Dharma Wheel

A Buddhist discussion forum on Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism
It is currently Tue Dec 23, 2014 1:51 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 19  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:42 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Ben Yuan wrote:
There are wholesome and unwholesome actions, and wholesome and unwholesome fruits. But even the wholesome fruits cause attachment and therefore suffering.
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Actions which lead to liberation, and help others progress to liberation, do not have suffering as a fruit, but the deathless.
And these actions cannot be classified as wholesome and unwholesome?

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 9:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
gregkavarnos wrote:
Ben Yuan wrote:
There are wholesome and unwholesome actions, and wholesome and unwholesome fruits. But even the wholesome fruits cause attachment and therefore suffering.
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Actions which lead to liberation, and help others progress to liberation, do not have suffering as a fruit, but the deathless.
And these actions cannot be classified as wholesome and unwholesome?

Wholesome = white, unwholesome = black, neutral = black + white, transcendent = neither black nor white.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:02 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Ben Yuan wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Ben Yuan wrote:
There are wholesome and unwholesome actions, and wholesome and unwholesome fruits. But even the wholesome fruits cause attachment and therefore suffering.
Not necessarily.
Quote:
Actions which lead to liberation, and help others progress to liberation, do not have suffering as a fruit, but the deathless.
And these actions cannot be classified as wholesome and unwholesome?

Wholesome = white, unwholesome = black, neutral = black + white, transcendent = neither black nor white.
So you are saying that liberatory actions are neutral? Like picking my nose is a liberatory action?

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
gregkavarnos wrote:
Ben Yuan wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
And these actions cannot be classified as wholesome and unwholesome?

Wholesome = white, unwholesome = black, neutral = black + white, transcendent = neither black nor white.
So you are saying that liberatory actions are neutral? Like picking my nose is a liberatory action?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:22 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Sorry, I missed that bit! :emb:

Still, when you say that neutral is black and white, can you give an example? Coz I canot really see how picking my nose is wholesome AND unwholesome. I would say it is neither wholesome nor unwholesome, which (again) puts it in the category of transcendent. Also, can you please supply some Buddhist references that support your point?

Thanks!

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:51 am
Posts: 1471
"Black and white karma" is not "neutral", rather, actions that are mixed with both wholesome and unwholesome mental states.

《阿毘達磨俱舍論》卷16〈4 分別業品〉:「唯除地獄餘欲界中異熟皆通善惡業感。故順彼受名黑白業。」(CBETA, T29, no. 1558, p. 84, a7-9)

Kosa (Analysis of Karma): Apart from the hells, the other forms of vipaka in the desire realm are also brought about by wholesome-evil karma; therefore they are said to be "black-white karma".

~~ Huifeng

_________________
My Prajñācāra Blog
Buddhist Studies at Fo Guang University, Taiwan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:35 am 
Offline
Former staff member
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Posts: 10290
Location: Greece
Thanks Venerable Huifeng for that clarification!
:namaste:

_________________
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 8:15 am
Posts: 1119
Location: Canada
Ah yes that's right.
Quote:
Also, can you please supply some Buddhist references that support your point?

