In Mahāyāna Buddhism, the Prajñapāramitā Sūtras, the Lotus Sutra (Skt., Saddharma Puṇḍarīka Sūtra), and a large number of other texts, list the six perfections as (original terms in Sanskrit):
Note that this list is also mentioned by the Theravāda commentator Dhammapala, who says it is equivalent to the above list of ten.[11]
- Dāna pāramitā: generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, Korean, and Japanese, 布施波羅蜜; in Wylie Tibetan, sbyin-pa)
- Śīla pāramitā : virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜; tshul-khrims)
- Kṣānti (kshanti) pāramitā : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜, bzod-pa)
- Vīrya pāramitā : energy, diligence, vigor, effort (精進波羅蜜, brtson-’grus)
- Dhyāna pāramitā : one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜, bsam-gtan)
- Prajñā pāramitā : wisdom, insight (智慧波羅蜜, shes-rab)
In the Ten Stages (Daśabhūmika) Sutra, four more pāramitās are listed:So here is the teaching from Ringu Tulku Rinpoche.
__
- 7. Upāya pāramitā: skillful means
- 8. Praṇidhāna pāramitā: vow, resolution, aspiration, determination
- 9. Bala pāramitā: spiritual power
- 10. Jñāna pāramitā: knowledge
In the Pāli canon's Buddhavaṃsa[3] the Ten Perfections (dasa pāramiyo) are (original terms in Pāli):
Two of the above virtues, metta and upekkha also comprise two of the four immeasurables (brahmavihāra).
- Dāna pāramī : generosity, giving of oneself
- Sīla pāramī : virtue, morality, proper conduct
- Nekkhamma pāramī : renunciation
- Paññā pāramī : transcendental wisdom, insight
- Viriya (also spelled vīriya) pāramī : energy, diligence, vigour, effort
- Khanti pāramī : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance
- Sacca pāramī : truthfulness, honesty
- Adhiṭṭhāna (adhitthana) pāramī : determination, resolution
- Mettā pāramī : loving-kindness
- Upekkhā (also spelled upekhā) pāramī : equanimity, serenity
The Six Paramitas, by Ringu Tulku
Posted on 5 October 2012 by Buddhism Now
Six short films on the Six Paramitas; Giving, Conduct, Patience, Diligence, Meditation, and Wisdom. Ringu Tulku speaks most clearly and eloquently, laying out the basis of Buddhism and the path to take for those who wish to practise.
Ringu Tulku Rinpoche is a Tibetan Buddhist monk of the Kagyu Order. He was trained in all schools of Tibetan Buddhism and has served as Tibetan Textbook Writer and Professor of Tibetan Studies in Sikkim for twenty-five years.
The Perfection of Giving
The Perfection of Conduct
The Perfection of Patience
The Perfection of Diligence
The Perfection of Meditation
The Perfection of Wisdom
James Baraz
I try to convey that the wisdom and compassion we are looking for is already inside of us. I see practice as learning how to purify our mind and heart so we can hear the Buddha inside. In doing so, we naturally embody the dharma and help awaken that understanding and love in others we meet.
2012-06-14 Appropriate Response at the Tipping Point:
Concern for the Planet as Dharma Practice 46:36
This is the first of a four-part series inspired by the Spring 2012 issue of Inquiring Mind, entitled 'Earth Now.' In addition to reading this issue, especially the interview with Joanna Macy: Woman on the Edge of Time, James also suggested these readings: Ernest Callenbach’s essay "Epistle to Ecotopians" and Bob Doppelt's book From Me to We: The Five Transformational Commitments Required to Rescue the Planet, Your Organization, and Your Life.
The series continues on 6/28, 7/5, and 7/19.
Insight Meditation Community of Berkeley: IMCB Regular Talks
* * * * *
2012-06-28 Seeing the System You Are Part Of 59:40
Sharing a positive vision for the future from Ernest Callenbach’s "Epistle to Ecotopians". We then begin to explore the first of five Dharma principles using systems and sustainability expert Bob Doppelt’s book From Me to We. The ignorance of these principles is what perpetuates the problem and the understanding of them is the key to changing our consciousness and providing a path toward healing the planet. This is part 2 of the series 'Appropriate Response at the Tipping Point' that began June 14.
