what is and isn't Karma

[oushi]

Like river that is split in two, where one part of the flow makes a bay, and then reconnects back with the main stream. So, it is fully conditioned, no free particles.

the metaphor doesnt hold up at all, since that division is purely conceptual, and karma is not conceptual (it is a functioning thing that is neither the same nor different as the mind ie. it is imputed onto the mind)

Make up your mind, is it not conceptual, or it is a functioning thing?
And tell me please, can you prove anything to be neither the same nor different then the mind?

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Hi,

Link to a really helpful teaching, ( I think )

http://www.thubtenchodron.org/GradualPa ... 3Jul92.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you this was very helpful for me.

[LastLegend]

1)Our choice is the result conditioned by pre-existing causes, whatever they are. That would mean it is pre-determined and fully predictable if we have sufficient information about those causes.

If you roll a ball, can you tell where exactly it will go? And what makes you certain that it will go there?

[5heaps]

Like river that is split in two, where one part of the flow makes a bay, and then reconnects back with the main stream. So, it is fully conditioned, no free particles.

the metaphor doesnt hold up at all, since that division is purely conceptual, and karma is not conceptual (it is a functioning thing that is neither the same nor different as the mind ie. it is imputed onto the mind)

Make up your mind, is it not conceptual, or it is a functioning thing?
And tell me please, can you prove anything to be neither the same nor different then the mind?

i said, it is a functioning thing, nonconceptual (not conceptual)

something that is neither the same as the mind nor different than the mind is a mental factor, such as anger
anger is not a type of mind, since it is not clear and knowing (the definition of mind)
nor is it something other than mind, because it cannot be separated from a mind as a separate entity

this is the whole point of buddhism, certain things exist imputedly.
aka when the buddha said "the person is not the same as the aggregates, nor is it something other than the aggregates"

[oushi]

i said, it is a functioning thing, nonconceptual (not conceptual)

And I asked, how can a thing be non-conceptual?

something that is neither the same as the mind nor different than the mind is a mental factor, such as anger
anger is not a type of mind, since it is not clear and knowing (the definition of mind)
nor is it something other than mind, because it cannot be separated from a mind as a separate entity

Your are doing just that, without a problem. Otherwise, how on earth are you able talk about it?

this is the whole point of buddhism

Such a statement is enough for me to give up.

[5heaps]

i said, it is a functioning thing, nonconceptual (not conceptual)

And I asked, how can a thing be non-conceptual?

the object in your metaphor is purely conceptual ie. a conceptual distinction about one body of water. this is the main topic at hand.

in any case to answer your question a thing is nonconceptual is the sense that it is only directly knowable by a nonconceptual cognition
it an actual functioning thing in the world, not just a conception which is only conceptually knowable

something that is neither the same as the mind nor different than the mind is a mental factor, such as anger
anger is not a type of mind, since it is not clear and knowing (the definition of mind)
nor is it something other than mind, because it cannot be separated from a mind as a separate entity

Your are doing just that, without a problem. Otherwise, how on earth are you able talk about it?

i'm not doing that. i am not eliminating mind whilst still positing a mental factor ie. separating it from the mind as a separate entity
that we can _speak_ about mind and mental factor as individual things is an interesting thing, involving conceptual isolation. this is the study of what is called apoha, and pramana, and it the meaning of the buddhas teachings..that the person is not the same as the parts of a person nor different than the parts of a person. aside from people who realize this, every other mind posits one of the two extremes, such as saying that karma is like the bay compared to the river it splits from. this is the extreme of nihilism, since it asserts that karma is just a conjured name which is not real and that what is actually real are the underlying particle of water

[oushi]

the object in your metaphor is purely conceptual ie. a conceptual distinction about one body of water. this is the main topic at hand.

in any case to answer your question a thing is nonconceptual is the sense that it is only directly knowable by a nonconceptual cognition
it an actual functioning thing in the world, not just a conception which is only conceptually knowable

Concept is not a functioning thing in the world? On what basis are you make such differentiation? This is a bird with one wing. You think that metaphor is an echo of something real, and I say that the real thing is also an echo, that is, empty in the same way. Unreal thing do not exist and cannot be know. This way I am free to use metaphor like all great masters did, especially when they do not point to something real, but reveal emptiness of all.

this is the extreme of nihilism, since it asserts that karma is just a conjured name which is not real and that what is actually real are the underlying particle of water

Did I wrote somewhere, that the water has a different nature then a sediment? Both are fully conditioned and empty. This way, we do not fall for an idea and desire to clean our sight. Karma creates the illusion of tainted and pure, while both are empty. This is how one transcends karma, otherwise he would need enormous amount of time to undo it.
I think it is more clear now. I left too much space for interpretations before.

[Red Faced Buddha]

Well, technically everything is due to karma. Everything is the result of an action.

[5heaps]

this is the extreme of nihilism, since it asserts that karma is just a conjured name which is not real and that what is actually real are the underlying particle of water

Did I wrote somewhere, that the water has a different nature then a sediment? Both are fully conditioned and empty.

thats not my point. my point that the distinction between a river and a bay that splits from that river is still the same body of water.
their being 2 different things is just conceptual imagery with no real difference. karma and mind are not like that, karma is not just a conceptual difference about the mind, it is actually different (unlike a river and its bay)

[oushi]

this is the extreme of nihilism, since it asserts that karma is just a conjured name which is not real and that what is actually real are the underlying particle of water

Did I wrote somewhere, that the water has a different nature then a sediment? Both are fully conditioned and empty.

thats not my point. my point that the distinction between a river and a bay that splits from that river is still the same body of water.
their being 2 different things is just conceptual imagery with no real difference. karma and mind are not like that, karma is not just a conceptual difference about the mind, it is actually different (unlike a river and its bay)

And what is the basis of such differentiation? Isn't not the mind? "Difference" is a concept and you take is for ultimate?

