune' (ha) to be born female just does not make sense to me.

(2) Original Sin is something bad I did a long time ago, and we are basically bad until we make ourselves good -- another concept I cannot accept because I believe we are basically good not bad.

(3) Sin is what happens when people hear about Jesus but choose not to follow him -- this says that Hitler went to Heaven and Mahatma Gandhi went to Hell, something that makes no sense to me.

"If ones intent is to follow the teaching in pursuit of the greater good and takes a wrong turn, they are missing the mark."

--> This is similar to what I believe. When someone goes out and intentionally does a bad thing, they have delayed themselves progress along the path to Enlightenment. More correctly, they have caused themselves to lose progress along the Path. I think you and I agree on this one, we just label our concepts with different names.

"But why begin a journey through samsara if they've reached the goal of Buddhism?"

--> Because the only way to get to Nirvana is through Samsara. There is no other way. It is not a system I am fond of, but it is the only system we have.

"What is it that begins the journey if we don't have a soul?"

--> I believe we have a soul. (I am not a Buddhist. The Buddhist concept of no-soul forced me to stop calling myself a Buddhist a long time ago.)

"I see this as an essential mistake since the Holy spirit is not mentioned."

--> My Triple Logos makes sense to me because it is Father-Mother-Son, not Father-Son-Spirit. Father is spirit, Mother is matter, and together they create the Son, which is our physical universe. The way I see it, the Mother has to come before the Son (which it does, in my belief system).

"Within creation the Father is outside time and space while the son is within creation."

--> I agree, although I would say the Son (our universe) is creation. The Father and Mother have had other Sons -- there are been other universes, and there will be other universes after this one.

"They are connected by the Spirit."

--> No, they are connected by the Mother. Father is Spirit.

"Within Creation, the Son becomes the Father in relation to Man and they are connected by the spirit. As fallen Man, we lack this connection. the whole purpose of Christianity is to re-establish this relationship and build on it."

--> That is a fascinating way to look at it.

(1) Why do you consider such a situation to be a sin and bad? It sounds like the process you describe is a good thing, not a bad thing.

(2) I disagree with your idea, because it assumes that we are not the Son. In my belief system, we are the Son. In my belief sytem. we have been intentionally separated from Spirit, and that act of separation was a good thing, not a bad thing, a "sin." The purpose is to reestablish connection with Spirit, which is the Father, not the Son.

"...consciousness is direct affirmation."

--> This is exactly the process that Gestalt Therapy uses.

"When inner lies are dominant, we cannot have presence."

--> I agree.

"How can the ineffable be mutable? If we detect change, it is no longer ineffable."

--> Then God is not ineffable.

"The old Testament is often karma with a face on it."

--> So all women are cursed to be born female, because it is their bad karma? Such a curse is "a function of karmic relationships?"

Hi
Nick the Pilot

(2) There is no void that does not already contain Buddha-nature. The idea that Grace seeks to 'fill empty spaces,' while Buddha-nature does not is a key difference between my belief system and yours.

I don't see the conflict.

Simhanada --- Buddha Nature and Buddhahood: the Mahayana and the Tantrayana ---Khenchen Thrangu Rinpoche

The union of wisdom and emptiness is the essence of Buddha-hood or what is called Buddha-nature (Skt. tathagatagarba) because it contains the very seed, the potential of Buddhahood. It resides in each and every being and because of this essential nature, this heart nature, there is the possibility of reaching Buddhahood. Even though it is in everyone, it is not obvious nor does it manifest because it is covered up by the various thoughts and defilements which are blocking the Buddha-nature.

God's grace is really the energy of God's love that clears away these thoughts and defilements mentioned above.

I have the same viewpoint in my belief system. However, there is a difference in my belief system, in that such people are benefiting from burning off bad karma, while in your belief system they do not. I like my belief system because it makes sense to me.

There are two means by which change occurs in the universe: consciousness and interacting mechanical laws.. Karma is just the results of the lawful interactions of mechanical laws. These results deny consciousness so these lawful results continue. However, the conscious experience of defilements minimizes their power over us so it clears karma.

--> I have watched Gestalt Therapy make some pretty permanent changes, changes for the better. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

But human nature being what it is, it also may produce a worse result:

Matthew 12

43"When an evil[f] spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and does not find it. 44Then it says, 'I will return to the house I left.' When it arrives, it finds the house unoccupied, swept clean and put in order. 45Then it goes and takes with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and live there. And the final condition of that man is worse than the first. That is how it will be with this wicked generation."

