Karma

[kannot]

On 11/17/2018 at 1:51 PM, mauGR1 said:

believe

"belief" is  nothing without evidence

[VincentRJ]

14 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

 

To inherit from a previous life assumes some survival of some soul-like aspect be that soul itself, consciousness, etc., however defined. 

Sorry! I should not have written 'previous life'. I meant 'another life', that is, the life of one's parents. I consider the concepts of Karma and Rebirth to be imaginative and intelligent explanations, in pre-scientific times, of what we now understand to be genetic inheritance passed on from parents to child.

 

I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism.

[kannot]

On 2/15/2019 at 2:45 PM, Neeranam said:

I are there any Buddhist sects that are as strict as Jains and other Hindu ones when it comes to not eating underground food?

 

I remember in india there was a monk who would never lol mosquitoes, or even use repellent.

 

 

yet everyday with every step he took he probably  killed something..................ah but that doesnt matter  right as he didnt  mean to......

[kannot]

On 11/17/2018 at 1:51 PM, mauGR1 said:

I believe Karma exists, i also think that it's very difficult to understand how it works.

If your heart is telling you that something is bad, it surely is, though.

Will a  weasel's  heart  tell it somethings  bad when it enters  the  coup and  kills  all the chickens for  fun?

"Bad" is another human construct the weasel knows  no "bad" one mans bad is anothers good

[thaicurious]

17 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! I should not have written 'previous life'. I meant 'another life', that is, the life of one's parents. I consider the concepts of Karma and Rebirth to be imaginative and intelligent explanations, in pre-scientific times, of what we now understand to be genetic inheritance passed on from parents to child.

 

I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism.

Okay, got it. thanks for homing in on that. That might have stood on firmer scientific ground weren't it for all the quantum stuff which to me means ya has ta leave some room open for what might be discovered later. String theory new? Dig the vibrations, man. What science now might seem to prove otherwise might later prove the other wiser.

 

I'm born as what some who study dreaming refer to as a natural, a lucid dreamer born this way, meaning that from my earliest childhood memories I've been conscious also in my sleep. The Tibetan Buddhists have been studying in a systematic way dream yoga for centuries. Western science much more recently.

 

The best science has determined to date is that consciousness survives at least for a short period the otherwise death of the body. If I recall that research a great deal of energy or blood or heat or electric impulse or something goes to the brain at the death of the body. Eventually though there's nothing there to measure with today's instruments but a cold corpse.

 

In dream yoga we explore consciousness unfettered by  distractions of the body, of the physical (speaking for practical purposes--what can be seen, touched, heard, etc.) world. There you find experiences that you'd be hard pressed to attribute to imagination because at least for me I'm pretty sure I'm not that clever. That includes everything from experiencing yourself as music to what some refer to as astral projection, out of body stuff, etc. And of course what a wonderful place to meditate.

 

I lump it all into a group I simply call dreaming. In my many decades of untold hours, daily since I was so young that I didn't know the difference between my body being awake and being asleep (I've since figured it out, thanx for asking), of sometimes careful sometimes playful study in that, of self exploration and finding my own way, of utilizing just for grins techniques developed by various cultures all doing the same thing, as to whether or not any of that transitions into some other life, as to whether or not that even survives the death of this body I can tell you definitively, without question or reservation that I hasn't a clue. And people say life isn't fun!

 

Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness.

 

Were I to give any of that much consideration, as it is not my focus, I'd tend to think of Universe as being bigger than me. It makes less sense to me to say that even my own consciousness wouldn't exist without me than to say that I wouldn't exist without my consciousness. Perhaps what gives me that sense has been my explorations of consciousness. It is so so so much bigger than me that it doesn't seem like it would fit in me. Perhaps I exist in it.

Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.

[dick dasterdly]

19 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think the above statement is right. The father of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a German composer, conductor, teacher, and violinist. Refer the following Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart

 

As I understand, a developing child in the womb is sensitive to sounds from outside the womb, and is influenced by his mother's reaction to those sounds.