AN 4:232; II 230-32 wrote:
"There are, O monks, these four kinds of kamma declared by me after I had realized them for myself by direct knowledge. What four?
"There is dark kamma with dark results; there is bright kamma with bright results; there is kamma that is dark and bright with dark and bright results; there is kamma that is neither dark nor bright, with nei- ther dark nor bright results, which leads to the destruction of kamma.
"And what, monks, is dark kamma with dark results? Here, monks, someone generates an afflictive volitional formation of body, speech, or mind. Having done so, he is reborn in an afflictive world. When he is reborn in an afflictive world, afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by afflictive contacts, he experiences an afflictive feeling, extremely painful, as for example the beings in hell experience. This is called dark kamma with dark results.
"And what, monks, is bright kamma with bright results? Here, monks, someone generates a non-afflictive volitional formation of body, speech, or mind. Having done so, he is reborn in a non-afflictive world. When he is reborn in a non-afflictive world, non-afflictive con- tacts touch him. Being touched by non-afflictive contacts, he experi- ences a non-afflictive feeling, extremely pleasant, as for example the devas of refulgent glory experience.9 This is called bright kamma with bright results.
"And what, monks, is dark and bright kamma with dark and bright results? Here, monks, someone generates both an afflictive volitional formation of body, speech, or mind and a non-afflictive volitional for- mation of body, speech, or mind. Having done so, he is reborn in a world that is both afflictive and non-afflictive. When he is reborn in such a world, both afflictive and non-afflictive contacts touch him. Being touched by such contacts, he experiences both an afflictive feel- ing and a non-afflictive feeling, a mixture and conglomeration of pleasure and pain, as for example human beings and some devas and some beings in the lower world experience. This is called dark and bright kamma with dark and bright results.
"And what, monks, is kamma that is neither dark nor bright, with neither dark nor bright results, which leads to the destruction of kamma? The volition to abandon this dark kamma with dark results, and to abandon the bright kamma with bright results, and to abandon the dark and bright kamma with dark and bright results—this is called the kamma that is neither dark nor bright, with neither dark nor bright results, which leads to the destruction of kamma.
"These, monks, are the four kinds of kamma declared by me after I had realized them for myself by direct knowledge."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am
Posts: 3043
MalaBeads wrote:
What do Buddhist practitioners need now?

Anything which frees them from their conditioning.

So first, a practitioner must know, must see clearly, their own conditioning.

Then seek out methods that will free them from that conditioning.

The methods that will work, will depend upon the individual.

First, know thyself.

:smile:


I see, dependent on the individual.
The mistaken self from which the conditioned world arises, or "mistaken individuality", well the only one which is disturbing me is the mistaken myself, when I can get rid of that one! I guess no any disturbing one will be left anymore. Well, I don't know if I want that, I guess, it must be very boring!

"First, know thyself" They say Buddha looked in own Mind.

:namaste:

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_lNuNUVd4


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 12:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
tobes wrote:

How can you claim that a true dharma practitioner has a conscience independent of the dharma?



Meaning, they should not mistake their particular relative and conditioned views as representing THE Dharma, which is an eternal truth.

Quote:
The Dharma is not some objective thing independent of the world; it is a collection of truths, ideas, practices and values all of which are expressive of the way one is and ought to be in the world. In this sense, it is always and already political.


Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.

Quote:
Buddhist history clearly shows this; as do numerous nikayas and shastras.


Buddhists have acted politically, but politics and Dharma are not the same thing, and historically, political śastras are considered "mi chos", i.e. human ethics. That is different than "lha chose" i.e. Dharma.


Quote:
Nagarjuna did not see any contradiction between the dharma and giving robust normative political advice. Nor did the Buddha.

:anjali:


Secular ethics and the teachings of realization are compartmentalized in the Indo-Tibetan tradition. That of course does not mean that the canon does not record Buddha's runins with kings and ministers, but what is remarkable is that in his advice to them the goals of realization always are prioritized over and against any secular value his advice could have had.

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:20 pm 
Offline
Site Admin

Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm
Posts: 5771
Malcolm wrote:

Quote:
The Dharma is not some objective thing independent of the world; it is a collection of truths, ideas, practices and values all of which are expressive of the way one is and ought to be in the world. In this sense, it is always and already political.


Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.


Hi Malcolm, I'm having a hard time understanding how this rebuts tobes' claim on conduct in the world, which (to my mind) necessarily involves integrating in all moments and in all relationships. Which means that realization must be, in this limited sense, a social phenomenon, even a collaborative one. I think I see more agreement between your position and tobes than disagreement if this exchange is taken in a bigger context.

Am I misunderstanding?