A person can become clean on the inside and invite emotional resistance much more intense then before the gestalt cleansing experience. This happens often to people involved in New Age practice.

Mary Magdalene was really possessed but Jesus cleansed her and she stayed cleansed.

(1) Sin is what happens when God gets mad at people -- sorry, the idea that all woman born after Eve are cursed just because they had the 'misfortune' (ha) to be born female just does not make sense to me.

This may be secular Jewish thinking and some Christendom Fundamentalist thinking but surely not Christian. How can an ineffable God get mad? Do you really believe that Christians think that the third commandment is a caution not to insult God?

"You shall not take The Name of The Lord your God in vain; for The Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain."

(2) Original Sin is something bad I did a long time ago, and we are basically bad until we make ourselves good -- another concept I cannot accept because I believe we are basically good not bad.

It has nothing to do with good and bad. Original sin is an acquired condition that denies awakening. How can sleeping people be objectively good or bad?

3) Sin is what happens when people hear about Jesus but choose not to follow him -- this says that Hitler went to Heaven and Mahatma Gandhi went to Hell, something that makes no sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either. Sin refers to people who feel the need to awaken but are powerless to stay on course. Sin is just missing the mark or losing our aim.

--> Because the only way to get to Nirvana is through Samsara. There is no other way. It is not a system I am fond of, but it is the only system we have.

Where does the journey into samsara begin? Is it at a level lower or higher than nirvana? Considering Buddha nature to be the highest level, how close to this does our arising begin?

(1) Why do you consider such a situation to be a sin and bad? It sounds like the process you describe is a good thing, not a bad thing.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil refers to the awareness of the universal processes of evolution and involution. The only objective good and evil for Man occurs when he becomes aware and strives for conscious evolution. What is evil is defined then by what denies it. Everything else is subjective concepts of good and evil.

I don't consider cosmology either good or bad but rather necessary processes that sustain the universe.

(2) I disagree with your idea, because it assumes that we are not the Son. In my belief system, we are the Son. In my belief sytem. we have been intentionally separated from Spirit, and that act of separation was a good thing, not a bad thing, a "sin." The purpose is to reestablish connection with Spirit, which is the Father, not the Son.

I guess the reason I disagree is that I believe us to be far further from the Father then we would want to believe and why God is ineffable. We may be a Son in potential but as we are, we are a nullity.,

Jacob Needleman writes of a conversation with a Tibetan friend in "Lost Christianity:" p.185

"Imagine, the Buddha says , that in the vastness of the great ocean there is a single ox yoke floating free. Imagine also that in this great ocean a great tortoise swims surfacing once every hundered years. How rare it would be that when the tortoise surfaces, his head would pass through this ox yoke floating free. Even rarer is it to be born a human being."

I waved my hand questioningly at the hundreds of people passing us on the street, and my Tibetan friend stopped, obviously noticing that I had not grasped what he just said about the meaning of being a man. I stopped too and waited for his answer. His face usually full of good humor, was now almost grave. "How many human beings do you see?" he said. I understood..

Are we really sons of God in anything but potential?

Then God is not ineffable.

I agree with Meister Eckhart's profound description of the ineffable God:

"The mind never rests but must go on expecting and preparing for what is yet known and what is still concealed. Meanwhile, man cannot know what God is, even though he be ever so well of what God is not; and an intelligent person will reject that. As long as it has no reference point, the mind can only wait as matter waits for him. And matter can never find rest except in form; so, too, the mind can never find rest except in the essential truth which is locked up in it--the truth about everything. Essence alone satisfied and God keeps on withdrawing, farther and farther away, to arouse the mind's zeal and lure it to follow and finally grasp the true good that has no cause. Thus, contented with nothing, the mind clamors for the highest good of all."

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

You said,

"God's grace is...."

--> Perhaps it is just a matter of terminology. I choose to not use the word grace, while you do. But I think you and I have a lot in common in our ideas.

"There are two means by which change occurs in the universe: consciousness and interacting mechanical laws.. Karma is just the results of the lawful interactions of mechanical laws. These results deny consciousness so these lawful results continue. However, the conscious experience of defilements minimizes their power over us so it clears karma."

--> I think that a person who kills someone in cold blood will suffer a coresponding amount of bad karma later on, no matter what happens in their consciousness. (This is the key difference between Christianity and Buddhism.) I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"I have watched Gestalt Therapy make some pretty permanent changes.... --> But human nature being what it is, it also may produce a worse result...."

