Birth Defects Is This Karma ?

[Pepe']

Just a couple of points if anyone could comment......

I am sure I have read and heard that Buddha, and previous Buddhas had full mastery of the the universe and were adept in all manner of yogic powers including creating new worlds. Now he was a sentient being lets not forget. Surely this is a God also.

I disagree with these points

You can not change your past

You can do little to influence the future

The future is unknowable, the past is unchangeable - this is wrong!

There is nothing you can not do all limitations are created by yourself.

-----------------

Well this is a Buddhist forum. At least according to the beliefs which many of us hold sacred you would be wrong.

However you can believe what ever you like to believe...

[Brucenkhamen]

I am sure I have read and heard that Buddha, and previous Buddhas had full mastery of the the universe and were adept in all manner of yogic powers including creating new worlds. Now he was a sentient being lets not forget. Surely this is a God also.

Surely not, he was a man just like you and me.

This is the whole point of Buddhism, that the ultimate is achievable by ordinary men and women.

Now if you are saying that he became equal or higher than those that were considered gods at the time I don't have a problem with the idea, I think the scriptures support that.

I disagree with these points

You can not change your past

Please explain how I could change my past. I have several mistakes I'd like to reverse... in fact I'd be willing to offer you money.

I disagree with these points

You can do little to influence the future

Here I agree with you, everything you do now is influencing your future.

[Pepe']

You can change the past by atonement.

Really trying to do "good deeds" in a focused consistent way to try to act as a "buffer" from impending result of bad things done in this life or a previous one.

It's a fairly standard concept.

A predominence of good can offset the bad. Or vice versa...

[wolf5370]

Pepe,

this may change your Karmic balance, as it were, but the past is immutable - it has happened. Time travel is impossible. We can not change it.

Brucenkhamen,

taking what I said in context, about influencing the future, I meant that the best laid plans and all that...the future is unknowable simply because you are not the only influence on that future - other peoples plans (and natural occuarances etc) make it unknowable - sure we can plan for it, we can save and hope the bank doesn't go tits up and loose all our money nor the currency devalued nor eaten up by inflation/taxes etc and thus can assume we will be comfortable in the future, it just a plan - our influence is mostly imagined (sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't - sometimes you win a roulette sometimes you don't, if you can tell me you can therefore influence the balls landing position, I know people that would be interested )

Edited March 12, 2008 by wolf5370

[Brucenkhamen]

taking what I said in context, about influencing the future, I meant that the best laid plans and all that...the future is unknowable simply because you are not the only influence on that future - other peoples plans (and natural occuarances etc) make it unknowable - sure we can plan for it, we can save and hope the bank doesn't go tits up and loose all our money nor the currency devalued nor eaten up by inflation/taxes etc and thus can assume we will be comfortable in the future, it just a plan - our influence is mostly imagined (sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't - sometimes you win a roulette sometimes you don't, if you can tell me you can therefore influence the balls landing position, I know people that would be interested )[/font]

We are in total agreement here. As long as someone doesn't go to the other extreme and think that because there are so many variables that can affect my future it doesn't matter what I do, this seems to be the prevalining Thai attitude I think.

[Pepe']

This is not my concoction it is simply the concept of karma.

We can agree to disagree but in this forum, if no where else, the concept should be at least considered in a respectful way.

Even if you don't believe it.

You wouldn't walk into Wat Po and tell the occupants that karma is not real.

It would be rude, inappropriate and inconsiderate.

Everything according to time and circumstance...

[Simon255]

Brucenkhamen - "This is the whole point of Buddhism, that the ultimate is achievable by ordinary men and women."

I have to confess although I am not a follower of the Buddhist dharma. I have studied a little, but your ideas seem very limited about the nature of Buddha. How can you begin to concieve that Buddha was an ordinary man without considering the magnitude of the universal creation.

He is ordinary providing you understand fully the ultimate achievement of a sentient sole. Like it or not in the final phases of this amazing achievement they get mastery of the universe including time. They have no boundaries at all in any shape or form. Any boundaries, any discriminatations, misunderstandings, or anything that is not perfectly balanced will prevent them from the ultimate. The body is just a cloak, all experiences and feelings are illusions to assist on the path.

Karma as far as Buddha is concerned including short sightedness and everything else conceivable within the framework of cause and effect is described perfectly by Buddha. How can Buddha’s teachings not be perfect? Surely it is the fault of the sentient being with the contracted and limited awareness that is at fault, not the teaching.