Insight Meditation Community of Berkeley: IMCB Regular Talks
* * * * *
2012-07-05 Karma and Sila as Gaia Practices 53:57
This is part 3 of the series 'Appropriate Response at the Tipping Point' that began 6/14. In this talk, James discusses the first three of the five transformational commitments in Bob Doppelt's book From Me to We:
1. See the systems you are part of
2. Be accountable for all the consequences of your actions
3. Abide by society’s most deeply held universal principles of morality and justice
Insight Meditation Community of Berkeley: IMCB Regular Talks
* * * * *
2012-07-19 Stewahip and Intention as Gaia Practices 52:25
This is part 4 of the series 'Appropriate Response at the Tipping Point' that began 6/14. In this talk, James discusses the last two of the five transformational commitments in Bob Doppelt's book From Me to We:
4. Acknowledge your trustee obligations and take responsibility for the continuation of all life
5. Choose your own destiny
Insight Meditation Community of Berkeley: IMCB Regular Talks
HEALING ANGER:
The Power of Patience
from a Buddhist Perspective
by the Dalai Lama,
translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa
more...
Dalai Lama Quote of the Week
Question: Your Holiness and other teachers tell us to be sincerely joyful about others' worldly achievements, happiness, and acquisitions. But if we know with certainty that a person has acquired or achieved something through unskillful or non-virtuous means, such as lying, stealing, cheating, harming, in what manner should that happiness for them be experienced and expressed?
Dalai Lama: One's attitude toward superficial successes that are achieved through wrong means of livelihood such as lying, stealing, cheating, and so on, should not be the same as for achievements and happiness which are genuine. However, here you must bear in mind that if you examine this carefully, you will find that although the immediate circumstances that gave rise to a person's joy and happiness may be a wrong means of livelihood, that is merely the immediate circumstance: the actual cause of that happiness is the individual's merit in the past.
So one has to see the difference between immediate circumstances and long-term causes. One of the characteristics of karmic theory is that there is a definite, commensurate relationship between cause and effect. There is no way that negative actions or unwholesome deeds can result in joy and happiness. Joy and happiness, by definition, are the results or fruits of wholesome actions. So, from that point of view, it is possible for us to admire not so much the immediate action, but the real causes of joy. (p.119)
--from Healing Anger: The Power of Patience from a Buddhist Perspective by the Dalai Lama, translated by Geshe Thupten Jinpa, published by Snow Lion Publications
Healing Anger • Now at 5O% off
(Good until September 23rd).
“I Love Him, I Hate Him, I Love Him Again”
Devotion, Deception and Opportunism in Andrew Cohen’s Re-found Love for His Guru, H.W.L. Poonja
Stas Mavrides
Andrew’s response to his guru’s criticism of him was to turn around and disparage him.Those of you who tuned-in to the latest online offering from Andrew Cohen/EnlightenNext on March 26, 2011—Awakening to Your Highest Self—a lengthy guru love-fest billed as his “Gift to the Cosmos,” may have been surprised to hear Andrew effusively celebrating his formerly reviled teacher H. W. L. Poonja and their relationship. As a close senior student of Andrew’s for 15 years, I know I was. For over a decade while I was in Andrew Cohen’s inner circle, the only comments I heard from Andrew about his former Lucknow, India Advaita teacher “Poonja-ji” (also known as “Papaji”), were disparaging, disrespectful and vituperative.
In particular, I and others who were privy to Andrew’s thoughts and feelings at the time of Poonja’s death in 1997 remember being shocked by Andrew’s cold indifference to his teacher’s passing. For example, when I conveyed my condolences to Andrew regarding Poonjaji, he replied to me, “It’s no skin off my nose.” Mimi Katz, Andrew’s personal secretary during this period, told me that on learning of Poonja’s death she offered her sympathies to Andrew only to have him snap back, “That man means nothing to me now!” Another former close senior student, Harry Dijkshoorn, speaks about Andrew’s general attitude toward his guru:
“I was closely present at the times of the demise of his relationship with Poonja. There was enormous anger, pain and deep disgust in Andrew towards Poonja for his perceived lies and duplicity. As a close student, I have been witness to Andrew berating Poonja in private countless times, which amounted to Andrew having lost all respect for his Guru. For Andrew to be praising Poonja now without at least mentioning how unbelievably angry he has been with him for somany years, seems to be profoundly hypocritical, to say the least. But in light of Andrew's behavior of the last several years, the blatant denial and lies he has told about events that have clearly taken place, I would be surprised if we suddenly would see a sign of integrity and self-honesty from the man who likes to write declarations of integrity about himself.”
