Leaving aside that the Dhammapada is often not considered a normative source in Buddhism -I am Buddhist, I cannot speak for Confucians. At its simplest karma is merely that actions have consequences:
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.
(Dhammapada 1 vv 1-2)
By whom? The Dhammapada is part of the Pali Canon and there are translations of the Sanskrit version (the udanavarga) in both the Tibetan and Chinese Canons.Leaving aside that the Dhammapada is often not considered a normative source in Buddhism
The standard Buddhist static analysis of a human being is into five parts, one physical (form) and four mental (feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness). These last four constitute “mind”.What do you think is meant by “mind” in the above passage?
For the functioning of mind we need to look at a dynamic analysis, pratitya samutpada, which has twelve stages. The three stages we are interested in are six, Contact, seven, Feeling, and eight, Desire. Contact is when we observe something through one of our senses. Feeling is our initial analysis of the sense-contact into unpleasant, pleasant or neutral. This is separate from the initial contact. If we are hungry then the taste of a hamburger may be pleasant. If we are nearing our limit in an eating competition then the same taste of a hamburger may be unpleasant. The same contact may give rise to different feelings at different times. Depending on our feelings Desire will arise. Pleasant feelings give rise to the desire for more hamburger. Unpleasant feelings give rise to the desire for less hamburger in our example. From the desire actions arise.How do you think that the “mind” functions?
Some Buddhists.By whom? The Dhammapada is part of the Pali Canon and there are translations of the Sanskrit version (the udanavarga) in both the Tibetan and Chinese Canons.
The Dhp was composed after the Sutta Pitaka, and there are discrepancies between the Dhp and the Suttas, and also between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma (notably, according to the Suttas, one has free will, and according to the Abhidhamma, one doesn’t).The standard Buddhist static analysis of a human being is into five parts, one physical (form) and four mental (feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness). These last four constitute “mind”.
And this leads you to suggest that karma is a doctrine of moral relativism and total subjectivism?For the functioning of mind we need to look at a dynamic analysis, pratitya samutpada, which has twelve stages. The three stages we are interested in are six, Contact, seven, Feeling, and eight, Desire. Contact is when we observe something through one of our senses. Feeling is our initial analysis of the sense-contact into unpleasant, pleasant or neutral. This is separate from the initial contact. If we are hungry then the taste of a hamburger may be pleasant. If we are nearing our limit in an eating competition then the same taste of a hamburger may be unpleasant. The same contact may give rise to different feelings at different times. Depending on our feelings Desire will arise. Pleasant feelings give rise to the desire for more hamburger. Unpleasant feelings give rise to the desire for less hamburger in our example. From the desire actions arise.
If the desire is towards good then the actions will have pleasant results. If the desire is towards evil then the actions will have unpleasant results.
rossum
Some of the verses in the Dhp. are also found in the suttas. It is also worth pointing out that some of the oldest texts in the Pali Tripitaka are in the Khuddaka Nikaya, such as the Udana and the Sutta Nipata.The Dhp was composed after the Sutta Pitaka, and there are discrepancies between the Dhp and the Suttas,
The Abhidhamma Pitaka is hundreds of years later than the suttas. We have copies of the Sarvastivadin Adhidharma which is completely different. The two schools separated in about 250 BCE so their respective Abhidharmas date from after that. Their Vinaya and Sutta/Sutra Pitakas are essentially identical so they are earlier.and also between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma (notably, according to the Suttas, one has free will, and according to the Abhidhamma, one doesn’t).
No, Karma is not “total subjectivism”. I am not sure what you intend by “moral relativism”. The moral worth of actions is impacted by the circumstances. Killing is normally wrong, but killing in self defence or in defence of others may not be wrong, or be less wrong, depending on the exact circumstances.And this leads you to suggest that karma is a doctrine of moral relativism and total subjectivism?
Killing is a violation of the first of the five ‘Pancasila’ precepts that observant Buddhist laypeople are supposed to adhere to. Buddhist psychological ethics would doubtless respond to the desire to kill somebody in order to preserve one’s sense of honor by interpreting the motivation as a destructive manifestation of pathological self-fascination.The moral worth of actions is impacted by the circumstances. Killing is normally wrong, but killing in self defence or in defence of others may not be wrong, or be less wrong, depending on the exact circumstances.
There are very rare circumstances when killing is allowed. Motivation is extremely important. See the story of the Prince and the Hungry Tigress in Chapter Eighteen of the Suvarnaprabhasa sutra.Killing is a violation of the first of the five ‘Pancasila’ precepts that observant Buddhist laypeople are supposed to adhere to.