There / was is nothing physical or meta physical that is not Buddha. If you dig into the philosophy and contemplate enough you will realise that you are and have always been a perfected Buddha but your limited awareness severely restricts your ability to realise this truth.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Simon255

[Brucenkhamen]

I have to confess although I am not a follower of the Buddhist dharma. I have studied a little, but your ideas seem very limited about the nature of Buddha. How can you begin to concieve that Buddha was an ordinary man without considering the magnitude of the universal creation.

Creation is indeed magnitudinous as you say, but this is not the topic of this forum or thread. The Buddhas teaching is also magnitudinous because of the fact that ordinary people can become what the Buddha was. Now you can turn that to the other side of the coin as in your last paragraph and say we are already Buddhas and don't realise it but in the end that's just a different way of seeing the same thing.

He is ordinary providing you understand fully the ultimate achievement of a sentient sole. Like it or not in the final phases of this amazing achievement they get mastery of the universe including time. They have no boundaries at all in any shape or form. Any boundaries, any discriminatations, misunderstandings, or anything that is not perfectly balanced will prevent them from the ultimate. The body is just a cloak, all experiences and feelings are illusions to assist on the path.

It sounds like you must be pretty close to enlightenment yourself to know all that, BTW it's soul not sole.

I'm fully aware that my knowledge of life the universe and everything is very limited, but rather than muddy the waters with high sounding concepts and speculation about things beyond my understanding I'd rather stick with the things relevant to where I am on the Buddhas path. Hopefully I can explain what little I know in such a way that is useful to the readers on this forum.

Karma as far as Buddha is concerned including short sightedness and everything else conceivable within the framework of cause and effect is described perfectly by Buddha. How can Buddha’s teachings not be perfect? Surely it is the fault of the sentient being with the contracted and limited awareness that is at fault, not the teaching.

You'll have chapter and verse where the Buddha describes it perfectly at your fingertips then ready to quote?

Mind you I agree the Buddhas teaching as he gave it 2500 years ago would have been perfect and if you are alluding to the fact that when written down by sentient beings the message will have become distorted or embellished then we are in agreement.

This is one of the reasons why each of us need to walk the path of discovery ourselves rather than rely on the words of others no matter how spiritual they may sound.

There / was is nothing physical or meta physical that is not Buddha. If you dig into the philosophy and contemplate enough you will realise that you are and have always been a perfected Buddha but your limited awareness severely restricts your ability to realise this truth.

I must admit I like the Mahayana concept that we are already Buddhas and just need to realise it but as mentionmed earlier I just think it's the other side of the same coin that teaches Buddhahood is something we need to obtain. I think both are true but at the end of the day I'll never really know for sure until I get there.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Brucenkhamen

[Simon255]

Thanks for the lively debate and my very best wishes for creating best from all experiences

Karma for me is a mystical and profound teacher !!

[Brucenkhamen]

Thanks for the lively debate and my very best wishes for creating best from all experiences

Karma for me is a mystical and profound teacher !!

Thank you also for your input.

Kamma is certainly a teacher, I agree. I just don't think it's mystical or particularly profound as it's what we experience every day in the ordinariness of life.

[Pepe']

Actually everything is karma...

[CuriousGeorge77]

I disagree with these points

You can not change your past

Simon - you have a few other posts that take sceince,  shall we say,  out of context,  but on this one I would ring in on your side.  It is virtually accepted that Time is the 4rth dimension,  one of quite possibly a great many.  If it is a dimension,  it can be altered,  just like the other ones.  Apparantly, "Cause" and "Effect" are not all they are cracked up to be.  Particles are clearly linked, instantaneously.  The transporter from Star Trek has been invented already (for really really small things) and other things.  We don' know how to do it yet,  but that does not mean that it can't be done.  If one realized the true nature of things,  it might be concievable that this might become possible.  

I would like to reiterate,  though,  Simon,  that there are some other things that simply are not actually supported.  Such as some of the posts in the amulet thread.  Imbuing objects with "thoughts" has no real support. I'm familiar with the topic.  Matter is simply a form of energy.  Thoughts are things and things are thoughts.  No need to 'diefy' thoughts.  They aren't that special.  IMHO - I expect most people would disagree with me.  

How can you begin to concieve that Buddha was an ordinary man without considering the magnitude of the universal creation.

 

By your own definition, "Just a man" is not "Just a man,"  and therefore your objection contradicts itself....  

[CuriousGeorge77]

I must admit - Khamma is one aspect of Buddhism that completely mystifies me. I mostly understand it as a skyhook to motivate people to do good things - essentially a reward/punishment system. I expect that such a system is invaluable to any functioning human society. But a sort of record system does not seem to promote understanding.