Andrew’s expressions of extreme disdain for his former guru were not confined to the time of his guru’s death or private remarks to close students. He repeatedly expressed in community meetings to his students-at-large his negative assessment of what he perceived as his guru’s dishonesty and betrayal of him, and in 1992 published his indictment of Poonja in his book Autobiography of an Awakening (Moksha Foundation), which chronicles in detail his split from his guru.
You can read the whole article at Integral World - but I want to include one more quote from the article that demonstrates, I think, the perversion of the dharma that Cohen has taught:
So concerned was Poonja that it became a personal mission of his to help heal the damage that Andrew was causing students. He sent another of his disciples, Gangaji, to follow Andrew around the world and give satsangs wherever Andrew was teaching to try to counter Andrew’s twisting of the dharma. Gangaji repeatedly expressed that, in her opinion, Andrew had “landed,” i.e. lost his original realization.
But this was more than a philosophical issue. Poonja saw the results of Andrew’s positioning himself as a “living Buddha” as being spiritually harmful to his students by demanding uncritical conformity to his wishes and demands, making them followers, or as he put it, “sheep”.
Yep, sounds about right.
Read the whole article.Karmageddon or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the calm
March 26th, 2011Ryan Ange
Most people have at one time in their lives been blindsided, perhaps in the middle of a mundane Thursday afternoon, by a life’s culmination of poor and unskillful decisions most of which were made unconsciously. It seems in that moment that the dark part of the universe, which had been minding its own business torturing other poor souls, saw you out of the corner of its eye and fixed its terrible gaze on you. It is then that everything you thought you were, the life you had created, the relationships you had cultivated, the career you worked so hard for, all fall away and what’s left is a smoking pile of rubble that resembles more a Jackson Pollack painting than your life. This dark synchronicity of monstrous proportions is of course your very own karmageddon. The one that had been waiting for you for years. And everybody gets one (if you’re lucky). Every bad thing you ever did, every poor choice you ever made all seem to turn around at once and return to where they came from: You.
Karma is a concept that is readily used in American culture today even by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. In some ways it has become a religiously neutral concept despite its Hindu and Buddhist roots. We all employ the concept of “karma” (usually threatening someone by reminding them that “what goes around comes around!”) but despite its popular use it is also one of the least understood concepts in popular culture. Just because you (and here is an extreme example) murdered someone in your past life doesn’t mean you will get murdered in this life or that if you were a thief in a past life you will be robbed blind every other week in this one. Thankfully it doesn’t work that way. Whatever “unfortunate” thing happens to you now is actually a good thing (I know, bear with me a second—this is good news I promise). When you have something “bad” happen to you this means you are finally healthy enough in this life to be able to metabolize the bad karma from your previous lives. You’re finally strong enough to endure the kind of karmic trials that will burn off your bad karma. Basically think of “unfortunate” incidents as rebirth control: an opportunity for you to burn off that bad karma and cease being reborn altogether.
BUDDHISM WITH AN ATTITUDE:
The Tibetan Seven-Point Mind Training
by B. Alan Wallace
more...
The person witnessing another person's suffering has only one appropriate response: "How can I help?" When karma comes to fruition and causes suffering, the response should never be, "This is your karma. It's your destiny, so I can't help." Your own karma may very well present itself as an opportunity to help a suffering person. Misunderstanding actions and their consequences can be disastrous.
From the Buddhist perspective, the type of fortune we encounter, happiness or sorrow, is not due to somebody doing something to us. If I win the lottery, it is not because Buddha selected me for a bonus. No god or buddha is responsible for what happens to us....This does not imply that a suffering person is morally degenerate any more than suffering the consequences of eating contaminated food does. The suffering we experience is due to karma accumulated under the influence of delusion and mental afflictions. This is true for all sentient beings.
The Buddhist response to the non-virtues we all commit while strapped to the wheel of samsara can be inspiring and encouraging. The Buddhist teaching is that it is possible to neutralize negative karmic seeds embedded in the stream of consciousness. Deeds cannot be undone, but it is possible to purify one's mind-stream so that the impact of karmic seeds will be nullified.
The method used to purify the mind-stream is the "four remedial powers" [remorse, reliance, resolve, and purification]. The metaphor for the effectiveness of the four remedial powers is that of burning a seed. Karma, like a seed, can be scorched in the fire of purification so that it will not sprout. The seed won't vanish, but it will not sprout.