I have to disagree somewhat here. The strict Calvinist idea of judgement implies that actions do not have consequences and that your actions have no effect on what the judgement is. There is also the idea of “forgiveness of sins”; a forgiven sin may not have any consequences, or just minor consequences. Buddhism does not have the concept of “sin”, replacing it with “unwise action”. However, by dropping sin it also drops forgiveness of sin. Karma does not, and cannot, forgive.The idea of karma isn’t really all that different from the Judeo-Christian-Islamic idea of judgement. Both karma and judgement affirm that actions have inevitable consequences and that things will eventually turn out fairly, even if it doesn’t always look that way to us right now.
That is a good analogy. You can break the law of a court, you cannot break the law of gravity; at best you can work with it.The difference is that with judgement, the consequences are imagined as the legal rulings of a cosmic court, while with karma they are imagined as the natural result of the ethical laws of nature.
Buddhists disagree among themselves about the scope and interpretation of the ‘do not kill’ precept, just as Jews and Christians have many interpretations of the analogous commandment. And individual Buddhists (like Jews and Christians) are all over the map regarding how scrupulously they adhere to their precepts. Some Chinese Buddhists are vegetarians, while other Buddhists happily eat meat. Just about every Buddhist country has a military.There are very rare circumstances when killing is allowed. Motivation is extremely important.
Yeah, some of the hyper-Protestant interpretations of God’s grace do appear to come dangerously close to an effective denial of the importance of moral evil. It doesn’t seem to matter what anybody does, even Adolph Hitler, as long as he has faith in the saving power of Jesus. Of course, these kind of Protestants would doubtless protest very loudly (and perhaps justifiably) that this is a caricature of their views. It likely is. But even so, interpreting God’s forgiving grace towards sinners in such a way that it doesn’t turn into a ‘get out of evil free’ card is a problem that Christian ethics has to address.I have to disagree somewhat here. The strict Calvinist idea of judgement implies that actions do not have consequences and that your actions have no effect on what the judgement is.
Yeah, it’s true.There is also the idea of “forgiveness of sins”; a forgiven sin may not have any consequences, or just minor consequences. Buddhism does not have the concept of “sin”, replacing it with “unwise action”. However, by dropping sin it also drops forgiveness of sin. Karma does not, and cannot, forgive.
That is a good analogy. You can break the law of a court, you cannot break the law of gravity; at best you can work with it.
One of the early Tibetan kings, Lang Darma, was persecuting Buddhists and killing monks. A monk called Lhalung Paldor assassinated the king. His motives were considered good - he wanted to prevent the king building up more bad karma for himself by killing yet more monks. However he himself had also killed a man. The general consensus was that Lhalung Paldor would spend some time in hell for the killing and some time in heaven for the purity of his motives.
rossum
Correct. Getting a group of Buddhists to agree can sometimes be like herding cats.Buddhists disagree among themselves about the scope and interpretation of the ‘do not kill’ precept, just as Jews and Christians have many interpretations of the analogous commandment.
More than that. Hitler, like everyone else, will eventually attain enlightenment. Though of course by then he won’t be Hitler any more.If he keeps it up, he could even rise into the heavens and become divine.
Correct.I guess that in Christian theological terms, interpreted in the light of the arguments about grace vs works, the karma theory emphasizes works almost exclusively.
the Japanese classify their Buddhist sects into self-power (ji-riki) for Zen and similar which rely on meditation and other power (ta-riki) for the Pure Land sects which rely on Amida. The difference is not as great as first appears, since in Buddhism there is less difference between self and other than in Christianity. Self is a lot more fluid in the absence of a soul.It doesn’t have a great deal to do with the Indian ideas of karma, but it’s interesting to notice that in the history of Buddhism, the pure-land Buddhists, particularly those in Japan, evolved ideas in some cases very similar to those of the Christians. There’s the idea of ‘other-power’ (grace) and the idea that one will be surely reborn into the heavenly Pure Land of the West, whatever one’s earthly sins, provided only that one sincerely calls upon the saving grace of Amida.
There may have been some Nestorian influence, but indications are that Pure Land was an Indian development originating within the Mahasangika version of the Sravakayana. It reached prominence in the Far East because it seems to have struck more of a chord there.This appears to be an independent historical development in the far east, religious convergent evolution, though there were a few Nestorian Christians in China at the time, so maybe it’s a faint eastern reflection of Christian ideas from far to the west.
Any argument old enough to be named after Pascal has been around to have a number of counterarguments.As a reincarnationist, what do you think of Pascal’s Wager?
Rossum: Just to clarify, there is one God in Hinduism with many manifestations or incarnations. He Himself is formless, yet He is in every form. Whether one worships this form or that, or worships nothing at all is of little consequence. It is all the Atman, which is also Brahman, or what those in the west would call God. As the reflections in a billion bowls of water in the noonday sun reveals a billion and one suns, there is but one, manifest in the many. That which is being worshiped, as well as the worshiper, as well as the saint, as well as the thief, the seer and that which is seen are all the Atman.Any argument old enough to be named after Pascal has been around to have a number of counterarguments.