As such, I don't really know what to make of being reborn, except in a physical sense that our matter and energy hand around, and our identity is fleeting. Our physical makeup is constantly changing, and lower animals are constantly being 'reborn' as humans as we eat them / breathe their air etc.

Other than that, I think that our being reborn, as such, is a load of crock. (e.g., in my past live I was a stableman for a sheik in Northern Africa) It just doesn't make sense to me. Wouldn't that be a big, big permanent spot in an impermanent world? I am therefore a combination of a great other things - both formally alive and also inorganic. What is "me" is changing constantly - far faster than my own lifespan.

[chutai]

must admit I like the Mahayana concept that we are already Buddhas and just need to realise it but as mentionmed earlier I just think it's the other side of the same coin that teaches Buddhahood is something we need to obtain.

Both are true in Mahayana. That we all possess the innate Buddha Nature doesn't mean that we don't also have to reveal it - or obtain Buddhahood. It's really a question of doing so by practice, or as Nichiren has said, "by polishing our mirror". **

Kamma is certainly a teacher, I agree. I just don't think it's mystical or particularly profound as it's what we experience every day in the ordinariness of life.

In Mahayana we refer to the Mystic Law or Dharma. But as you say that is only realised in our everday experiences. Although that it's referred to as the Mystic Law only derives from the fact that ordinarily it's something that we don't consider. Therefore, it's called the Mystic Law.

** In fact my personal avitar could be interpreted as representing something along those lines.

Edited March 16, 2008 by chutai

[wolf5370]

(Simon255 @ 2008-03-13 17:18:54)

He is ordinary providing you understand fully the ultimate achievement of a sentient sole. ....

It sounds like you must be pretty close to enlightenment yourself to know all that, BTW it's soul not sole.

I don't know, I like the thought of the ultimate achievement is to becaome a sentient fish

(Simon255 @ 2008-03-12 18:42:31)

I disagree with these points

You can not change your past

Simon - you have a few other posts that take sceince, shall we say, out of context, but on this one I would ring in on your side. It is virtually accepted that Time is the 4rth dimension, one of quite possibly a great many. If it is a dimension, it can be altered, just like the other ones. Apparantly, "Cause" and "Effect" are not all they are cracked up to be. Particles are clearly linked, instantaneously. The transporter from Star Trek has been invented already (for really really small things) and other things. We don' know how to do it yet, but that does not mean that it can't be done. If one realized the true nature of things, it might be concievable that this might become possible.

...

Apart from the fact that it was my comment initailly I would take scientific exception to your reponse CG77 (in a friendly sort of way of course )

Time is elastic, Einstein proved this (based opn other earlier works), he showed that locally, when travelling at speed (any speed), we stretch time. This becomes significat enough that his old thought experiment ecomes possible (again theoretically) - he said Imagine if a guy hopped into a space ship and was able to travel at almost the speed of light (not on it, because of the infinite mass problem) - if he was able to see his twin brother on earth, then he would see him aging much faster - it works out that locally the spaceship sppedter would takeh just 11.4 years whereas earth moved on a centuary - hereby travel forward in time. There is no inverse of the speed of light - you can't go slower than stopped and if you go in the opposite direction, you are still going forward.

Time is also now considered the 0th dimension (rather than the fourth) - because its non spatial (like 1 through 3), it is a mistake to presume that properties for one carry to the other.

Oh, and the trasporter thing...Hiesenburg (spelling?) proved (with his uncertanty theorem), that we can not know all the properties of matter - the very act of measuring its position changes its speed etc. The only things that has been 'transported' I believe is sub atomic particles (photons) - these do not necessarily came out as they went in. To transport a person, we would have to get around Hiesenburg (Star Trek's Heisenburg Compensator ), read every propertly of every sub atomic particle, duplicate it (entwined particles) exactly at the destinaion and destroy the original - I will not be volunteering for thew first go on that (or the second either!) - this of course creates all sorts of metaphysical question relating to the soul (not fish ) and whether, being destroyed, are we the sabme person or just a technicological copy/clone? For another thread I'd say.

If one realized the true nature of things, then one would realise we did not need to do these things at all

Back to Buddha, a senior Monk once told me a story about one of Buddha's followers who asked about creation, Buddha appartly turned and sid, 'why do you ask me these questions? These questions are for scientists, ask me questions about life and the way....etc' I can't remember the exact wording of course (and I guess scientist has to be replaced with whatever term was used then), but seemed to me like Buddha didn't esee the importance of th e 'beginning' let alone claimed respisablity for it.