--from Buddhism with an Attitude: The Tibetan Seven-Point Mind Training by B. Alan Wallace, published by Snow Lion Publications
Buddhism with an Attitude • Now at 5O% off
(Good through October 8th).
Alan Wallace
is currently teaching an 8-week Shamatha retreat entitled
"Live from Phuket!"
Podcasts of this retreat are available at:
Alan Wallace Shamatha Teachings Fall 2010
Listen to or download his past audio teachings at:
www.sbinstitute.com/LecturesMP3.html
One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside.He goes on to explain how the Buddha categorized questions to be answered, but does not address the contradiction that the Buddha himself apparently never addressed either.
The phrase in this text, "Birth is exhausted," can be argued to suggest multiple rebirths. But my sense is that he is talking about this birth, right here, right now.
SN 22.59, PTS: S iii 66, CDB i 901
translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli TheraThus I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana (the Resort of Seers). There he addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five: "Bhikkhus." — "Venerable sir," they replied. The Blessed One said this.
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"Is feeling permanent or impermanent?...
"Is perception permanent or impermanent?...
"Are determinations permanent or impermanent?...
"Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Painful, venerable sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'
"Any kind of feeling whatever...
"Any kind of perception whatever...
"Any kind of determination whatever...
"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'
"Bhikkhus, when a noble follower who has heard (the truth) sees thus, he finds estrangement in form, he finds estrangement in feeling, he finds estrangement in perception, he finds estrangement in determinations, he finds estrangement in consciousness.
"When he finds estrangement, passion fades out. With the fading of passion, he is liberated. When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. The bhikkhus were glad, and they approved his words.
Now during this utterance, the hearts of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from taints through clinging no more.
Provenance:©1981 Buddhist Publication Society.From Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (WH 17), translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1981). Copyright © 1981 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. This Access to Insight edition is ©1993–2010 John T. Bullitt.Terms of use: You may copy, reformat, reprint, republish, and redistribute this work in any medium whatsoever, provided that: (1) you only make such copies, etc. available free of charge and, in the case of reprinting, only in quantities of no more than 50 copies; (2) you clearly indicate that any derivatives of this work (including translations) are derived from this source document; and (3) you include the full text of this license in any copies or derivatives of this work. Otherwise, all rights reserved. For additional information about this license, see the FAQ.How to cite this document (one suggested style): "Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" (SN 22.59), translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. Access to Insight, June 7, 2009, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html.
With respect to consciousness, in every temporal moment there is birth and in every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without the need for a soul.The author of this piece goes on to suggest that, "When life ceases, the kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form." Maybe; maybe not. I remain agnostic.However, it should not be understood that consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. On the contrary, consciousness flows like a river receiving sensory input from various tributary streams and dispensing to the world the thoughts produced along its course. Consciousness has birth as its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the thought flow is such that is there no standard whereby it can be even approximately measured. However, some Theravada Buddhist commentators say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than the time occupied by a flash of lightning.
To the Buddha, consciousness should be envisioned as a juxtaposition of these fleeting mental states as opposed to a superposition of such mental states as many religions such as Hinduism appear to believe. No mental state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. Thus, most humans, veiled by the web of their own illusions, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.
Our ordinary perception of human consciousness is similar to the perception of a flash of lightning containing a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately. Likewise, an ordinary person, without proper instruction, cannot perceive this rapid succession of separate mental states. Ordinary human consciousness is in being or alive only for one thought-moment at a time. This consciousness is always in the present, but is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.
Action, deed; the law of cause and effect; intentional action, either wholesome or unwholesome that brings either pleasant or unpleasant results respectively.Many have suggested I am not a Buddhist because I do not firmly believe in rebirth and kamma, so this is my argument (with as little as I know) for why I believe as I do.
Karma Crossroads
According to the law of karma, the choices we make in every moment determine our fate. Matthieu Ricard offers some useful guidelines for navigating the karmic course to true happiness.
Matthieu Ricard, born in France in 1946, trained as a molecular biologist at the prestigious Institute Pasteur before trading in his lab coat for the robes of a Tibetan Buddhist monk in 1972. In 1975, Ricard became the close student and attendant of revered master Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and traveled with him in Bhutan, India, Nepal, and Tibet until Khyentse Rinpoche’s passing in 1991. The author of several books, including The Quantum and the Lotus and Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life’s Most Important Skill, Ricard lives in Shechen Monastery in Nepal.