 

Research has shown that a child who is exposed to classical music, whilst in the womb, will have a natural liking and interest in such music when he is born. When such an interest is later encouraged by the father, then it's not surprising if the child later shows great talent.

 

From the Wiki article: 
"Leopold discovered that his two children were musically gifted in about 1759, when he began with keyboard lessons for the seven-year-old Nannerl. The toddler Wolfgang immediately began imitating his sister, at first picking out thirds on the keyboard and then making rapid progress under Leopold's instruction."
 

Sorry to bring this very interesting discussion back to basics - but surely it was mostly due to genetics?

 

Geniuses, in any sphere, have at least one parent that was very intelligent in that sphere?

[dick dasterdly]

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Anthropomorphized because you said “Genes might appear to be mechanical …However, the reality is very complex with so many interacting factors, including our behaviour...”, none of which denies, unless attributing to genes, consciousness (which can be argued either way), rather still mere mechanics on the part of the genes (at least for practical consideration--ie what we might have control over now), however influenced. Should quantum physics one day show a consciousness of genetics, & should we individually learn to access/incorporate that into our being as we can, say, type our fingers to a keyboard, then it would not be anthro'd but actual.

 

Not plucking out of context, I also said even if jokingly conscious intent and karma thereby graded on a sliding scale in consideration of mitigating circumstances, so whether by subconscious tendencies, by pathologies borne by genes, etc. and then Included in that equation might be how awake is a person, how much control can someone get over their pathology, how willing are they to work on it, how strong is the pathology preventing or distracting from that aspect of free will, etc. Thus why intoxication is considered a violation of precept, the willful giving up of self control.

To inherit from a previous life assumes some survival of some soul-like aspect be that soul itself, consciousness, etc., however defined. Those arguments go back and forth while running circles and figure 8s. My concern is more with the practicalities of present living. I am but a candle lit now. My focus from as far back as I can recall has been exploration of consciousness in this life. I'm not afraid of snakes. Some of my closest loved ones have been vipers.

Reincarnation seems unlikely to me for obvious (?) reasons - but I do think our 'soul' is entirely separate from our body.

 

"My concern is more with the practicalities of present living. I am but a candle lit now. My focus from as far back as I can recall has been exploration of consciousness in this life."

 

Same here, so have to agree.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Sorry! I should not have written 'previous life'. I meant 'another life', that is, the life of one's parents. I consider the concepts of Karma and Rebirth to be imaginative and intelligent explanations, in pre-scientific times, of what we now understand to be genetic inheritance passed on from parents to child.

 

I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism.

"I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism."

 

I hope, and think that you're wrong in this respect.

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, kannot said:

"belief" is  nothing without evidence

Everything you can think about exists in some realm of existence.

But if you want to think that reality is confined to the physical world, that's your legit choice.

[kannot]

3 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Everything you can think about exists in some realm of existence.

But if you want to think that reality is confined to the physical world, that's your legit choice.

in which case you may as  well believe everything was created by a peanut  called  Geoffrey as its going to exist in "some realm of existence".....................hmmmmmmmmmm I dont think so

[dick dasterdly]

48 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Okay, got it. thanks for homing in on that. That might have stood on firmer scientific ground weren't it for all the quantum stuff which to me means ya has ta leave some room open for what might be discovered later. String theory new? Dig the vibrations, man. What science now might seem to prove otherwise might later prove the other wiser.

 

I'm born as what some who study dreaming refer to as a natural, a lucid dreamer born this way, meaning that from my earliest childhood memories I've been conscious also in my sleep. The Tibetan Buddhists have been studying in a systematic way dream yoga for centuries. Western science much more recently.

 

The best science has determined to date is that consciousness survives at least for a short period the otherwise death of the body. If I recall that research a great deal of energy or blood or heat or electric impulse or something goes to the brain at the death of the body. Eventually though there's nothing there to measure with today's instruments but a cold corpse.

