Adi wrote:zsc wrote:...
Malcolm -
Malcolm wrote:From a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view is not conventional reality at all.
Honestly, it seems at this point it seems like there can be no pleasing you. No matter what language I use, no usage adheres well enough to the teachings of the superior Malcolmyana vehicle, so the actual issues I am trying to discuss cannot be discussed coherently, because even terms like "conventional reality" don't actually mean "conventional reality". This is not meant to be a personal attack, but just an admission that I cannot get around your rhetorical tricks. I willingly take on this defeat
zsc, I think you have been using the phrase conventional reality and linking concepts to it in a way that is indeed, from "a Buddhist perspective, taking a one life-time view" that "is not conventional reality at all" from that perspective. There is no rhetorical trick in this as it is quite literal. I'm obviously no scholar, but as far as
I know all Buddhist schools teach as a very basic fact and concept that we have all been each other's mother, father, sister, brother, enemy, friend, companion, lover and so on an inconceivable number of times over inconceivable numbers of lifetimes. To propose solutions to a problem of one life-time without taking this into account is not to deal in conventional reality from a Buddhist perspective but rather to be caught up in the appearances of a single life-time. So to the topic of this thread, what is the use of engaging in social politics as a Buddhist if you don't bring this basic Buddhist perspective?
Anyway, that's what I see. I may be totally off-base, off the range, or just off. (Certainly wouldn't be my first time!)
Adi
This is exactly what I meant. Malcolm reframed my point (effectively I guess) to imply that I was not in fact taking all of this into consideration in my understandings, for whatever reason. This is not the only way he has done so. This is further shown when he implies I am advocating "karmically questionable" actions (whatever those may be); he has now put some kind of imaginary sinister undertone to my points as well. This is just more rhetorical smoke and mirrors.
For purposes of social concerns, what about helping people to have access to resources that would make their lives less stressful is
not about the reality of people still being trapped in the birth-and-death cycle'
seeing as how this would mean that less "conventional worldy" obstacles would hinder one's dharmic practice and study? The alternative that seems to be being proposed--considering everyone's suffering as the fruit of their karma from past life only, so nothing should be done about their suffering, meanwhile just staying self-contained and keeping our noses to the grindstone of our own practice--is the action that seems to blatantly ignore the well-being of sentient beings, their present and future births as humans (or even animals), and interdependence of all sentient beings through dependent co-origination.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:zsc:
I have never once seen a teacher (modern or historical) say that Tonglen literally could allow one to practice taking someone else's bad Karma, and I feel that (unless i'm misunderstanding you) this is a real misunderstanding of the practice on your part, i'm open to correction, and i'm no expert on Tonglen by any means, but i'm reasonably well read on the subject, and have received basic teachings on it.
I wasn't being literal just like I know Punya wasn't being literal. That's my question about the quote, actually. It's a little disjointed so I wonder how literal the author was being.
Anywho, Punya seemed to be applying an (ambiguous to me, not being able to read the whole passage) understanding of Tonglen practice to my point by framing it in a way that affirmed your theory of karma is up to an individual to "own" with the author's quote about how no one can share another's karma. Punya tried to refute my posting from a Theravadin source that confirms that in Buddhist thought, it is actually not controversial to hold the view that we can, in fact, affect each other's karma, as demonstrated through merit-making. In fact, merit-making activities are thought to be meritorious because they help to remove the karmic obstacles of ourselves or others. This includes not only chanting, but funding the construction or helping to build monasteries, schools, clinics, etc. All serve to mitigate or remove karmic obstacles of living beings, sometimes resulting from social and political problems.
I should have fleshed this out more, but the point I was trying to make was that I think the extrapolation Punya made from that one passage about Tonglen was inappropriate considering even in Tonglen practice, you are encouraged to let go of dualism that sees other sentient beings as the "other" and their suffering as completely unrelated to you. In light of the non-duality of Mahayana, I find solid distinctions of "my karma", " your karma", etc meaningless, and therefore I do not see how the suffering that is produced by this karma is self-contained to just the people experiencing it.
About being "owners of our karma", I think a good, if imperfect, analogy is that we "own" our karma in a way one would "own" a home. One has the deed, is responsible for the property taxes, it's upkeep, etc. However, this "ownership" isn't separate from the state: evading your taxes or violating ordinances will result in "your" property being seized. In a less extreme example, housing associations can censure you in some way for failing to abide by that association's regulations for residential appearance and maintenance. You also aren't free to use your home as a headquarters for illegal activity, or even as a homebase for some small business ventures. So you live in and are responsible for "your" home, but that doesn't make your home your own little sovereign state. Likewise, your karma is "yours" but that doesn't imply some kind of separation between you and the "other".