During one of his frequent visits to New York, I had the opportunity to speak with Ricard about karma, a foundational Buddhist concept that is often invoked in Western culture but rarely well understood. -Mark Magill
A lot of people think of karma in terms of “What did I do to deserve this?” It implies a notion of fate or cosmic justice.
This is a view that is inspired by the Judeo-Christian tradition. In Buddhism, there is no notion of an external entity judging our actions and bestowing punishment or reward.
What is the Buddhist view?
At each point in our lives, we are at a crossroads. We are the fruit of our past and we are the architects of our future. When we ask, “Why did this happen to me?” it is because of our limited view. If we throw a stone up in the air and forget about it, when it falls down on our heads, we shouldn’t complain, although we usually do. We have this notion that what happens to us is somehow independent of our own actions. We can ask, why did this happen? but the more important question is, what we are going to do about it?
If you want to know your past, look at your present circumstances. If you want to know your future, look at what is in your mind. If we know that our fate is in our hands, then the quality of our actions becomes a central issue. The whole point of karma is to recognize how our actions determine our future, so that we can begin to act properly. It’s not just a cosmological or philosophical matter. It’s entirely practical. The main point is not to get in trouble again.
So what is karma?
It is a particular aspect of the law of cause and effect that relates to our experience of happiness and suffering, and that basically depends upon our motivation. When we engage in an act, no matter how it appears, what is important is our motivation.
We cannot perfectly foresee the outcomes of our actions. But we are always in charge of our motivation. It’s up to us to decide if we want to cause harm or bring some benefit. Nobody can say that we are not in control of our motivation, unless we are mad and unable to think about it. An act that is motivated by an altruistic frame of mind is ethical, no matter how it looks. And an act that is motivated by a wish to harm is unethical, no matter how it looks.
This is the very basis of ethics. If we don’t relate our actions to motivation, we can never clearly know what is right or wrong. From the Buddhist viewpoint, we define right and wrong in terms of what leads to happiness or suffering. It is not some idealized dogma of good and bad somewhere sitting in space.
What about a deluded motivation?
We might be deluded about our understanding of the world and about the nature of happiness and suffering, but anyone, deluded or not, has the capacity to check if he is acting under the inspiration of altruism or of malevolence.
What if your intention is good, but the results are harmful?
That’s where ignorance and confusion interfere with our altruistic actions. That is why we need wisdom. Buddha said that those who have fully realized emptiness are those who see the best. In other words, they see what needs to be done and what is to be avoided. We are able to choose the correct means because we can foresee what will happen. That’s why we say that the essence of Buddha’s teaching is the union of compassion and wisdom, the view of interdependence and emptiness. An altruistic attitude is altruistic. It is not confused in itself. But without wisdom, we can act with obscured compassion or stupid compassion.
THE BUDDHISM OF TIBET
by the Dalai Lama,
translated and edited by
Jeffrey Hopkins
more...Dalai Lama Quote of the Week
...Nagarjuna says in his Fundamental Text Called 'Wisdom':
There is never production
Anywhere of any phenomenon
From itself, from others,
From both, or without cause.Though it is widely known [and conventionally correct] that causes do produce effects, let us analyse these effects. If the produced effect inherently existed, how could it be correct for what already exists to be produced newly? For, causes are not needed to create it anew. In general, causes conventionally do newly create that which has not been produced or which is non-existent at the time of its causes. However, if the non-produced were inherently true as non-produced, it would be no different from being utterly non-existent; therefore, how could it be fit for production by causes? As Nagarjuna says in his Seventy Stanzas on Emptiness:
Because it exists, the existent is not produced;
Because it does not exist, the non-existent is not produced.In short, once the existence of something is necessarily dependent on causes and conditions and on others, then it is contradictory for it to exist independently. For, independence and dependence on others are contradictory.
--from The Buddhism of Tibet by the Dalai Lama, translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins, published by Snow Lion Publications
Interdependence and FreedomRead the whole article.
What keeps us from tasting our inherent wisdom? Concept. We are generally chasing one conceptual creation after another. This matrix of concept appears in many variations, but its weak point is always the same: it is fabricated. Without really looking at the nature of appearances, we project a meaning-generality onto the world, shaping it with our assumption of independent existence.
The Buddha taught that we can’t realize enlightenment until we experience a very basic truth: everything in the world is interdependent. That is the notion of emptiness. We say something is empty because there is no single entity that is sustained in space independently. If the tree were really there, it would not take seeds, sun, water, leaves, and bark to make a tree.
