Western Buddhists

[Brucenkhamen]

It seems that the only action that would not create any karma would be an unintentional one. So for example if I accidentally tread on someone’s toe, I may have cased them pain but have not created any bad karma as there was no intention to do it.

While I agree that kamma (or more correctly vipakka or vipakka-kamma) is primarily the result of intention leading to action I have a problem with situations like the one in your example.

Surely the heedlessness or lack of mindfulness that led to the unintentional accident creates a kamma of it's own. Nobody intends to go out and have a car accident but a split second of inattention and it's all over, that inattention has a kammic result. It may be different in some way to the kammic result of an intentional act but it has a result all the same.

I guess that's why mindfulness is so important in Buddhism.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Brucenkhamen

[ade100]

It seems that the only action that would not create any karma would be an unintentional one. So for example if I accidentally tread on someone's toe, I may have cased them pain but have not created any bad karma as there was no intention to do it.

While I agree that kamma (or more correctly vipakka or vipakka-kamma) is primarily the result of intention leading to action I have a problem with situations like the one in your example.

Surely the heedlessness or lack of mindfulness that led to the unintentional accident creates a kamma of it's own. Nobody intends to go out and have a car accident but a split second of inattention and it's all over, that inattention has a kammic result. It may be different in some way to the kammic result of an intentional act but it has a result all the same.

I guess that's why mindfulness is so important in Buddhism.

Yep, even as I was writing that example I was already having second thoughts. If I were to be a little more careful and respectful of other people's personal space perhaps I wouldn't be treading on people's toes (unless of course I was ballroom dancing :-))

So can anyone give a good example of an action that would not generate any karma?

I am thinking about it...

[chownah]

Arahants (enlightened people) do not make kamma.....eveything that they do is an example of doing something that does not make kamma.

Chownah

[ade100]

Arahants (enlightened people) do not make kamma.....eveything that they do is an example of doing something that does not make kamma.

Chownah

I am going to set up a new thread for this karmic discussion is its starting to get interesting

[rockyysdt]

Rockyysdt, I made one assumption that you are talking about and practising Buddhism, please correct me if I am wrong.

You wrote some interesting points - "[/size]My ego and personality is quite flawed.

Having said that, I was loosely referring to reconnection with the infinite power which exists and which we are part of.

In our finite state we can't even begin to comprehend it, but our quest is to become reunited."

If we come from nothing and one day become nothing again then I am not sure the ego and personality is really yours!

I am not sure what you mean by the infinite power and what it means to be reunited?

Do you practise meditation in order to be reunited with the infinite power?

And what happened when you are reunited? Do you become infinitely powerful too?

Anything I say is only speculation gathered from my limited experience both personal and from others during my life.

Don't take me as an authority, but as a traveler in life wanting answers to my life.

I don't think Buddha would have liked to be idolized as he often is, but would have preferred to be known as a one who succeeded in being enlightened and returned to inspire and teach.

Just a few points in answer to your post.

1. Although in Buddhism God isn't a being as described in religions such as Christianity, I think it depends on what our interpretation of God is. I'll go out on a limb and describe God. "God is everything that there ever was, everything that there ever will be, all at once and forever".

2. As people are associated with and only conscious of their ego, many can't accept existence without it. Our personalities and identity is merely our ego. and not enduring. Just a facade. The real part of us lies within, waiting for us to experience it.

3. I describe a human as a singular manifestation in time and space. In this state we are subject to the physical laws of our physical universe. Transcendence reunites our real selves (hidden to us), which is infinity.

4. Simply being mindful and practicing in silence and observing all precepts is no guarantee of transcendence and or reunification with infinity. In our finite state we can't comprehend it, or even begin to understand how it works or what it is.

5. Being currently associated with my finite state, I can't begin to understand infinity I can't answer your questions.

6. All I can do is travel on my journey through life, battling my ego and negative self talk in my quest for answers.

7. I also believe that our ego's are shaped as young children by our environment and through our carers influence, and give each of us unique experiences, beliefs and challenges.

I could be wrong about everything that I have written.

It'll be my lifes quest to work towards the answers.

Edited December 30, 2007 by rockyysdt

[jumnien]

For those averse to the word "spiritual", what do you think the Dalai Lama is talking about when he uses the term in his buddhist writings? Indeed, he uses it in the title of many of his books. Just curious.

[jamesc2000]

For those averse to the word "spiritual", what do you think the Dalai Lama is talking about when he uses the term in his buddhist writings? Indeed, he uses it in the title of many of his books. Just curious.

The beauty of Buddhism is that it does not have a head or an authority to make rules for the religion or even interpret the religion for you. People just have to do that themselves!

This is unlike the Christians and other religions. The Catholics have a Pope that makes rules or religious laws for his church. The Church of England also has a leader. All churches have leaders and I think most other religions have leaders too.

Buddhism allows you to decide yourself what is true or not. The Dalai Lama does not speak on behalf of Buddha.