--> Indeed it may. Fortunately we have the iron-clad law of karma to punish us if we we allow to happen, or cause to happen, such negative things. Karma guarantees.

"How can an ineffable God get mad?"

"The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you...." (Genesis 3: 15-18)

--> That sure sounds like an angry God to me.

"Original Sin is something bad I did a long time ago... --> It has nothing to do with good and bad."

--> I think it very much is a value judgement that I did something bad. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." (from an 19th century children's reader). Again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"Sin refers to people who feel the need to awaken but are powerless to stay on course."

--> So you are saything that people who hear about Jesus and refuse to follow Him (for example, Mahatma Gandhi) are not going to Hell?

"Where does the journey into samsara begin?"

--> I am goiing to take a very complicated topic and give a very simplistic answer. I am also going to couch my answer in Christian terms, because I think that is what people on this Forum understand best. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were cast out of Heaven. This was the beginning of Samsara. Most importantly, it was a god thing, not a bad thing. 'God' allowed us out of 'Heaven, 'He' did not 'throw us out of Heaven.'

"Is it at a level lower or higher than nirvana?"

--> When we originally began our descent (involution) from 'Heaven,' we were at a level much higher than Nirvana. We have finally turned the corner, and we are now ascending (evolution). So, technically, the answer is higher, although such an answer will confuse most people. (Nirvana is at a level higher than Heaven -- it has to be.)

"Considering Buddha nature to be the highest level, how close to this does our arising begin?"

--> Buddha-nature is not the highest level. Again, I choose Christian terms to explain. The real nature of the One is hidden behind the firmament of Genesis 1:8, and it will only be revealed to us a loooong time after we achieve Nirvana.

"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil refers to the awareness of the universal processes of evolution and involution."

--> Well, I would say it only refers to our becomming aware of one single step along the Path.

"The only objective good and evil for Man occurs when he becomes aware and strives for conscious evolution. What is evil is defined then by what denies it. Everything else is subjective concepts of good and evil.
I don't consider cosmology either good or bad but rather necessary processes that sustain the universe."

--> I agree. But I add the caveat that good is making effort to make progress along the Path, and evil is choosing to go in the opposite direction.

"I believe us to be far further from the Father then we would want to believe and why God is ineffable. We may be a Son in potential but as we are, we are a nullity...."

--> It does not matter to a Buddist how far they are 'away from the father.' They just need to make progress.

"We may be a Son in potential but as we are, we are a nullity...."

--> I would not say it that way, but for me to explain myself requires an understanding of the concept of no-self. Are you familiar with the concept of no-self?

"Even rarer is it to be born a human being."

--> I disagree with such an idea.

"I agree with Meister Eckhart's profound description of the ineffable God...."

--> Eckhart's description does not address the fact that God gets angry.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste AndrewX,

thank you for the post.

Wow ... that's a pretty bleak view, the notion that the Buddha Dharma will utterly cease in this, or any other world system.

oh, it will still be manifest in other world systems after it has disappeared from here

Shakyamuni could hold up a single flower, yet his karma was revealing too much ... out of his compassion for every sentient being. COMPASSION was his motivation. An interesting contemplation, how that could yet create its own unbalanced karma. How many (other) world systems do we suppose he was also benefitting, as he also sought to be of benefit to ours? Not so easy to balance, I suppose.

the Suttas indicate that Buddha Shakyamuni arose for the benefit of our fortunate world system and fortunate eon. there are some world systems where a Buddha will only arise once in it's entire existence, others where no Buddhas will ever arise and still others that will have more Buddhas than ours. a Buddha does not need to be present in a world system nor does the Dharma have to be expounded for a being to Awaken and attain Liberation, these beings are called Solitary Realizers.


metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

recall that the Buddhist explication of kamma is different than the Santana Dharma explication.

Karma is not always related to a moral choice, which is why it's tricky to try to relate it to eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Many actions have no inherent moral properties. In fact, most of what we do has no moral significance at all and does not generate conditions for rebirth.

'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.



AN 6.63: Nibbedhika Sutta

Ok, so how was the intention to partake of the Tree of Knowledge any different from the intention to take a piece of fruit from the bowl that's sitting on the kitchen table?

i'm not sure i understand the question, in both cases the being intended to take the fruit, yes? the Biblical story is that the fruit of that tree was forbidden to be eaten, is the fruit on the table forbidden to be eaten as well?