Johnny Dangerous wrote:No, I think you are doing it to turn around your own consciousness at a root level, which then creates the conditions for your advancement on the path, and allows you to help others eventually because your own obscurations are cleared - or however a Theravedan would phrase the same thing.
What you say is true. I can say this without making a false dichotomy between this and the fact that it is understood to also help to remove the karmic obstacles of others. I do not ascribe to the rational pragmatic strain of modern Theravada, though, but I don't doubt you have read other Theravadins who say that this is all that is to our lovingkindness chanting. Things are different "on the ground".
Johhny Dangerous wrote:I grant you that I am more familiar with Tibetan Buddhism than anything else, but I believe you may actually be mistaken if you think that Theraveda doctrine on Karma would accept (outside of syncretic magic belief etc.) that you are actually sending out good Karma and remove the bad Karma of others directly and routinely through the practice - that is contrary to every mainstream presentation of the workings of karma that i'm aware of.
By referring to traditional practice as "syncretic magic belief" with usually negative connotations being attached to that concept, you're pretty much setting it up to render any explanation I give to be "superstition", but yes, transference/dedication of merit is traditionally understood to help remove the karmic obstacles of others. Like I touched on before, looking at things from a non-dualistic, interdependent viewpoint, I do not see how your proposition of self-containment is appropriate in thinking about how to mitigate suffering from a Buddhist perspective.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:BTW, Rory's very wiki link pointed out what a thorny thing "transference of merit" is in Buddhist doctrine overall, because it runs counter to virtually every teaching of Karma out there..so i'm not sure what you're trying to argue against here, this is not a claim that it's an invalid practice of course..but it does back up exactly what is being said here about the standard explanation of karma.
No, the article did not say that "transference of merit" was
counter to every teaching of karma out there (in "early Buddhism"). It was "out there" itself. The controversy the article discussed is how there was a discrepancy between the claims of historians about whether this practice was a Mahayana addition or not. As with everything else in Theravada vs. Mahayana comparisons, we are now acknowledging that there is some overlap of doctrinal development and praxis between the two schools. The same section notes how there
is evidence that the practice was established in Theravadin countries in early centuries (we can obviously observe it's alive and well in Theravadin praxis now). As Buddhist scholarship drifts further from the initial somewhat linear understanding of Buddhist history that goes Theravada ----> Mahayana -----> Vajrayana, people are seeing that thinking of Theravada, especially as how it exists today, as this "ancient" school that fossilized Buddhist teaching before Mahayanists went crazy with it, may just be an oversimplification. In other words, it's looking more like Theravada <----> Mahayana <----->Vajrayana, depending on the region.
The critics of the practice (not really seeing it as invalid but as a deviation) oversimplify the Theravadin position when they are quoted as to writing: transfer of merit "breaks the strict causality of the Hinayānic law of karman (P. kamma) according to which everybody wanting better rebirth can reach it solely by his own efforts". I think western Buddhism should put the old trope of the "self-centered" Theravadin arhat to bed; saying "solely by his own efforts" in the English language comes with a lot of assumptions that actually contradict Buddhism, and that limit us when it comes to talking about what that actually means. To us, I think that phrase implies that a man or woman reaches arhatship in isolation from the lives and working of other beings, but observing the realities of Theravadin life shows how that is not the case. The interdependence of the community of the sangha is so apparent, it doesn't even need to be said. Of course we all rely on Buddho (who is not understood as being "separate"), but also caring for the monks and the monastery (and it's grounds) is seen as meritorious, in part because it directly aids the monks in achieving arhatship, as well as enables them to be able to teach us the dharma (which is itself a boon). The abbot of my sangha speaks about practictioners training their mind themselves, but context reveals that neither he, nor anyone else, takes an exhortation to personal practice to the extreme of assuming we all practice our paths as our own little "islands" of self.
Also, I don't think I have to point out in a Mahayana forum that it is possible to not consider Theravada as the "gold standard" to compare all other vehicles and sects to.
As far as what I am "arguing against", it may be the idea that we exist as inherently separate entities in our own isolated worlds, since that seems to be the philosophical assumption of a lot of critics of "Engaged Buddhism".
plwk - I skimmed the posts and articles, and I am enjoying my reading so far. And about the video, I am basically operating on that same definition of "politics" which is "the affairs of the people", so I really don't see as difference between charity work and politics. In that sense, I do agree with comments like that of
tellyontellyon. A lot of professional charity workers will be the first ones to acknowledge that charity work is very "political" and it doesn't all run on altruism. It's like having a long-lasting marriage: love is definitely not enough