 

In dream yoga we explore consciousness unfettered by  distractions of the body, of the physical (speaking for practical purposes--what can be seen, touched, heard, etc.) world. There you find experiences that you'd be hard pressed to attribute to imagination because at least for me I'm pretty sure I'm not that clever. That includes everything from experiencing yourself as music to what some refer to as astral projection, out of body stuff, etc. And of course what a wonderful place to meditate.

 

I lump it all into a group I simply call dreaming. In my many decades of untold hours, daily since I was so young that I didn't know the difference between my body being awake and being asleep (I've since figured it out, thanx for asking), of sometimes careful sometimes playful study in that, of self exploration and finding my own way, of utilizing just for grins techniques developed by various cultures all doing the same thing, as to whether or not any of that transitions into some other life, as to whether or not that even survives the death of this body I can tell you definitively, without question or reservation that I hasn't a clue. And people say life isn't fun!

 

Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness.

 

Were I to give any of that much consideration, as it is not my focus, I'd tend to think of Universe as being bigger than me. It makes less sense to me to say that even my own consciousness wouldn't exist without me than to say that I wouldn't exist without my consciousness. Perhaps what gives me that sense has been my explorations of consciousness. It is so so so much bigger than me that it doesn't seem like it would fit in me. Perhaps I exist in it.

Merrily merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream.

"I lump it all into a group I simply call dreaming. In my many decades of untold hours, daily since I was so young that I didn't know the difference between my body being awake and being asleep (I've since figured it out, thanx for asking), of sometimes careful sometimes playful study in that, of self exploration and finding my own way, of utilizing just for grins techniques developed by various cultures all doing the same thing, as to whether or not any of that transitions into some other life, as to whether or not that even survives the death of this body I can tell you definitively, without question or reservation that I hasn't a clue."

 

It's not always just "dreaming".

 

As a child I'd often go to bed and start thinking about the 'impossibilities' - e.g. time/space/universe (i.e. how can there be no beginning and no end?) - which always resulted in an 'out of body, looking down at myself thinking that body is not ME) experience.  And I was not asleep or dreaming.

 

Decades later, I discovered that I'd hypnotised myself.

[kannot]

Just now, dick dasterdly said:

"I lump it all into a group I simply call dreaming. In my many decades of untold hours, daily since I was so young that I didn't know the difference between my body being awake and being asleep (I've since figured it out, thanx for asking), of sometimes careful sometimes playful study in that, of self exploration and finding my own way, of utilizing just for grins techniques developed by various cultures all doing the same thing, as to whether or not any of that transitions into some other life, as to whether or not that even survives the death of this body I can tell you definitively, without question or reservation that I hasn't a clue."

 

It's not always just "dreaming".

 

As a child I'd often go to bed and start thinking about the 'impossibilities' - e.g. time/space/universe (i.e. how can there be no beginning and no end?) - which always resulted in an 'out of body, looking down at myself thinking that body is not ME) experience.  And I was not asleep or dreaming.

 

Decades later, I discovered that I'd hypnotised myself.

Time to wake up Id  say

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, kannot said:

Will a  weasel's  heart  tell it somethings  bad when it enters  the  coup and  kills  all the chickens for  fun?

"Bad" is another human construct the weasel knows  no "bad" one mans bad is anothers good

Yes, good and bad exist, and there is also "not good, not bad" in infinite forms.

Just a matter of self consciousness if we talk about human beings.

In the case you use as a metaphor, bad for the chickens and for you, good for the weasel.

As to answer the question, of course the weasel will be excited to do the job it has been programmed to do, and possibly feel something compared to happiness when the job is done successfully.

[VincentRJ]

58 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness.

Well, obviously a physical organism can exist without consciousness. When you sleep without dreaming, you are continuing to exist without consciousness. When you are given an anesthetic prior to a medical operation, you continue to exist without consciousness, just as you do if someone bangs you on the head, knocking you unconscious.