[5heaps]

their being 2 different things is just conceptual imagery with no real difference. karma and mind are not like that, karma is not just a conceptual difference about the mind, it is actually different (unlike a river and its bay)

And what is the basis of such differentiation? Isn't not the mind? "Difference" is a concept and you take is for ultimate?

its not ultimate, but it is functionally different. that it is possibly to conceptually know this difference does not mean there cannot be a functional difference between 2 objects

in other words:
the difference between the bay and the river is purely conceptual (unreal) designated by conceptuality
karma as a functioning thing (real) and the mind as a functiong thing (real) also designated by conceptuality

[oushi]

...purely conceptual (unreal)...
...functioning thing (real)...

And what is the difference, except labeling? How do you ultimately tell if something is real, and something unreal? What about beer can, is it real or unreal? Is a beer can more real then the mind, or the Buddha?
Label everything and divide those labels into true and false, real and unreal, good and bad, right and wrong. That which bounces between those extremes is the samsaric self. Are they real, or unreal? Real means solid, so if you find yourself in something real, you are trapped. Because everything is empty, everything shares the same "taste". Divisions are redundant. Nothing is read, and nothing is unreal. Teaching were shared by masters to make a tunnel leading out of the vicious circle of meaning.

[5heaps]

...purely conceptual (unreal)...
...functioning thing (real)...

And what is the difference, except labeling? How do you ultimately tell if something is real, and something unreal? What about beer can, is it real or unreal? Is a beer can more real then the mind, or the Buddha?

the difference is the object.
you cannot establish the emptiness of an object without knowing the object
object -> object of negation with respect to that object -> emptiness

the answer to the beer can question depends on the system youre using: in gelug, wholes such as beer cans exist as functioning things in dependence on their parts.
in non-gelug, wholes are purely conceptual images imputed onto parts, they do not actually function

[oushi]

you cannot establish the emptiness of an object without knowing the object

I am not talking about established emptiness.

[randomseb]

I click the post button, therefore you read this line of text. Karma. Simple and yet so complex a weave of cause and effects on the micro and macro scales.

Here in the West the notion of karma has been distorted to mean something more along the lines of Western religions, that is to say a kind of bank of good/bad deeds that you get rewarded for later on, but of course that has nothing to do with anything.

[5heaps]

you cannot establish the emptiness of an object without knowing the object

I am not talking about established emptiness.

you can use whatever word you like for emptiness and how its seen, doesnt matter, it is utterly not the point here.

if you cannot distinguish correctly between objects, you are not going to be doing anything with emptiness, which is just the removal of false superimpositions.
to say that karma and mind are like the bay its river is a very coarse false superimposition, since its saying that karma is unreal: nonexistent except for being a conceptual mental image within a conceptual consciousness.

[gregkavarnos]

Here in the West the notion of karma has been distorted to mean something more along the lines of Western religions, that is to say a kind of bank of good/bad deeds that you get rewarded for later on, but of course that has nothing to do with anything.

Well it does have something to do with everything actually. The bank metaphor is not so helpful, I would consider it more like a field full of different kinds of seeds. Some seeds will sprout when it is warm, others when it is cold. Some will rot. Some of the plants will overgrow and choke others so that they do not get a chance to develop. Sometimes it will rain, others times there will be droughts. Etc... Every seed is there waiting on the conditions it requires to sprout.

[oushi]

if you cannot distinguish correctly between objects, you are not going to be doing anything with emptiness, which is just the removal of false superimpositions.

Emptiness doesn't depend on differentiation, or distinguishing correctly between objects . You must be talking about some conceptualization of it, that I am not familiar with. Emptiness in not removal of anything.

to say that karma and mind are like the bay its river is a very coarse false superimposition, since its saying that karma is unreal: nonexistent except for being a conceptual mental image within a conceptual consciousness

If you want to discuss materialistic approach to reality, it will be hard for you to see my point. What more then a presence before the mind is a beer can, or imagined bay? Materialistic knowledge about it. Those two are no different. People that dream, should know that perfectly. In your dreams you hold the materialistic view and attach it to imagined objects. Beside this experience... the brain doesn't even have mechanisms to bring outside world directly to awareness. Light is changed into electric impulse in your eyeball, so even the beer can you see is nonexistent, conceptual mental image, as it has to be projected out of binary data.
Is it enough for you?
Phenomena should be examined from the experiencer point of view, not from materialistic knowledge.

[Simon E.]

Sez who.

[5heaps]

if you cannot distinguish correctly between objects, you are not going to be doing anything with emptiness, which is just the removal of false superimpositions.

Emptiness doesn't depend on differentiation, or distinguishing correctly between objects

if you cannot correctly distinguish between objects then you cannot accurately ascertain an object, meaning you will not be able to analyze and deny that object's true existence

even if you say the beer can is just a conceptual image (which some schools do), nevertheless the binary data onto which it is projected is itself not just a projected conceptual image.
this is the point. karma is just not a conceptual image like the beer can is, it is like the binary data; it actually exists, whereas the distinction between a bay and a river does not actually exist outside of conceptual imagery, thats all