For example: “Could you please direct me to the nearest Mosque? Oh, you don’t know where it is. You mean that you don’t go there yourself every Friday, just in case? Then why should I accept your argument if you don’t follow it yourself?”
Taking Pascal’s Wager at face value we would all be Hindus. There is only one God at a Christian church, there are hundreds of thousands of gods at a Hindu temple. Pascal’s odds are much better for Hindus.
rossum
Identical Teachings
(1)
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” (Luke 6:31)
“Consider others as yourself.” (Dhammapada 10:1)
(2)
“If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also.” (Luke 6:29)
“If anyone should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a knife, you should abandon any desires and utter no evil words.” (Majjhima Nikaya 21:6)
(3)
“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. From anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them back.” (Luke 6:27-30)
“Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love: this is an eternal truth. Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good … Overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth.” (Dhammapada 1.5 & 17.3)
(4)
“Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” (Matt. 25:45)
“If you do not tend one another, then who is there to tend to you? Whoever would tend me, he should tend the sick.” (Vinaya, Mahavagga 8:26:3)
(5)
“Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52)
“Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword.” (Digha Nikaya 1:1:8)
(6)
“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friend.” (John 15:12-13)
“Just as a mother would protect her only child at the risk of her own life, even so, cultivate a boundless heart towards all beings. Let your thoughts of boundless love pervade the whole world.” (Sutta Nipata 149-150)
(7)
“Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.” (John 1:17)
“The body of the Buddha is born of love, patience, gentleness and truth.” (Vimalakirtinirdesha Sutra 2)
(8)
“The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed that someone took and sowed in his field; it is the smallest of all the seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.” (Matt. 13:31-32)
“Do not underestimate good, thinking it will not affect you. Dripping water can fill a pitcher, drop by drop; one who is wise is filled with good, even if one accumulates it little by little.” (Dhammapada 9:7)
(9)
“Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbor, “Friend, let me take the speck out of your eye,” when you yourself do not see the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye.” (Luke 6:41-42)
“The faults of others are easier to see than one’s own; the faults of others are easily seen, for they are sifted like chaff, but one’s own faults are hard to see. This is like the cheat who hides his dice and shows the dice of his opponent, calling attention to the other’s shortcomings, continually thinking of accusing him.” (Undanavarga 27:1)
(10)
"They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” He said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:4-7)
“Do not look at the faults of others, or what others have done or not done; observe what you yourself have done and have not done.” (Dhammapada 4:7)
(11)
“Your eye is the lamp of your body. If your eye is healthy your whole body is full of light; but if it is not healthy, your body is full of darkness. Therefore consider whether the light in you is full of darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, with no part of it in darkness, it will be as full of light as when a lamp gives you light with its rays.” (Luke 11: 34-36)
“As a man with eyes who carries a lamp sees all objects, so too with one who has heard the Moral Law. He will become perfectly wise.” (Udanavarga 22:4)
(12)
“Your father in heaven makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.” (Matt. 5:45)
“That great cloud rains down on all whether their nature is superior or inferior. The light of the sun and the moon illuminates the whole world, both him who does well and him who does ill, both him who stands high and him who stands low.” (Sadharmapundarika Sutra 5)
(13)
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)
“Let us live most happily, possessing nothing; let us feed on joy, like the radiant gods.” (Dhammapada 15:4)
(14)
“If you wish to be perfect, go sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” (Matt.19:21)
“The avaricious do not go to heaven, the foolish do not extol charity. The wise one, however, rejoicing in charity, becomes thereby happy in the beyond.” (Dhammapada 13:11)
(15)
"He looked up and saw rich people putting their gifts into the treasury; he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. He said, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them; for all of them have contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty has put in all she had to live on.” (Luke 21:1-4)
“Giving is the noble expression of the benevolence of the mighty. Even dust, given in childish innocence, is a good gift. No gift that is given in good faith to a worthy recipient can be called small; it effects us so great.” (Jatakamala 3:23)
(16)
“Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” (John 11:26)
“Those who have sufficient faith in me, sufficient love for me, are all headed for heaven or beyond.” (Majjhima Nikaya 22:47)
(17)
“Those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.” (Mark 8:35)
“With the relinquishing of all thought and egotism, the enlightened one is liberated through not clinging.” (Majjhima Nikaya 72:15)
(18)
“Foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay his head.” (Matt. 8:20)
“The thoughtful exert themselves; they do not delight in an abode. Like swans who have left their lake they leave their house and home.” (Majjhima Nikaya)
(19)
“When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time.” (Luke 4:13)
“During the six years that the Bodhisattva practiced austerities, the demon followed behind him step by step, seeking an opportunity to harm him. But he found no opportunity whatsoever and went away discouraged and discontent.” (Lalitavistara Sutra 18)
(20)
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” (Matt. 5:8)
“Anyone who enters into meditation on compassion can see Brahma with his own eyes, talk to him face to face and consult with him.” (Digha Nikaya 19:43)
(21)
“Although the doors were shut, Jesus came and stood among them.” (John 20:26)
“He goes unhindered through a wall.” (Anugattara Nikaya 3:60)
(22)
“And after six days Jesus takes with him Peter, and James, and John, and leads them up into a high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.” (Mark 9:2-3)
"Ananda, having arranged one set of golden robes on the body of the Lord, observed that against the Lord’s body it appeared dulled. And he said, “It is wonderful, Lord, it is marvelous how clear and bright the Lord’s skin appears! It looks even brighter than the golden robes in which it is clothed.” (Digha Nikaya 16:4:37)
Sufjon can speak for Hinduism. As for Buddhism, the moral practice of both Buddhism and Christianity is similar, as you show above. From the Buddhist point of view Christianity is deficient in meditation but its morality is fine. “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.Sufjon, rossum,
What can you say about the following basics teachings? I’d be interested to see both Buddhists and Catholics replies, thanks.