People sometimes confuse emptiness with “blankness” or “voidness,” as if Buddhists are into nihilism. But we’re not into nihilism any more than we are into permanence. Enlightenment is a level of wisdom that transcends both those concepts.
Concept is what we add to the interdependent nature of things. Moment by moment we look at ourselves and the world and draw an erroneous conclusion. The point of contemplative meditation is to slowly unravel this creative process. Along the path, we discover that we have made many assumptions. The biggest assumption is that the self exists in the way we think. When we die, this concept of self—which we had assumed to be this body with this family and these friends—dissolves and only consciousness remains. That is very destabilizing.
We experience such dissolution in a small way when our marriage breaks up or we crash our car. Suddenly we feel like we’re falling apart, as if our identity is lost—but it was never there. Like everything, it was dependent upon something else. That’s interdependence.
It is our habit to color interdependence with a conceptual overlay. This overlay is hard to crack because it’s been going on for a long time—in fact, endlessly. We might think it won’t be quite as strong tomorrow, but unless we meditate to get a little distance, we’re likely to buy into the conceptual framework by reacting to the world in our usual habitual way as soon as we wake up in the morning.
This is called karma, which means “action.” We are conditioned by lifetimes of karma—habitual action that keeps us in samsara, the cycle of suffering. How do we reverse this process?
THE DALAI LAMA AT HARVARD:
Lectures on the Buddhist Path to Peace
by H.H. the Dalai Lama of Tibet,
translated and edited
by Jeffrey Hopkins
more...Karmas that are accumulated for the sake of internal pleasure, upon having overcome attraction for external pleasure and having become attached to the pleasure that arises with internal meditative stabilization [which is meritorious], are involved with the first three concentrations. These are called unfluctuating karmas in that they bear their fruit only in those concentrations. Then, karmas that are accumulated upon having turned away even from such pleasure of internal meditative stabilization and within seeking just neutral feeling are unfluctuating karmas associated with the fourth concentration and the four formless absorptions. However, if, through understanding this presentation, you develop renunciation of all types of such cyclic existence, and accumulate karmas for the sake of permanent bliss, these karmas will bring about liberation from cyclic existence.
--from The Dalai Lama at Harvard: Lectures on the Buddhist Path to Peace by H.H. the Dalai Lama of Tibet, translated and edited by Jeffrey Hopkins, published by Snow Lion Publications
MY VIEW: Rethinking Karma
How are we meant to understand this key Buddhist teaching?
Incremental Bliss, Karen TompkinsIN WRITING OF Sigmund Freud, one master diagnostician of human suffering, the psychoanalyst and philosopher Erich Fromm observes:
The attempt to understand Freud's theoretical system, or that of any creative systematic thinker, cannot be successful unless we recognize that, and why, every system as it is developed and presented by its author is necessarily erroneous.... The creative thinker must think in the terms of the logic, the thought patterns, the expressible concepts of his culture. That means he has not yet the proper words to express the creative, the new, the liberating idea. He is forced to solve an insoluble problem: to express the new thought in concepts and words that do not yet exist in his language.... The consequence is that the new thought as he formulated it is a blend of what is truly new and the conventional thought which it transcends. The thinker, however, is not conscious of this contradiction.The Buddha, of course, was himself a master diagnostician, and while there are obviously great differences between him and Freud, I think that we can apply Fromm's point to the Buddha's own "liberating idea." Even the most creative, world-transforming individuals cannot stand on their own shoulders. They too remain dependent upon their cultural context, whether intellectual or spiritual—which is precisely what Buddhism's emphasis on impermanence and causal interdependence implies. The Buddha also expressed his new, liberating insight in the only way he could, using the religious categories that his culture could understand. Inevitably, then, his way of expressing the dharma was a blend of the truly new (for example, the teachings about anatta, or "not-self," and paticca-samuppada, or "dependent origination") and the conventional religious thought of his time. Although the new transcends the conventional, as Fromm puts it, the new cannot immediately and completely escape the conventional wisdom it surpasses.
By emphasizing the inevitable limitations of any cultural innovator, Fromm implies the impermanence—the dynamic, developing nature—of all spiritual teachings. As Buddhists, we tend to assume that the Buddha understood everything, that his awakening and his way of expressing that awakening are unsurpassable. But is that a fair expectation? Given how little we actually know about the historical Buddha, perhaps our collective image of him reveals less about who he actually was and more about our own need to discover or project a completely perfect being to inspire our own spiritual practice.