_________________
Need help getting on retreat? Want to support others in practice? Pay the Dana for Dharma forum a visit...

viewtopic.php?f=114&t=13727


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 5:40 pm 
Offline
Global Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Posts: 3037
Location: Olympia WA
gregkavarnos wrote:
Poverty, starvation, required energy production, etc... has nothing to do with population levels and everything to do with resource allocation. Problem is that first worlders think that alleviating poverty means making everybody a first worlder. In this narrow prism of logic it is obviously impossible for economic equality to exist. It is quite obvious that this planet cannot support 7 billion first worlders. But it is Malthusian (and an extreme error) to say: they starve because there is not enough to go around. Starvation is due to greed and not to a lack of resources. There is much MUCH more than enough to go around. There is just a real need to reassess (especially in the first world) by what is meant by the term "enough".

And this idea that we let people die from causes that can be averted in order to keep the population in check? Nonsense. I once saw a photo documentary where a reporter went into the homes of families across the globe and photographed the family members, together with their food stocks (what they happened to have in their cupboard). The disparity was astounding. According to the "let 'em die" theory we should be letting first worlders die and helping people from developing countries survive, because the resources for every first worlder are enough to keep 5 people in the developing world alive.

And just to tie it back into Buddhism: in Ngondro practice we are taught to contemplate the value of this precious human rebirth and yet here we are discussing who should (deserves to) live and who should die. Like we are a great white bearded God.


:good: :good:

If it were only about scarcity of resources, Monsanto wouldn't have to destroy so many tons of food every year to keep it profitable.

One thing I would point out about all these (in my opinion erroneous) negative views of what "equality" means: In terms of human political freedom (however flawed that concept is), equality doesn't really mean everyone being the same, be it in terms of economics, gender, whatever. It often means having some degree of self determination - that is the "equal" bit, not some measurement of what a given person "has". Obviously there is alot there to criticize and work out in terms of Buddhism..but I see this constant claim from the traditionalist side that any mention of equality is some kind of attempt to make everyone the same, and I think this is a very simplified position lacking any depth of understanding of different notions of social equality.

In addition, the very "traditional" societies that are getting romanticized as the best models have been responsible in part for their own undoing by creating the conditions for modern capitalism. Therefore, traditional societies have sown the seeds of their own undoing through the creation and maintenance of things like class and gender structures that set the stage for the various struggles we see. So rather than standing in opposition to greatest excesses of capitalism and modernity, traditional societies have actually been responsible for the creation of those things.

_________________
"We're chained to the world and we all gotta pull" -Tom Waits


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am
Posts: 12736
Jikan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:

Quote:
The Dharma is not some objective thing independent of the world; it is a collection of truths, ideas, practices and values all of which are expressive of the way one is and ought to be in the world. In this sense, it is always and already political.


Ok, well, in this case we do not agree. Dharma is two-fold, the Dharma of realization and the Dharma of texts. What is the Dharma of realization? It is pretty straight-forward, summed up in the Lalitavistara, it is blissful, free from proliferation, luminous, permanent, etc. The Dharma of texts allows one to taste and realize that state.


Hi Malcolm, I'm having a hard time understanding how this rebuts tobes' claim on conduct in the world, which (to my mind) necessarily involves integrating in all moments and in all relationships. Which means that realization must be, in this limited sense, a social phenomenon, even a collaborative one. I think I see more agreement between your position and tobes than disagreement if this exchange is taken in a bigger context.

Am I misunderstanding?


The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing.

M

_________________
http://www.atikosha.org
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://www.sakyapa.net
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

How can you not practice the highest Dharma
at this time of obtaining a perfect human body?

-- Jetsun Dragpa Gyaltsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 468
Malcolm wrote:
The difference, Jikan, is that Dharma is based on wisdom, and politics is based on the limitations of thinking and judging and choosing. M


As a statement, I would agree.

However, a query immediately comes to mind. There was plenty of Dharma, based on wisdom, in old Tibet. And yet....look what happened.

In your opinion, Malcolm, what happened there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 10:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
I think, Ben Yuan, the last post you quoted me (extensively) was actually all somebody elses writing. I believe Tobes or...I'm not sure.

As for the stalemate of deeply seated opposing values and criteria we have once again reached among a few members of this forum, for as Buddhist as we are supposed to be, I feel like I'm reading the arguments of this madwoman who escaped the U.S.S.R....