It is unclear whether evil was an issue in partaking of the Tree of Knowledge. Likewise, it is unclear whether the Eden situation gave Adam and Eve a chance to act in a way that would produce positive or negative karma.

karma/kamma isn't related to evil, it's related to skillful and unskillful actions, thoughts and words.... skillful means to be indicative of engaging in activities which increase or lessen ones enmeshment within samsara.

It appears Adam and Eve were doing what we all do: we try to improve on our situation by expanding the range of our capabilities. Is the wish to expand's one's personal powers inherently immoral? How is that a moral issue?

i don't know but i wouldn't think so... of course it would depend on ones intentional actions, thoughts and words in how they went about it.

The Buddhist idea of compassion toward others is often construed as a desire for others' happiness. Compassion toward oneself can be seen as wanting happiness for onself. Accordingly, insofar that Adam and Eve intended their own happiness by partaking of the fruit, their action served to produce "bright" or positive karma. Yet they were punished with spiritual and physical death, among other things.

i typically don't view it in such a manner but i can see how that would be. i never understood Adam and Eve to be real beings so i don't have much to offer in terms of what may have happened to them.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste seattlegal,

thank you for the post.

OK, this is starting to make some sense. Thich Nhat Hanh related mindfulness with being filled with the Holy Spirit in Living Buddha, Living Christ. (This makes sense from both a Zen standpoint and a Quaker standpoint.) When you look at it from this standpoint, then karma would be analogous to Christianity's 'sinning against the Spirit.'

i'm not really sure that would be so.. can you have something positive happen by sinning against the spirit?

recall that kamma is bright or dark for us sorts of beings.. i.e. positive or negative, skillful or unskillful as it were.

the fruit of kamma, the consequences as it were, is called Vipaka.

Kamma and Vipaka are not the same thing though related; kamma is the seed and vipaka is the ripened fruit that we harvest.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,

just an aside...

Nibbana/Nirvana is not somewhere else other than Samsara.. it's not like a heaven in the least. heavenly realms are part of samsara. Nibbana/Nirvana is an experience that takes place in the here and now.

Buddhanature is a term referencing the aspect of consciousness which is able to Awaken and attain Liberation it, too, is not another plane of existence.

metta,

~v

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

You said,

"God's grace is...."

--> Perhaps it is just a matter of terminology. I choose to not use the word grace, while you do. But I think you and I have a lot in common in our ideas.

"There are two means by which change occurs in the universe: consciousness and interacting mechanical laws.. Karma is just the results of the lawful interactions of mechanical laws. These results deny consciousness so these lawful results continue. However, the conscious experience of defilements minimizes their power over us so it clears karma."

--> I think that a person who kills someone in cold blood will suffer a coresponding amount of bad karma later on, no matter what happens in their consciousness. (This is the key difference between Christianity and Buddhism.) I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"I have watched Gestalt Therapy make some pretty permanent changes.... --> But human nature being what it is, it also may produce a worse result...."

--> Indeed it may. Fortunately we have the iron-clad law of karma to punish us if we we allow to happen, or cause to happen, such negative things. Karma guarantees.

"How can an ineffable God get mad?"

"The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you...." (Genesis 3: 15-18)

--> That sure sounds like an angry God to me.

"Original Sin is something bad I did a long time ago... --> It has nothing to do with good and bad."

--> I think it very much is a value judgement that I did something bad. "In Adam's fall, we sinned all." (from an 19th century children's reader). Again, I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

"Sin refers to people who feel the need to awaken but are powerless to stay on course."

--> So you are saything that people who hear about Jesus and refuse to follow Him (for example, Mahatma Gandhi) are not going to Hell?

"Where does the journey into samsara begin?"

--> I am goiing to take a very complicated topic and give a very simplistic answer. I am also going to couch my answer in Christian terms, because I think that is what people on this Forum understand best. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were cast out of Heaven. This was the beginning of Samsara. Most importantly, it was a god thing, not a bad thing. 'God' allowed us out of 'Heaven, 'He' did not 'throw us out of Heaven.'

"Is it at a level lower or higher than nirvana?"

--> When we originally began our descent (involution) from 'Heaven,' we were at a level much higher than Nirvana. We have finally turned the corner, and we are now ascending (evolution). So, technically, the answer is higher, although such an answer will confuse most people. (Nirvana is at a level higher than Heaven -- it has to be.)

"Considering Buddha nature to be the highest level, how close to this does our arising begin?"

--> Buddha-nature is not the highest level. Again, I choose Christian terms to explain. The real nature of the One is hidden behind the firmament of Genesis 1:8, and it will only be revealed to us a loooong time after we achieve Nirvana.

