Ask A Buddhist II

[Bakmoon]

Greetings to all,
I’m half way through the first thread-finding it quite informative. That is the topics I can understand-some way to much depth for me. So I thought I’d ask a couple of questions on this thread before time ran out on me.
Do Lay Buddhists or others do penance when they feel sorry for what they’ve done or if they have not lived to the standards of the eightfold path in their own view? If so since Buddhism is the Middle way what sort of penance might one do for lying or being sarcastic or even speeding in their car since I suppose that wouldn’t be right action? Thank you for your time and blessings to all on caf.

We just resolve to do better next time. There really isn’t a way to undo the Kamma of the action we did, but it can be offset by preforming a lot of good deeds, for example.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi Bakmoon,

When Buddhists say doing “Good” is there another word for it in Buddhism? Why I ask is that in etymology of the word good originally comes from God. Granted Im talking as a Western influenced person (Im Asian Indian btw) and open to hear how other cultures look at this. Im an irony in itself ain’t I

Thanks.

MJ

 

[notself]

Hi Bakmoon,

When Buddhists say doing “Good” is there another word for it in Buddhism? Why I ask is that in etymology of the word good originally comes from God. Granted Im talking as a Western influenced person (Im Asian Indian btw) and open to hear how other cultures look at this. Im an irony in itself ain’t I

Thanks.

MJ

I think the Pali word kusala would be interchangeable. Here is the definition:

kusala:Wholesome, skillful, good, meritorious. An action characterized by this moral quality (kusala-kamma)…

It is often translated as skillful.

 

[Bakmoon]

Hi Bakmoon,

When Buddhists say doing “Good” is there another word for it in Buddhism? Why I ask is that in etymology of the word good originally comes from God. Granted Im talking as a Western influenced person (Im Asian Indian btw) and open to hear how other cultures look at this. Im an irony in itself ain’t I

Thanks.

MJ

There is are some technical terms that are the normal words used for it in Pali, which is the liturgical and scriptural language of Theravada Buddhism. You could say “kusala kamma” which literally means “wholesome action” is probably the most common such term.

On a totally pointless sidenote, I looked up the etymologies of the words “God” and “Good” and it seems that might be a little bit misleading. The modern English word “Good” derives from the Middle English word “gōd” (the long O makes it rhyme with the word “old”) which didn’t mean God, but good. It is most likely descended from an ancient Proto-Ino-European word meaning something like “Satisfactory”. The English word God comes from the Old English word “God” (without the long O, pronounced the same way as it is now, pretty much) meaning the same thing it does today, and is probably descended from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning “praise” or “invocation.”

Totally pointless trivia, but I love that kind of thing.

 

[MartinJordan]

I think the Pali word kusala would be interchangeable. Here is the definition:

kusala:Wholesome, skillful, good, meritorious. An action characterized by this moral quality (kusala-kamma)…

It is often translated as skillful.

Interesting. Does this mean Buddhists consider goodness comes from the inside of a person?

Rather than in Christianity Goodness come from God. If we are skillful it is rather that God has given us that gift and not from ourselves and we should not think we can do without God.

To put into perspective (atleast I think it does) : Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

MJ

 

[notself]

Interesting. Does this mean Buddhists consider goodness comes from the inside of a person?

Rather than in Christianity Goodness come from God. If we are skillful it is rather that God has given us that gift and not from ourselves and we should not think we can do without God.

To put into perspective (atleast I think it does) : Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

MJ

What do you mean by Goodness?

 

[Bakmoon]

Interesting. Does this mean Buddhists consider goodness comes from the inside of a person?

Rather than in Christianity Goodness come from God. If we are skillful it is rather that God has given us that gift and not from ourselves and we should not think we can do without God.

To put into perspective (atleast I think it does) : Mark 10:18 And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.

MJ

What do you mean by “comes from” exactly? As in, where does the action come from? It comes from the act of the persons will, in that case.

 

[MartinJordan]

There is are some technical terms that are the normal words used for it in Pali, which is the liturgical and scriptural language of Theravada Buddhism. You could say “kusala kamma” which literally means “wholesome action” is probably the most common such term.

On a totally pointless sidenote, I looked up the etymologies of the words “God” and “Good” and it seems that might be a little bit misleading. The modern English word “Good” derives from the Middle English word “gōd” (the long O makes it rhyme with the word “old”) which didn’t mean God, but good. It is most likely descended from an ancient Proto-Ino-European word meaning something like “Satisfactory”. The English word God comes from the Old English word “God” (without the long O, pronounced the same way as it is now, pretty much) meaning the same thing it does today, and is probably descended from a Proto-Indo-European word meaning “praise” or “invocation.”