Understanding this becomes especially helpful when we try to understand Buddhist teachings about karma, which has become a problem for many contemporary Buddhists. If we are honest with ourselves, most of us aren't sure how literally it should be interpreted. Karma is perhaps most often taken as an impersonal and deterministic "moral law" of the universe, with a precise calculus of cause and effect comparable to Newton's laws of physics. This understanding, however, can lead to a severe case of cognitive dissonance for modern Buddhists, since the physical causality that science has discovered about the world seems to allow for no such mechanism.
In contrast, some key Buddhist teachings may well make more sense to us today than they did to people living at the time of the Buddha. What Buddhism has to say about anatta, for example, is not only profound but consistent with what modern psychologists such as George Herbert Mead and Kurt Lewin have discovered about the constructed nature of the ego-self. Likewise, what Buddhist thinkers such as Nagarjuna have said about language—how it tends to mislead us into assuming that the categories through which we describe the world are final and absolute—is consistent with the work of linguists and philosophers such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and Jacques Derrida. In such ways, Buddhism dovetails nicely with some of the best currents of contemporary thought. But such is not the case with traditional views of karma. Of course, this by itself does not refute karma or make it impossible to be included in a contemporary Buddhist perspective. It does, however, encourage us to think more deeply about it.
THERE ARE AT LEAST two other major problems with the ways that karma has traditionally been understood. One of them is its unfortunate implications for many Asian Buddhist societies, where a self-defeating split has developed between the sangha and the laity. Although the Pali canon makes it quite clear that laypeople too can attain liberation, the main spiritual responsibility of lay Buddhists, as commonly understood, is not to follow the path themselves but to support the monastics. In this way, lay men and women gain punna, or "merit," a concept that commodifies karma. By accumulating merit, they hope to attain a favorable rebirth or to gain material reward, which in turn redounds to the material benefit of the monastic community. This approach reduces Buddhism, quite literally, to a form of spiritual materialism.
The other problem is that karma has long been used to rationalize racism, caste, economic oppression, birth handicaps, and so forth. Taken literally, karma justifies both the authority of political elites, who therefore must deserve their wealth and power, and the subordination of those who have neither. It provides the perfect theodicy: if there is an infallible cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and one's fate, there is no need to work toward social justice, because it's already built into the moral fabric of the universe. In fact, if there is no undeserved suffering, there is really no evil that we need to struggle against. You were born crippled, or to a poor family? Well, who but you is responsible for that?
I remember reading about a Tibetan Buddhist teacher's reflections on the Holocaust in Nazi Germany during World War II: "What terrible karma all those Jews must have had. …" And what awful things did the Tibetan people do to deserve the Chinese invasion of 1950 and its horrible aftermath? This kind of superstition, which blames the victims and rationalizes their horrific fate, is something we should no longer tolerate quietly. It is, I think it is safe to say, time for modern Buddhists to outgrow it and to accept one's social responsibility and find ways to address such injustices.
In the Kalama Sutta, sometimes called "the Buddhist charter of free inquiry," the Buddha emphasized the importance of intelligent, probing doubt. He said that we should not believe in something until we have established its truth for ourselves. This suggests that accepting karma and rebirth literally, without questioning what they really mean, simply because they have been part of the Buddhist tradition, may actually be unfaithful to the best of the tradition. This does not mean disparaging or dismissing Buddhist teachings about karma and rebirth. Rather, it highlights the need for contemporary Buddhism to question those teachings. Given what is now known about human psychology, including the social construction of the self, how might we today approach these teachings in a way that is consistent with our own sense of how the world works? Unless we can do so, their emancipatory power will for us remain unrealized.
Buddhist emphasis on impermanence reminds us that Hindu and Buddhist doctrines about karma and rebirth have a history, that they have evolved over time. Earlier Brahmanical teachings tended to understand karma mechanically and ritualistically. To perform a sacrifice in the proper fashion would invariably lead to the desired consequences. If those consequences were not forthcoming, then either there had been an error in procedure or the causal effects were delayed, perhaps until your next lifetime (hence implying reincarnation). The Buddha's spiritual revolution transformed this ritualistic approach to getting what you want out of life into a moral principle by focusing on cetana, "motivations, intentions." The Dhammapada, for example, begins by emphasizing the preeminent importance of our mental attitude:
Experiences are preceded by mind, led by mind, and produced by mind. If one speaks or acts with an impure mind, suffering follows even as the cart's wheel follows the hoof of the ox.