"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil refers to the awareness of the universal processes of evolution and involution."

--> Well, I would say it only refers to our becomming aware of one single step along the Path.

"The only objective good and evil for Man occurs when he becomes aware and strives for conscious evolution. What is evil is defined then by what denies it. Everything else is subjective concepts of good and evil.
I don't consider cosmology either good or bad but rather necessary processes that sustain the universe."

--> I agree. But I add the caveat that good is making effort to make progress along the Path, and evil is choosing to go in the opposite direction.

"I believe us to be far further from the Father then we would want to believe and why God is ineffable. We may be a Son in potential but as we are, we are a nullity...."

--> It does not matter to a Buddist how far they are 'away from the father.' They just need to make progress.

"We may be a Son in potential but as we are, we are a nullity...."

--> I would not say it that way, but for me to explain myself requires an understanding of the concept of no-self. Are you familiar with the concept of no-self?

"Even rarer is it to be born a human being."

--> I disagree with such an idea.

"I agree with Meister Eckhart's profound description of the ineffable God...."

--> Eckhart's description does not address the fact that God gets angry.

Nick the Pilot

--> I think that a person who kills someone in cold blood will suffer a coresponding amount of bad karma later on, no matter what happens in their consciousness. (This is the key difference between Christianity and Buddhism.) I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

--> Indeed it may. Fortunately we have the iron-clad law of karma to punish us if we we allow to happen, or cause to happen, such negative things. Karma guarantees.

Is karma punishment? I believe it is just a natural result. Being that karma and suffering are related, it is probably good to understand this better. I'm not a Buddhist like Vaj so he may have a different understanding. I'll use this link as a source.

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ignorance (avijja), or not knowing things as they truly are, is the chief cause of Karma. Dependent on ignorance arise activities (avijja paccaya samkhara) states the Buddha in the Paticca Samuppada (Dependent Origination). [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Associated with ignorance is the ally craving (tanha), the other root of Karma. Evil actions are conditioned by these two causes. All good deeds of a worldling (putthujana), though associated with the three wholesome roots of generosity (alobha), goodwill (adosa) and knowledge (amoha), are nevertheless regarded as Karma because the two roots of ignorance and craving are dormant in him. The moral types of Supramundane Path Consciousness (magga citta) are not regarded as Karma because they tend to eradicate the two root causes.[/FONT]

[/FONT]


If bad karma is due to the lack of consciousness or conscious ignorance, it seems that acquiring consciousness would lead to freedom from such a strong quality of attachment. Simone is suggesting the value of consciously experiencing the results of karma serves to transform these results for the benefit of our "being."

"The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." To the woman he said, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." And to Adam he said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you...." (Genesis 3: 15-18)

--> That sure sounds like an angry God to me.

This is another one of those questions that can be interrrpreted in many ways.

I believe in the conscious universe and its levels of reality. It requires that there must be demiurge within it. Is there a difference between God and "LORD God?

I believe so. In fact in the Hebrew there are many names for God describing functions.

Hebrew for Christians - The Hebrew Names for God

Elohim is ineffable.and the source. YHVH is the source of man on earth, a necessary specialization within creation in accordance with the interactions of universal laws. A lot of what you read as anger are really part of a story explaining karmic results.

The cause of Man's predicament or reason for the psychological fall no longer exists. That is why Christianity is free to consciously awaken and evolve as is normal for Man. However as karma suggests, it is easier said than done.

So you are saything that people who hear about Jesus and refuse to follow Him (for example, Mahatma Gandhi) are not going to Hell?

What good is hearing about Jesus if he said that we need new eyes to see and ears to hear for us to understand anything. Only a very few could be worthy of either heaven or hell.

--> I am goiing to take a very complicated topic and give a very simplistic answer. I am also going to couch my answer in Christian terms, because I think that is what people on this Forum understand best. In Genesis, Adam and Eve were cast out of Heaven. This was the beginning of Samsara. Most importantly, it was a god thing, not a bad thing. 'God' allowed us out of 'Heaven, 'He' did not 'throw us out of Heaven.'


This isn't scripture. I would agree though that it wasn't a death sentence but rather the imposition of this sleep was a necessity at the time. It doesn't mean forever and now the cause no longer exists, the legitimate paths to the Way have been trying to awaken us to the human condition and the benefits of awakening for a long time now. But we are a stubborn species and struggle against awakening.