Totally pointless trivia, but I love that kind of thing.

Hmmm.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

What do you mean by “comes from” exactly? As in, where does the action come from? It comes from the act of the persons will, in that case.

Yes, action comes from the persons will, but in the end we must (at least looking at it in my understanding of my Catholic faith and trying to practice it) always try to do God’s Will because we want eventually to return to Him to His Kingdom.

So in other words Goodness comes from God, who created us and we want to reconcile ourselves to Him.

MJ

 

[notself]

Yes, action comes from the persons will, but in the end we must (at least looking at it in my understanding of my Catholic faith and trying to practice it) always try to do God’s Will because we want eventually to return to Him to His Kingdom.

So in other words Goodness comes from God, who created us and we want to reconcile ourselves to Him.

MJ

I am still a bit confused. Are you saying goodness is a state of being? Are you using goodness as interchangeable with grace?

 

[MartinJordan]

I am still a bit confused. Are you saying goodness is a state of being? Are you using goodness as interchangeable with grace?

All Im saying is related to the “doing good” hence my question to Bakmoon in which you kindly answered.

Goodness can be demonstrated by action. Like doing a good deed, say helping feed someone (who can’t feed himself for example or giving food to someone who has nothing to eat) I can’t say I did a good thing by letting the person just starve or not helping him.

With regards to Grace, you can say by this action, I can receive Grace (also from God)- Strictly in the Catholic sense.

MJ

 

[notself]

All Im saying is related to the “doing good” hence my question to Bakmoon in which you kindly answered.

Goodness can be demonstrated by action. Like doing a good deed, say helping feed someone (who can’t feed himself for example or giving food to someone who has nothing to eat) I can’t say I did a good thing by letting the person just starve or not helping him.

With regards to Grace, you can say by this action, I can receive Grace (also from God)- Strictly in the Catholic sense.

MJ

Thank you

 

[MartinJordan]

Thank you

You are most welcome.

MJ

 

[rinnie]

“The mind”? Which one. Your mind was different when you were five years old to what it is now. It will be different again in the future. You mind is not one thing, but a series of different things, constantly changing, with each new version conditioned by what has come before.

Your body also is not the same as it was when you were five, or as it was five years ago.

Both body and mind are changing. Each is a series of different minds/bodies conditioned by the previous minds/bodies.

Death is just another change between one mind/body and the next mind/body.

Buddhism lays great emphasis on change. To a Buddhist there is no real permanence anywhere. What appears to be permanent is just that, an appearance. The underlying reality is changing. Mountains appear to be permanent, but in reality they are slowly changing: eroding.

rossum

Well of course the mind is always changing rossum, I am a woman, and I always can always change my mind.

But do you believe it is possible rossum that the mind and the soul could be the same thing?

 

[AdamP88]

Well of course the mind is always changing rossum, I am a woman, and I always can always change my mind.

But do you believe it is possible rossum that the mind and the soul could be the same thing?

 

[Bakmoon]

Well of course the mind is always changing rossum, I am a woman, and I always can always change my mind.

But do you believe it is possible rossum that the mind and the soul could be the same thing?

This is a problematic proposition, because in Buddhism, the mind is defined as the composite of all of the mental components which arise. They include Vedana (interpreting a sensory experience as pleasurable, unpleasent, or neutral), Sañña (interpreting what a sensory experience is), Sankhara (volition), and Viññana (awareness of a sense object.)

These things exist only for the briefest of moments before vanishing, and being replaced by something else. If you hold that the mind is the soul, then that leaves you with the proposition that the soul is constantly being destroyed and remade. If you don’t have a problem with the idea that the soul is being destroyed and remade all the time, then sure, you could say that the mind is the soul.

Usually that’s not what people mean by soul, though. What do you mean when you use the word soul?

 

[joe370]

The first thread was so much fun. I feel we have formed a true ecumenical community of friendship so let’s continue on.

Does anyone want to Ask A Buddhist about the dhamma? Even if it was covered on the other thread, I am sure Bakmoon, Rossum and others will be glad to go over anything again that someone might of missed in the 72 pages of the other thread.

There are many topics that haven’t been covered that may be interesting to discuss.

Bakmoon helped me out with Buddhism regarding God. I was just wondering if the folks that embrace Hinduism believe in God?

 

[Lodro]

Bakmoon helped me out with Buddhism regarding God. I was just wondering if the folks that embrace Hinduism believe in God?