 

Sometimes people can be comatose for long periods, creating the impression they are dead. In the past, before the development of modern medicine with its accurate instruments that can detect the slightest sign of life, it sometimes happened that people were buried alive because they just appeared to be dead. Days or weeks later, they would return to consciousness in their coffin and furiously scratch the surface in an attempt to get out. The scratch marks, which have been observed in certain unearthed old coffins, are evidence that this sometimes has occurred, perhaps quite often. It explains Biblical stories of certain prophets magically raising people from the dead. They were never dead in the first place.  ????
 

[mauGR1]

8 minutes ago, kannot said:

in which case you may as  well believe everything was created by a peanut  called  Geoffrey as its going to exist in "some realm of existence".....................hmmmmmmmmmm I dont think so

Well, i am rather selective in my beliefs, so, what is real for you may be different from what is real for me.

[jak2002003]

28 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Reincarnation seems unlikely to me for obvious (?) reasons - but I do think our 'soul' is entirely separate from our body.

 

"My concern is more with the practicalities of present living. I am but a candle lit now. My focus from as far back as I can recall has been exploration of consciousness in this life."

 

Same here, so have to agree.

One on the main teachings of the Buddha is their is NO soul or self.

 

 

[mauGR1]

26 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"I don't believe consciousness can exist on its own, without a supporting, physical organism."

 

I hope, and think that you're wrong in this respect.

If we accept that a single atom can exist on his own, we should accept that everything can exist on its own.

Only because as human beings we are able to formulate some idea of "consciousness", it would be foolish to think that consciousness exists only within a physical organism.

I remember reading a book, " the consciousness of the atom" , and through logical analysis, one is indeed brought to accept that every single atom is conscious in some way.

[VincentRJ]

11 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

One of the main teachings of the Buddha is their is NO soul or self.

 

 

That's true. This is one of the distinctions between the ancient Vedic concept of Reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of Rebirth, although, confusingly, there are stories in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha, whilst achieving enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, recalling thousands of previous lives, in all there detail, including name and position in society.
 

[dick dasterdly]

20 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

One on the main teachings of the Buddha is their is NO soul or self.

 

 

I didn't know that, but then (admittedly) know very little about the teachings of Buddha.

 

So no 'soul' or reincarnation - just concentrate on causing the least harm possible?

 

In which case, why bother with 'enlightenment'?

 

Genuine question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

[thaicurious]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

It's not always just "dreaming".

 

As a child I'd often go to bed and start thinking about the 'impossibilities' - e.g. time/space/universe (i.e. how can there be no beginning and no end?) - which always resulted in an 'out of body, looking down at myself thinking that body is not ME) experience.  And I was not asleep or dreaming.

 

Decades later, I discovered that I'd hypnotised myself.

I neither know for certain what you think you experienced as both a child's imagination can run wild and the passing of time can alter memory particularly if we hadn't full & correct information about our experiences earlier on, nor am I familiar with hypnosis, self or otherwise but by your description It sounds possible that you were working then with your mind during the hypnagogic state, basically a bardo, the between wake and sleep. An experienced lucid dreamer, or beginner for that matter, can use that space as a jumping point into lucidity during sleep.  From there its "just" a matter of maintaining consciousness while putting the body to sleep.

 

While some people go through life "asleep", pretty much sleepwalking through life, generally in speech being asleep refers to the body. Also in speech, being awake in sleep refers to that the mind is still awake while the body sleeps which is the experience of lucid dreaming, dream yoga, oobe's, sleep paralysis, APs, etc., all dreaming by any name.

[thaicurious]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, obviously a physical organism can exist without consciousness. When you sleep without dreaming, you are continuing to exist without consciousness. When you are given an anesthetic prior to a medical operation, you continue to exist without consciousness, just as you do if someone bangs you on the head, knocking you unconscious.