--> When we originally began our descent (involution) from 'Heaven,' we were at a level much higher than Nirvana. We have finally turned the corner, and we are now ascending (evolution). So, technically, the answer is higher, although such an answer will confuse most people. (Nirvana is at a level higher than Heaven -- it has to be.)

I don't see how nirvana which is bliss (a quality of emotion) could be higher than the consciousness of heaven.

Eckhart's description does not address the fact that God gets angry.

I believe he is referring to Elohim and not YHVH. A person could say that a karmic progression appears as anger but in reality it is just a lawful karmic progression.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

You asked,

"I don't see how nirvana which is bliss (a quality of emotion) could be higher than the consciousness of heaven."

--> Heaven is the bliss between incarnations. Nirvana is the bliss that we experience after all incarnating has stopped. Once we stop incarnating, we move to a higher level. That higher level is Nirvana, and is at a higher level than the inter-incarnation bliss known as Heaven.

By the way, Mahayana Buddism asks its members to achieve Enlightenment, then forgo the bliss of Nirvana, and remain on Earth to help their fellow suffering human beings. Some people say that Theravadan Buddhism does not ask its members to do such a thing, but I disagree. (By the way, this is one of the key differences between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravadan Buddhism, referrred to as the "Bodhisattva Vow". There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva Vow in Theravadan Buddhism.) Also, the fact that Mahayana Buddhism asks its member to achieve Enlightenment, then forsake the bliss of Nirvana, shows that Mahayana Buddhism sees Nirvana as a blissful state.

"Eckhart's description does not address the fact that God gets angry. --> I believe he is referring to Elohim and not YHVH."

--> Then he still does not address the fact that God gets angry.

I am glad to see that you distinguish God and the seven Elohim. According to my belief system, Elohim is the group of gods which created Earth and humanity. Even the Bible correctly labels the Elohim as plural.

“Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26) (boldface added)

But the Bible then switches back to God, who gets angry. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

You asked,

"I don't see how nirvana which is bliss (a quality of emotion) could be higher than the consciousness of heaven."

--> Heaven is the bliss between incarnations. Nirvana is the bliss that we experience after all incarnating has stopped. Once we stop incarnating, we move to a higher level. That higher level is Nirvana, and is at a higher level than the inter-incarnation bliss known as Heaven.

We just will have to agree to disagree on this.

By the way, Mahayana Buddism asks its members to achieve Enlightenment, then forgo the bliss of Nirvana, and remain on Earth to help their fellow suffering human beings. Some people say that Theravadan Buddhism does not ask its members to do such a thing, but I disagree. (By the way, this is one of the key differences between Mahayana Buddhism and Theravadan Buddhism, referrred to as the "Bodhisattva Vow". There is no such thing as a Bodhisattva Vow in Theravadan Buddhism.) Also, the fact that Mahayana Buddhism asks its member to achieve Enlightenment, then forsake the bliss of Nirvana, shows that Mahayana Buddhism sees Nirvana as a blissful state.

"Eckhart's description does not address the fact that God gets angry. --> I believe he is referring to Elohim and not YHVH."

--> Then he still does not address the fact that God gets angry.

True, Christianity isn't concerned with the personal God YHVH but rather how to change, "evolve" our being so as to establish a relationship with Elohim

I am glad to see that you distinguish God and the seven Elohim. According to my belief system, Elohim is the group of gods which created Earth and humanity. Even the Bible correctly labels the Elohim as plural.

“Then the Gods said: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” (Genesis 1.26) (boldface added)

But the Bible then switches back to God, who gets angry. I guess we just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I like how Simone Weil describes God or Elohim

"It is only the impossible that is possible for God. He has given over the possible to the mechanics of matter and the autonomy of his creatures."

Unfortunately there is much debate on what Elohim means. However there are sons of elohim just as we know what a Son of God means:

Genesis 6:2, "... the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them for wives...

I can see God as Three initiating the dynamics of creation because it is impossible for us. However the establishment of Man on earth was a lawful act within creation and as I understand it, Elohim though the source, is outside Creation. I don't know the origin of the seven Elohim

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nicks!

(that could be confusing in the future!)