Experiences are preceded by mind, led by mind, and produced by mind. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, happiness follows like a shadow that never departs.
To understand the Buddha's innovation, it is helpful to distinguish a moral act into three aspects: the results that I seek; the moral rule or regulation I am following (for example, a Buddhist precept or Christian commandment, and this also includes ritualistic procedures); and my mental attitude or motivation when I do something. Although these aspects cannot be separated from each other, we can emphasize one more than the others—in fact, that is what we usually do. Not coincidentally, contemporary moral philosophy also has three main types of theories. Utilitarian theories focus on consequences, deontological theories focus on general principles such as the Ten Commandments, and virtue theories focus on one's character and motivations.
THE SANSKRIT TERM karma (kamma in Pali) literally means "action," which suggests the basic point that our actions have consequences—more precisely, that our morally relevant actions have morally relevant consequences that extend beyond their immediate effects. In most popular understanding, the law of karma and rebirth is a way to get a handle on how the world will treat us in the future, which also—more immediately—implies that we must accept our own causal responsibility for whatever is happening to us now, as a consequence of what we must have done earlier. This overlooks the revolutionary significance of the Buddha's reinterpretation.
Karma is better understood as the key to spiritual development: how our life situation can be transformed by transforming the motivations of our actions right now. When we add the Buddhist teaching about not-self—in contemporary terms, that one's sense of self is a mental construct—we can see that karma is not something the self has; rather, karma is what the sense of self is, and what the sense of self is changes according to one's conscious choices. I (re)construct myself by what I intentionally do, because my sense of self is a precipitate of habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Just as my body is composed of the food I have eaten, so my character is composed of conscious choices: "I" am constructed by my consistent, repeated mental attitudes. People are "punished" or "rewarded" not for what they have done but for what they have become, and what we intentionally do is what makes us what we are. An anonymous verse expresses this well:
Sow a thought and reap a deed
Sow a deed and reap a habit
Sow a habit and reap a character
Sow a character and reap a destiny
What kind of thoughts do we need to sow? Buddhism traces back our dukkha, "dissatisfaction," to the three unwholesome roots of evil: greed, ill will, and delusion. These problematic motivations need to be transformed into their positive counterparts: generosity, lovingkindness, and the wisdom that realizes our interdependence with others.
Such an understanding of karma does not necessarily involve another life after physical death. As Spinoza expressed it, happiness is not the reward for virtue; happiness is virtue itself. We are punished not for our "sins" but by them. To become a different kind of person is to experience the world in a different way. When your mind changes, the world changes. And when we respond differently to the world, the world responds differently to us. Insofar as we are actually not separate from the world, our ways of acting in it tend to involve feedback systems that incorporate other people. People not only notice what we do; they notice why we do it. I may fool people sometimes, yet over time, as the intentions behind my deeds become obvious, my character becomes revealed. The more I am motivated by greed, ill will, and delusion, the more I must manipulate the world to get what I want, and consequently the more alienated I feel and the more alienated others feel when they see they have been manipulated. This mutual distrust encourages both sides to manipulate more. On the other side, the more my actions are motivated by generosity, lovingkindness, and the wisdom of interdependence, the more I can relax and open up to the world. The more I feel part of the world and genuinely connected with others, the less I will be inclined to use others, and consequently the more inclined they will be to trust and open up to me. In such ways, transforming my own motivations not only transforms my own life; it also affects those around me, since what I am is not separate from what they are.
This more naturalistic understanding of karma does not mean we must necessarily exclude other, perhaps more mysterious possibilities regarding the consequences of our motivations for the world we live in. What is clear, however, is that karma as "how to transform my life situation by transforming my motivations right now" is not a fatalistic doctrine. Quite the contrary: it is difficult to imagine a more empowering spiritual teaching. We are not enjoined to accept and endure the problematic circumstances of our lives. Rather, we are encouraged to improve our spiritual lives and worldly situation by addressing those circumstances with generosity, lovingkindness, and nondual wisdom.
~ David Loy is a professor of Religion at Xavier University and an authorized Zen teacher. This article is from his new book Money, Sex, War, Karma: Notes for a Buddhist Revolution (Wisdom Publications).