 

Sometimes people can be comatose for long periods, creating the impression they are dead. In the past, before the development of modern medicine with its accurate instruments that can detect the slightest sign of life, it sometimes happened that people were buried alive because they just appeared to be dead. Days or weeks later, they would return to consciousness in their coffin and furiously scratch the surface in an attempt to get out. The scratch marks, which have been observed in certain unearthed old coffins, are evidence that this sometimes has occurred, perhaps quite often. It explains Biblical stories of certain prophets magically raising people from the dead. They were never dead in the first place.  ????
 

Zombies aside, when I sleep without dreaming lucidly or when I am not even dreaming nonlucidly merely means that I am not at the time conscious in the sense of being aware of my sleeping to the degree that I know at the time that I am sleeping and dreaming nor even conscious enough, aware enough, to remember the dreaming upon my body awakening. It does not mean that consciousness itself has left existence.

 

Similarly when we say that a person has lost consciousness by a bump on the head, that phrase, "lost consciousness", refers not to the lost and found box of misplaced consciousnesses, rather, only to that a person has lost awareness though the word consciousness is used to describe that experience, the phrase, lost consciousness in that regard is not in that case referring to the greater concept of consciousness but to awareness of self and surroundings.

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

That's true. This is one of the distinctions between the ancient Vedic concept of Reincarnation and the Buddhist concept of Rebirth, although, confusingly, there are stories in the Buddhist scriptures of the Buddha, whilst achieving enlightenment under the Bodhi tree, recalling thousands of previous lives, in all there detail, including name and position in society.
 

That is correct.  However, those past lives were not him, or his soul.  Nothing that we think makes our 'self' is carried on into the 'next life' or reborn, only our energies... but all out lives / rebirths are connected, like a string running through beads on a necklace.... each bead is a separate thing, but the string running through them all 'connects' them.  

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I didn't know that, but then (admittedly) know very little about the teachings of Buddha.

 

So no 'soul' or reincarnation - just concentrate on causing the least harm possible?

 

In which case, why bother with 'enlightenment'?

 

Genuine question, I'm not trying to be argumentative.

You do not have to bother with enlightenment at all if you don't want to.  With Buddhism its all about the individual.  

 

It's not about causing the least amount of harm you can, that is just one of the things that naturally come from the entire experience of following the Buddhist life.

 

Buddhism is about escaping / eliminating suffering, not exactly helping others in order to do that, but helping yourself, and then out of that the world around us gets less suffering too (I think from this good karma).  

 

Suffering is part of life, and a lot of it is cause by ourselves, in our minds, through wanting or craving to have things and many other things, we make our own hells in our minds through our desires, and this makes bad karma, which is like pollution... pollutes ourselves and also people / environment around us, negativity, causing more suffering.

 

That's why Buddhist teaching is to 'awaken' ourselves to realise that the reality we believe in , how we view the world, and ourselves, is something we made up ourselves, its not the way the universe and reality truly are... we sort of have to see it more deeply, understand it more and as that gradually happens we become more awakened or enlightened.  

 

Eventually the result might be that we are completely enlightened, and then we will have no suffering anymore... we will escape the suffering, constant 'rebirth' from one life or force / form to anther, and be at peace with total happiness and bliss.

 

Its very difficult to understand, and even harder to write it down like this, but this is my current level of understanding about it, and many people will have different opinions, as that is the beauty of Buddhism.,.. there are not really and right and wrong views as long as we are all heading in the right direction.  

 

 

[thaicurious]

8 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Buddhism is about escaping / eliminating suffering, not exactly helping others in order to do that, but helping yourself, and then out of that the world around us gets less suffering too (I think from this good karma).

Escaping might not be the best way to look at that as escape has a sense of running away from. A prisoner escapes, runs away from his jailer. Buddhism is not about running away but, the opposite, about confronting suffering (a prisoner does not confront his captor to escape, just digs a tunnel to get away), about becoming aware of suffering and its causes, leading towards ways to reduce suffering and even to the cessation of suffering. Less about escaping, more about no longer clinging to the bars that might hold you.

 

Two major schools of Buddhism:

Theravada as taught mostly in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, etc. differing from Mahayana as taught in Vietnam, Tibet, China, etc.