Nick_A you are correct with regards to the Buddhist explication of karma and Nick the Pilot is incorrect. the Buddha specifically teaches that such a view of karma is incorrect and, if it were correct, there would be no possibility for liberation.

further, karma doesn't punish beings, there is no punishment involved in Buddhism. by way of analogy, when a farmer plants a crop and waters the crop, weeds the fields and tends to them, when the crop comes in we don't consider that he's being rewarded, we consider that he's reaping what he sowed. likewise, when the same farmer doesn't water the crops, doesn't weed the field and tend to them, when the crop doesn't come in we don't say he's being punished, we consider that he is reaping what he sowed.

exceedingly negative karma, such as mass murdering 100 humans, can be overcome even in this very lifetime according to the Suttas and ensures a being will have a positive rebirth.

metta,

~v

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Nick A,

You said,

"Christianity isn't concerned with the personal God YHVH but rather how to change, "evolve" our being so as to establish a relationship with Elohim."

--> I have never heard this before. I have always assumed that a Christian's goal is to establish a personal relationship with God.

 

[Nick_A]

Nick A,

You said,

"Christianity isn't concerned with the personal God YHVH but rather how to change, "evolve" our being so as to establish a relationship with Elohim."

--> I have never heard this before. I have always assumed that a Christian's goal is to establish a personal relationship with God.

But the trouble is we are not Christian. We are asleep in Plato's Cave imagining that we are Christian. The whole purpose of re-birth is to become what we are capable of so that the relationship is possible.

A lawyer isn't a law student and a doctor is not still a student of law. Each have reached the ability to be lawyers and doctors. A Christian is one who can follow in the precepts of Christ. A Buddha is one who has reached a certain level. A person can imagine themselves a Buddha and another can imagine themselves a Christian but it is just fantasy.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Nick,

thank you for the post.

A Buddha is one who has reached a certain level.

a Buddha is a being that has rightly self awoke (though other beings can do this as well) and, more importantly, sets the Wheel of Dharma in motion in a given world system.

A person can imagine themselves a Buddha... but it is just fantasy.

quite.

the next Buddha will not appear until human kind is enjoying a utopian existence of world wide peace and prosperity.

metta,

~v

 

[Netti-Netti]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

karma/kamma isn't related to evil, it's related to skillful and unskillful actions, thoughts and words....

Based on the Maha-satipatthana Sutta, it appears that evil and unskillful are closely related.

"And what is right effort? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen... (and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This is called right effort.

DN 22: Maha-satipatthana Sutta

​

I'm not sure how one can hope to avoid the issue of evil when Buddhist ethics is specifically concerned with avoiding bad karma.
Buddhist ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Netti-Netti]

further, karma doesn't punish beings, there is no punishment involved in Buddhism... when the same farmer doesn't water the crops, doesn't weed the field and tend to them, when the crop doesn't come in we don't say he's being punished, we consider that he is reaping what he sowed.

To my way of thinking that's just a polite way of saying the famer is being punished for negligence.

Isn't it true that the desired end goal is release from samsaric rebirth?... That being the case, any type of karmic rebirth IS punishment. In this sense, karma does imply a certain kind of justice. Insofar that karmic law acts like natural law, it is more consistently binding than any human legal system ...even if we can't quite figure out how it works.

At this point I do think it's helpful to make a distinction between the karma and the consequences or "fruit" arising from it. The fruit may or may not always take the form of obvious and immediate consequences.

The fruit might not ripen any time soon. It may indeed be hard to make out a simple and immediate cause and effect sequence. However, that doesn't mean there are no consequences at all. Unripened fruit can create the conditions for a new rebirth at the moment of death.

exceedingly negative karma, such as mass murdering 100 humans, can be overcome even in this very lifetime according to the Suttas and ensures a being will have a positive rebirth.

Again, the idea it to be released from samsaric rebirth altogether.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

Based on the Maha-satipatthana Sutta, it appears that evil and unskillful are closely related.

they are closely related, they are not the same. did you have an opportunity to read the whole Sutta?

​

I'm not sure how one can hope to avoid the issue of evil when Buddhist ethics is specifically concerned with avoiding bad karma.

Buddhist ethics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the link you provided uses the term "negative karma" not "bad karma" and it is quite in line with what i've explained regarding positive and negative karma, or as is sometimes found in the canon, bright and dark.

within Buddhism it is taught that the there are two truths, the relative and the absolute. within the relative conceptions such as "self" and "evil" and "I" and "good" are operative and thus we'll find some of the Suttas using these terms in the discourse. within the absolute conceptions are invalid and thus in Suttas where the Buddha is preaching from this view the terms positive, negative are used. in most of the English transliterations of the Suttas this information is omitted which can make it somewhat problematic to discern the mode of discourse which is taking place.

the Suttas all begin by explaining where the Buddha is, to whom he is giving the teaching and why prior to the opening of the teaching which begins with "Thus I have heard." in most cases this information is particularly important for our own use of the Suttas for one of the foundational teachings of the Buddha is that the teachings are given to a specific group of people at a specific time based on their particular needs. in order to discern if a Sutta is apropos for our own practice we need to determine if we are in the same relative situation as the beings to whom the Sutta was originally given. not an insignificant task in its own right.

metta,

~v

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Netti-Netti,

thank you for the post.