My guess is yes, but you’d have to ask a Hindu that. Down the hall, to your left… youtu.be/aTsePWJ0WBY?hd=1

 

[patrick457]

It was probably around this same period that the Upanishads, which contained theories identifiable with shramana came in direct contact with brahmanical ideals and influenced it: debate and discussion were now also valued rather than rote memorization of sacred texts. Many Upanishads compile contradictory positions where the favorite style of debate is to pose questions until the other cannot answer. Their heterogenous nature of shows infusions of both social and philosophical elements, pointing to evolution of new doctrines from non-brahmanical sources. While the germ of some Upanishadic ideas like Brahman and Atman can be traced back to the Vedas and ancillary Brahmanic literature like the Brahmanas, the doctrines of transmigration (punarjanma), yoga, karma (action), and emancipation (moksha) do not follow with consistency from Vedic traditions, and are fundamental to shramanic schools.

Now karma and samsara were two of the concepts which so characterize shramanic heterodoxy: all the different movements either accepted or rejected them. And even those who held the ideas differed on how they understood them. Take karma, for example: Jains thought of it as the fruit of one’s action conceived as material particles which stick to a soul and keep it away from natural omniscience, while Buddhists viewed as a chain of causality leading to attachment of the material world and hence to rebirth. The Ajivikas saw it more fatalistically as inescapable fate where a person’s life goes through a chain of consequences and rebirths until it reaches its end. Others, like the Charvakas rejected any notion of karma and rebirth entirely.

To put an end to this, since nothing lasts forever.

At the time of Vardhamāna (the Mahāvīra) and Gotama (the Buddha) when Vedic ritualism had become the dominant tradition in certain parts of India, śramaṇic movements, which offered an alternative to rituals, was experiencing a boost. Śramaṇa was, as mentioned, at variance with the traditional brahmanic authority, although there were Brahmins who embraced it, like Cāṇakya (the royal advisor to Chandragupta Maurya), Sāriputta/Śāriputra (one of the Buddha’s two chief male disciples), or the eleven chief disciples of Mahāvīra.

The Samaññaphala Sutta makes reference to six contemporary śramaṇic (Pali: samaṇa) teachers in the context of King Ajatasattu of Magadha’s questioning of different spiritual teachers.

• Pūraṇa Kassapa, who taught an amoralist theory of “non-action” (akiriyavada) whereby the body acts independent of the soul, merit or demerit and thus denied any notion of a reward or punishment for either good or bad deeds. “Even if one were to go along the right bank of the Ganges, killing and getting others to kill, mutilating and getting others to mutilate, torturing and getting others to torture, there would be no evil from that cause, no coming of evil. Even if one were to go along the left bank of the Ganges, giving and getting others to give, making sacrifices and getting others to make sacrifices, there would be no merit from that cause, no coming of merit.”
• Makkhali Gosāla (aka Maskarin Gośāla; in Jain Prakrit sources also called Gosāla Mankhaliputta), leader of the Ājīvikas, which denied the idea of karma and held a fatalistic philosophy, whereby the cycle of rebirth (saṃsāra) was determined by a precise and non-personal cosmic principle called niyati “destiny, fate” and was completely independent of the person’s actions.
• Ajita Kesakambalī, who preached a materialistic viewpoint similar to the Cārvāka/Lokāyata school and rejected any notion of rebirth or karma. “There is no such thing as alms or sacrifice or offering. There is neither fruit nor result of good or evil deeds …] Fools and wise alike, on the dissolution of the body, are cut off, annihilated, and after death they are not.”
• Pakudha Kaccayana, a śramaṇic Brahmin who taught that there are seven elements: matter (earth, water, fire, air), pleasure, pain, and the soul, which “do not alter, do not change, do not interfere with one another, are incapable of causing one another pleasure, pain, or both pleasure and pain.”
• Nigantha Nātaputta, aka Vardhamāna Mahāvīra, leader of the Jains. 'Nuff said.
• Sañjaya Belaṭṭhaputta, who advocated a kind of “evasive,” agnostic dialectical existentialism. “I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.”

Hence, by the post-Vedic period, we have at least three strands of philosophy co-existing influencing each other: ritualistic Brahmanism, self-reliant śramaṇic traditions, and devotional bhakti traditions. These three helped form the Hinduism we know today.

 

[patrick457]

Bakmoon helped me out with Buddhism regarding God. I was just wondering if the folks that embrace Hinduism believe in God?

If by ‘God’ you mean a supreme divinity in the Judaeo-Christian sense, you’ll have to ask a Hindu that - and I bet you’ll get different answers.