 

Theravada is closer to your saying "eliminating suffering, not exactly helping others in order to do that, but helping yourself" while Mahayana is about getting "there" but then staying on the wheel, foregoing Nirvana to help others get there also.

 

That a person hops off the wheel could be as you say less suffering in the world because of good karma that person created during life or perhaps just one less person adding to traffic jams, depending on your point of view.

[Puwa]

On 11/24/2018 at 2:16 AM, rockyysdt said:

 

Firstly, it's important to understand the word Karma (Pali: Kamma).

 

Karma is a Verb, not, as is commonly misconceived, ones destiny. 

 

A verb is a word/s associated with "action" or "doing".

Not quite a verb, but a noun meaning deed, action, and the effects of action.

[VincentRJ]

18 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Zombies aside, when I sleep without dreaming lucidly or when I am not even dreaming nonlucidly merely means that I am not at the time conscious in the sense of being aware of my sleeping to the degree that I know at the time that I am sleeping and dreaming nor even conscious enough, aware enough, to remember the dreaming upon my body awakening. It does not mean that consciousness itself has left existence.

 

Similarly when we say that a person has lost consciousness by a bump on the head, that phrase, "lost consciousness", refers not to the lost and found box of misplaced consciousnesses, rather, only to that a person has lost awareness though the word consciousness is used to describe that experience, the phrase, lost consciousness in that regard is not in that case referring to the greater concept of consciousness but to awareness of self and surroundings.

It is true, if a person simply passes out for a while, losing consciousness,  that does not necessarily mean that consciousness has permanently left his existence. If the person recovers, then consciousness returns, of course.

 

I was addressing your statement that " you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness". You didn't specify a time period. However, I would agree that for any organism to apply its normal activities of gathering food in order to survive and propagate, some type, level or degree of consciousness is necessary, and that type or degree of consciousness is related to the genetic qualities of the organism.

 

This is the broad definition of consciousness that I use: "The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings". In this sense, even bacteria must be conscious, to some degree. However, many creatures hibernate or lie dormant, sometimes for many years. During this time, they cannot be conscious, according to the definition I'm using.

 

You seem to be referring to a specific quality of consciousness that exists even if one is not conscious.  Consciousness does not have a single cause, but is a result of a myriad of processes within the organism. If just a few of those processes are disrupted, then consciousness can cease, either temporarily if the organism later wakes up, or permanently if it dies. (As far as I know, of course. I'm just trying to be rational and sensible ???? )
 

[HAKAPALITA]

Every one i know who babbles about Karma never get anywhere, dont stand their ground, just wander off.[emoji86]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[thaicurious]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I was addressing your statement that " you ought not believe a physical organism can exist on its own without a supporting consciousness". You didn't specify a time period. However, I would agree that for any organism to apply its normal activities of gathering food in order to survive and propagate, some type, level or degree of consciousness is necessary, and that type or degree of consciousness is related to the genetic qualities of the organism.

I did not say what you've said I said that "you ought not believe" as I was not telling you what to believe and so it is a bit disingenuous of you to present that snip out of context. What I said was: "Quantum physics might one day show you ought not believe...." as a pun on what you'd said, by here utilizing the concept of quantum consciousness or quantum mind, for there are numerous ways of thinking about consciousness, not just yours even if you think the one you googled is the most realistic.

 

Here's a google on the Buddhist take of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vijñāna#Dependent_origination

[dick dasterdly]

21 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

That is correct.  However, those past lives were not him, or his soul.  Nothing that we think makes our 'self' is carried on into the 'next life' or reborn, only our energies... but all out lives / rebirths are connected, like a string running through beads on a necklace.... each bead is a separate thing, but the string running through them all 'connects' them.  

If so, then I can't really see the point?

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

If so, then I can't really see the point?

Imho, it's all about belief in a theory.

As i see it, Lord Buddha is teaching a way out of samsara, as easy and simple as it can be.

Personally i can see a clear pattern among various teachings, it's only that the words can be confusing at times.