To my way of thinking that's just a polite way of saying the famer is being punished for negligence.

i cannot suppose why you would think that but it's clear that you are not alone in such a view. Buddhism doesn't posit that karma is sentient and, as such, karma cannot punish (and it's the Vipaka of Karma that we experience anyways) and there is no deity which sits in judgement of beings whom are then punished so there is, literally, nothing to do any punishing.

Isn't it true that the desired end goal is release from samsaric rebirth?... That being the case, any type of karmic rebirth IS punishment. In this sense, karma does imply a certain kind of justice. Insofar that karmic law acts like natural law, it is more consistently binding than any human legal system ...even if we can't quite figure out how it works.

there simply isn't any mechanism by which punishment can be meted out within the Buddha Dharma from a karmic sense. your intentional actions, thoughts and words (karma) create the fruit (vipaka) that we harvest as a result of our intentions. there is no punishment involved, such a concept is foreign to the Buddha Dharma.

At this point I do think it's helpful to make a distinction between the karma and the consequences or "fruit" arising from it. The fruit may or may not always take the form of obvious and immediate consequences.

indeed. the vipaka from a beings kamma is active within its mindstream for 7 arisings and will ripen when the causes and conditions are correct.

The fruit might not ripen any time soon. It may indeed be hard to make out a simple and immediate cause and effect sequence. However, that doesn't mean there are no consequences at all. Unripened fruit can create the conditions for a new rebirth at the moment of death.

indeed, it is the kamma that we create at the moment of death which influences the next rebirth. we can also change or mitigate the vipaka of previously unskillful or negative kamma and it is this aspect which allows for the prospect of Liberation.

metta,

~v

 

[Nick_A]

I understand Simone's remark in the OP to be referring to what I know as the necessity to consciously "carry ones cross." Normally we just continue reacting to our connection with the external world with all sorts of negative intellectual and emotional preconceptions. This denies the ability to consciously carry ones cross leading to the inner being evolution that is possible for Man. consciously carrying one cross, rather than just reacting to suffering, is the supernatural use of suffering. We need help from above in order to do it since the plurality of our being creates such inner opposition making it impossible, other than for rare exceptions, from our own initiative other than through creating a super ego that I believe would be demonic in its separation from the "good"

Buddhism asserts just the practice of the eightfold path would gradually take away the advantages of negative emotions and intellectual preconceptions.

For example right speech in Buddhism is such a practice. Yet I've met many Buddhists on the Internet that are sarcastic and openly expressing negativity that is rewarding for their egotism but damaging to the goal of Buddhism.

Yet my gut feeling is that at the depth of Buddhism the same situation exists as in the depth of Christianity. The real solution to this psychological condition of conditioned suffering will require taking the respective paths seriously at the expense of our acquired slave mentality.

Now it is more usual to take ourselves seriously and the sacred paths as a means for self justification.

To consciously carry ones cross is really only acquiring the ability to retain "presence" acquired in meditation and retain it during our normal day. We have to suffer ourselves and all its tricks that seek to retain the status quo an all its suffering at the expense of awakening.

Of course it is a big "only." I know how difficult it is for me to sustain presence during the day. Someone is rude to me, I react, and all presence is lost. I believe that the Crucifixion was a conscious experience for Jesus but if a dirty look gets to me, I admit the great psychological gap between Jesus and me. But he was making a conscious supernatural use of suffering and my reactions perpetuate it. It shows how far I am from being a Christian and why I refer to myself as pre-Christian.

Milarepa acquired conscious abilities but out of balance, So it was only through great suffering that he had to go back to square one to experience the dharma

Milarepa, Yogi of Tibet - Buddhist Saint

Once a person awakens to their inner slavery and its unnatural sufferings and is becoming master of themselves, a person becomes capable of conscious choice. Now it becomes possible to choose to either serve in heaven or rule in hell and in Buddhism: not to exist. Which would you choose?

 

[Vajradhara]

Now it becomes possible to choose to either serve in heaven or rule in hell and in Buddhism: not to exist. Which would you choose?

you don't exist now as anything but a collection of aggregates.

i have found your conclusions about my religion to be very interesting.

metta,

~v