The nice thing about the Dalai Lama is that goes around the world and speaks to people on Buddhism. If you can catch him during his talks or contact him, I think he will be happy to share his views with you.

Btw I love the word spiritual and in no way averse to it but Buddhism uses mindfulness and skilled or unskilled thoughts/action/speach and I like it so much better than sin or guilt or imperfect and unworthy of God!

Don't you just love it too?

[jumnien]

I do love it. I would say I have a spiritual path and that path is buddhism and I try to live a spiritual way of life. I've seen the Dalai Lama and I don't hold him higher than any of my other spiritual teachers. I'm not a Christian and some aspects of all religions bother me, but I'd have to say that most of the Christians I know personally don't ascribe to any Pope or other lawmaker or ruler or leader. They just like what their man Christ said about love, tolerance and charity.

[jamesc2000]

I do love it. I would say I have a spiritual path and that path is buddhism and I try to live a spiritual way of life. I've seen the Dalai Lama and I don't hold him higher than any of my other spiritual teachers.

You really do bring up some excellent points!

One of the best things of Buddhism is that the Buddha did not appoint a leader to represent his teachings or interpret them! The teachings themselves and not a person will be the guide.

You sound as if you have quite a few spiritual teachers! Do they conflict with each other, I mean their teachings and not them personally!

but I'd have to say that most of the Christians I know personally don't ascribe to any Pope or other lawmaker or ruler or leader. They just like what their man Christ said about love, tolerance and charity.

Do your Christian friends attend a church without a priest/pastor/leader? If so, which church would that be?

Unless your Christian friends are about 2000 years old they would not have heard Christ's teachings directly from Jesus the man himself.

Then how would they know what the Christ taught? If you say the Bible then you have to ask yourself, who decided which books go into the Bible and which do not!

The Vatican and the Popes decided this. Your Christian friends may not ascribe to any Pope but if they read the Bible they are certainly influence by what they read and more importantly what they do not read by a number of Popes!

but I'd have to say that most of the Christians I know personally don't ascribe to any Pope or other lawmaker or ruler or leader.

Really? Not even Moses? Or God?

[jumnien]

I've come across many Christians and Buddhists who are genuinely interested in helping poor and sick people and feeding the hungry and less interested in dogma. Many Christians absolutely don't care if you believe in God or not, it's just there personal thing; same with Hindus. Course in Miracles is a good place to start to meet some buddhist/christians. The teachings don't conflict; they support and sustain each other. It's not that complicated, it's about love, baby.

I've worked hand in hand in the trenches with Catholics for many years in helping alcoholics and drug addicts to recover and I've never had one of them, the Catholics, ask me if I believed in God or tell me I should. I've watched them harbour illegal aliens and distribute clean needles and condoms and I don't think they were just following the commands of the authorities in Rome. They were doing what they thought was right - helping people less fortunate than themselves and spreading good will. They had absolutely no interest in whether people knew who their man Christ was, they just got a bit of inspiration from his teachings and ran with it, the same as the buddhists, jews, and atheists in the crowd. By the way, the man who taught me to read basic Tibetan walking around Kathmandu was a Catholic priest.

Edited December 30, 2007 by sunrise07

[jamesc2000]

I've come across many Christians and Buddhists who are genuinely interested in helping poor and sick people and feeding the hungry and less interested in dogma. Many Christians absolutely don't care if you believe in God or not, it's just there personal thing; same with Hindus. Course in Miracles is a good place to start to meet some buddhist/christians. The teachings don't conflict; they support and sustain each other. It's not that complicated, it's about love, baby.

I've worked hand in hand in the trenches with Catholics for many years in helping alcoholics and drug addicts to recover and I've never had one of them, the Catholics, ask me if I believed in God or tell me I should. I've watched them harbour illegal aliens and distribute clean needles and condoms and I don't think they were just following the commands of the authorities in Rome. They were doing what they thought was right - helping people less fortunate than themselves and spreading good will. They had absolutely no interest in whether people knew who their man Christ was, they just got a bit of inspiration from his teachings and ran with it, the same as the buddhists, jews, and atheists in the crowd. By the way, the man who taught me to read basic Tibetan walking around Kathmandu was a Catholic priest.

I like Catholics too cos very few of them evangelise!

I like Buddhists too cos they never evangelise.

I agree with you its great to help the poor and sick people and feed the hungry etc etc

And one criticism of Theravada is that they don't do enough of this good works.

Theravada really does not need any defending especially from me and I am not going to do it!

But all I see is a man in a house on fire falling down on him.

Is the best way to help him to get him out of the house immediately or ask him is he feeling hot and thirty and if he says yes then asking him to stay put for a minute and getting him a glass of water and a nice cool towel?

The delusion is strong and sometimes if feels better to prolong the delusion and make people feel a little bit more comfortable in it because shattering the delusion is really brutal.

[jumnien]

Well, we've certainly cleared that up!