Image


For those of you who thought The Fountainhead was a great take on ethics when you were 17, you might want to go re read it. :reading:

Ben Yuan, you may not have heard of a philosophy called Objectivism, but whenever you get into the sphere of economics or political theory it sounds like you're reading it straight from an interview with Ayn Rand.


Quote:
But you must also realise that the vision of civil rights we have today descends from this distinctly English institution, and we should not be so hasty to assume that all people and all cultures would do better with our own institutions. This, to pre-empt Indrajala perchance, is a form of intellectual imperialism.


Image

It sounds like you're saying only English people care about civil rights/democratic freedoms/ a system of justice predicated on equality.

Plenty of people want their version of Civil Rights...it doesn't have to be a Western power subtly/not so subtly pushing it down the throat of some developing country. Your assertion is ignoring the action and self-stated desires of the protesters in Turkey right now, for example. The radicals and liberal intellectuals in Iran. The women who won the Nobel peace prize 2011. Your argument just sounds like a lame excuse to continue the injustice and unchecked power of traditional forms of despotism, racism (as a system like Apartheid), and classism.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/ ... press.html


Last edited by Nilasarasvati on Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 468
muni wrote:
MalaBeads wrote:
What do Buddhist practitioners need now?

Anything which frees them from their conditioning.

So first, a practitioner must know, must see clearly, their own conditioning.

Then seek out methods that will free them from that conditioning.

The methods that will work, will depend upon the individual.

First, know thyself.

:smile:


I see, dependent on the individual.
The mistaken self from which the conditioned world arises, or "mistaken individuality", well the only one which is disturbing me is the mistaken myself, when I can get rid of that one! I guess no any disturbing one will be left anymore. Well, I don't know if I want that, I guess, it must be very boring!

"First, know thyself" They say Buddha looked in own Mind.

:namaste:


If you are going to provide a quote, it would be good to provide the whole quote and not just cherry pick it.

I'm actually not sure i understand all of what you are saying but by only providing only a bit of what i was saying, I'm pretty sure you did not understand what I was saying either.

Sorry, but i did not understand what you are saying.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 468
Nilasarasvati wrote:
As for the stalemate of deeply seated opposing values and criteria......

as Buddhist as we are supposed to be


Nils, I hadn't noticed a stalemate but rather an ongoing discussion. To declare a stalemate is to say there is nothing else to say to each other. Im not so sure thats true.

Also the phrase "as Buddhist as we are supposed to be" is quite strange to me. It implies (to me anyway) an adherence to dogma rather than a commitment to freedom.

My two cents.

:namaste:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
MalaBeads wrote:
Nilasarasvati wrote:
As for the stalemate of deeply seated opposing values and criteria......

as Buddhist as we are supposed to be


Nils, I hadn't noticed a stalemate but rather an ongoing discussion. To declare a stalemate is to say there is nothing else to say to each other. Im not so sure thats true.

Also the phrase "as Buddhist as we are supposed to be" is quite strange to me. It implies (to me anyway) an adherence to dogma rather than a commitment to freedom.

My two cents.

:namaste:


Hmm. I guess stalemate does mean there's nothing else to say. i mean it in the sense that, nobody here is probably going to change their minds on much.

As for "as Buddhist as we are supposed to be" thank you for calling me out on the Father Inquisitor tone that appears to have. i'm not trying to challenge anybody's Buddhism, or say anybody is more or less Buddhist than anybody else--I guess I'm just confused about some apparent contradictions in terms that I percieve with folks attitudes toward/definitions of injustice, justice, etc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 12:47 am
Posts: 468
Nilasarasvati wrote:
i mean it in the sense that, nobody here is probably going to change their minds on much.


Nila,

You can't know that. All you can know is whether or not you are going to change your mind. And it sounds like you have decided against changing your mind about anything. Not a good sign, dear one.

Have to go....

Cheers.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 18, 2013 12:17 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 3:08 am
Posts: 428
Location: Trāyastriṃśa. Just kidding. What a cool sanksrit word, huh?
You try living with my hubris! It's intoxicating!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 367 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ... 19  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: heart and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group