Hi Cho Pilo, Xuan and Rossum: I agree totally with what you are saying. There are close correlations between the messages of the scriptures across all faiths. Basically, my sense is that everyone is clicking on a different icon to get to the same program. Different paths to the same thing. There seems to be an inherent wisdom of the species that senses an underlying fabric of consciousness into which the tapestry of diverse experience is woven or spun. Simplified for the human mind, this thing that is sensed is usually called God, but in fact it is nameless, or more accurately put, un-namable. In it’s quest to survive or even exist, the ego senses a separate self that is associated with the interplay between the sense organs and the mind, but this is not real consciousness. For at least six thousand years seers from all faiths have delved into this true consciousness which is beyond thought, and instructed others on how to do so. It is more vast than all the oceans in the universe combined. If you approach it with a cup labeled “Christian,” “Hindu,” “Buddhist,” or whatever, you will come back only with that cup full. I would intuit that it would be better to toss the cups aside and dive in. This is what the seers have always done. They don’t see the boundaries. They see the unity in that which is also limitless.Hi cho pilo,
That’s a very perceptive post. I’ve noticed that the major religions/philosophies seem to have two components. I think of them as “storyline” and “recommended path.” The storylines are very different, but the recommended paths are generally quite similar.
I think Sufjon can probably point out that Hinduism teaches a very similar path.
Xuan
I might point out that Judaism is also much more an orthopraxy than an orthodoxy. It is true there are the “Thirteen Principles of Faith” formulated by Maimonides, yet Judaism has no official creed. The PRACTICE of Torah precepts is in effect the faith itself rather than the faith being the basis for practice. Although one must be informed regarding Torah teaching, “the ultimate is not studying, but the doing,” since Judaism is primarily a “good works” religion. In addition, in Kabbalah there is the notion of reincarnation, not in opposition to mainstream Torah Judaism. The focus of reincarnation is for the purpose of fulfilling Torah moral precepts more perfectly in successive lifetimes and thereby becoming more enlightened.Sufjon can speak for Hinduism. As for Buddhism, the moral practice of both Buddhism and Christianity is similar, as you show above. From the Buddhist point of view Christianity is deficient in meditation but its morality is fine. “Love others as you love yourself.” – Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra 91.
The philosophical structure behind the moralities are very different, attitudes to the soul for instance. Buddhism emphasises practice over belief; it is an orthopraxy rather than an orthodoxy. From that point of view the great bulk of Christianity is perfectly acceptable; its good points outweigh its errors. Certain sects, such as extreme Calvinism, would be frowned on as they break the causative link between actions and future results. Extremist hate groups like Westboro’ Baptist are also deprecated.
rossum
I’m glad you shared that. I was certain that this was the case, but I am always told by some mainstream Christians that this is not a Jewish or Christian belief.In addition, in Kabbalah there is the notion of reincarnation, not in opposition to mainstream Torah Judaism. The focus of reincarnation is for the purpose of fulfilling Torah moral precepts more perfectly in successive lifetimes and thereby becoming more enlightened.
I think almost any faith can make use of Pacal’s Wager, the essence of which (generalized to more than his Christian POV) is:Any argument old enough to be named after Pascal has been around to have a number of counterarguments.
For example: “Could you please direct me to the nearest Mosque? Oh, you don’t know where it is. You mean that you don’t go there yourself every Friday, just in case? Then why should I accept your argument if you don’t follow it yourself?”
Taking Pascal’s Wager at face value we would all be Hindus. There is only one God at a Christian church, there are hundreds of thousands of gods at a Hindu temple. Pascal’s odds are much better for Hindus.
rossum