Ask MysticSang'ha anything (Buddhism, disciple, doctrine, experience, pray)

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by zenzero

Friend YmirGF,
The question is not of interest as that comes from the mind.

I am quite aware of that Zenzero, however, the mind springs from consciousness and unless we project to another level of reality to mindmeld, we do not have much choice other than to use the tool that is our mind.

Originally Posted by zenzero

Here it is the KARMA. the only involvement at all times.

Come again? To my perspective so-called "karma" is merely an autocorrecting attribute of reality in reaction to action. Time does not have much to do with at all due the perceptions of the physical senses and of course one must consider the unpredictable nature of probabilities. For example, I do not accept that we accrue "karmic debts" that we carry from one lifetime to the next. Karma is immediate and the books are settled at the end of each life. The only things carried over are personality traits and the experience gained from the prior focus.

Originally Posted by zenzero

Response may be delayed due to other factors but never negated intentionally.

Sorry, but that is somewhat obvious. My point is that karma is the instantaneous reaction of reality TO action. While we inhabit physical bodies it is something that cannot be escaped from even if one chooses not to believe in it.

Originally Posted by zenzero

One to one or on open platforms shall carry out the balance of karma left in store..

Could you expand on this idea. I am not getting what you are trying to say.

Originally Posted by zenzero

Sorry if Heather feels let down to her thread but what is seen here is the same thing in differnt forms like names, persons, threads. The subject matter all leads to the same goal.

In the largest terms possible, I suppose, but I think it is also an idea that reduces personal experience down to nothingness and utlimately removes the point of existence in the first place. If all our actions are for nothing, then what pray tell are we doing here. Working out past karma?

[koan]

Unfortunately, we are here to work out past karma and if we don't want to keep occuring, then we need to stop making karma. This is what Buddhism is all about.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by koan

Unfortunately, we are here to work out past karma and if we don't want to keep occuring, then we need to stop making karma. This is what Buddhism is all about.

I really appreciate what you are saying David, but alas, my experience does not support this premise. Then again, it is likely why I have not become a Buddhist -- this time around. Oh well, it is all good. Best of luck wrapping up your karma.

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF,
Please understand that responses given are always for the moment and for a person.
It may be difficult to respond to those statements again in another light as you have requested.
However, again find ourselves getting away from basically understanding ourselves and getting into debates of religions.
We are all here for a purpose? the answer is both YES and NO.
Existence simply IS without any BEGINING or END. there is no purpose.
We are simply in the MIDDLE somewhere at any point as both ends are limitless.
Man has come about through Evolution. Agree? If one does not agree then all efforts to come to any understanding becomes difficult. That is a fact proven scientifically too.
If one agrees then the next question would be what is the difference betwen man and other beings. Nothing except that the mind has slowly eveolved too and developed in man such that only man can realise and get back merge with the very source of life which no other beings CAN.
The other difference between man and other beings is that other beings life as one with nature except man and that also is due to man being guidede by the mind which by nature is never in the present but always in the past or future.
To be one with nature/ existence is simple - just get the mind free of thoughts then one becomes totally free and immediately merges and joins the source and becomes a part of the whole like all other beings. [note: beings here is reffered to all forms and no-forms]
All enlightened persons have been trying to get across the same message / knowledge of how to merge with this existence and all tailormade their methods depending on the method he himself used to merge and also depending on the type of audience he was adressing to.
The experience of all are the same whichever may be the method BUT here we still fight stating this is buddhist and that is Christian or hindu etc.
ALl are humans and the goal is one. The goal diffcuses and the pruposlessness seen as soon as one merges to that beginingless and endless existence.
Karma is as we know is nothing but ACTION. We all know that every action has a reaction. The reaction is not ALL immediate eg. You are in a valley or mountain top and you shout the echos keeps coming back one after the other depending on the location one is. Suppose you throw a ball to a wall you see the ball comes back as a reaction but one cannot see that while the ball is travelling through the air before and after reaching the wall is coming in contact with many atoms in the air itself which in turn reacts and hits other atoms next to it and slowly the action goes across the universe and that too comes back but takes along time and is unseen. Likewise when one does anything the resultant action goes around the univesre and comes back to the initial doer. ALl this happens when actions are done unconciously. As conciously and action done means it is done with full awareness of all its implication and the responsibilty attached with it and so one becomes prepared to accept the result in the same fashion as while doing it. This slowly eraese the resultant karma or action.
Now what is to be concious?
The same as what all enlightened people have been trying to get others to understand. When the mind is without thoughts one remains in the present and in that present whatever is done is done conciously.
Be a WITNESS unto oneself. means Be Present being concious.
Let us allow ourselves to know that we are all humans and whatever religion we follow are just choices we are making for the same purpose as the other following another religion as that is the choice he made. We all make our choices according to what we are comfortable with.
Differences are all in forms and appearances but not in its objective. TRUST/ LOVE for each other grows automatically.
Love & rgds

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by vandervalley

So many sutras in Mahayana mentions of Bodhisattvas yet none in Theravada do? Thats interesting.

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

For the most part, yes. I'm thinking overall here, but if we're getting nit-picky (over the Tipitaka and discourses, and I'm not that smart), from what I understand, then yes Siddhartha and Maitreya are the only bodhisattvas in Theravada tradition that is worth mentioning. I believe that Theravada considers the possibility of bodhisattvas, but that they have not come of form as of yet or they are not recognized.

The ideal in Mahayana Buddhism is the Bodhisattva. The ideal in Theravada Buddhism is the Arhat (or Arahant). In Theravada, Siddhartha is not a Bodhisattva; he is an Arhat. I don't know what Theravadans think of Maitreya... if they do at all? A Bodhisattva delays his or her own final enlightenment in order to stay within samsara to help others. An Arhat is someone who has attained enlightenment through his or her own efforts and has escaped the cycle of death and rebirth.

What does Zen think of Maitreya? I never hear talk of Bodhisattvas in Zen, even tho that's supposed to be Mahayana.

[MysticSang'ha]

Originally Posted by lilithu

The ideal in Mahayana Buddhism is the Bodhisattva. The ideal in Theravada Buddhism is the Arhat (or Arahant). In Theravada, Siddhartha is not a Bodhisattva; he is an Arhat. I don't know what Theravadans think of Maitreya... if they do at all? A Bodhisattva delays his or her own final enlightenment in order to stay within samsara to help others. An Arhat is someone who has attained enlightenment through his or her own efforts and has escaped the cycle of death and rebirth.

What does Zen think of Maitreya? I never hear talk of Bodhisattvas in Zen, even tho that's supposed to be Mahayana.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Jataka tales, where Buddha's lives are recounted before his incarnation as Siddhartha............if memory serves me correctly, he is referred or described much like a Bodhisattva.

Again, though, I'm interpreting this part of the Tipitaka with Vajrayana lenses, so I'm not sure how exactly Theravada practitioners and elders interpret the term.

I wonder if the reason why Zen doesn't talk about Maitreya is because it prefers to focus on the disciplines surrounding meditation and various rationalizations of the sutras and not on the complex cosmology that is so often referred to in other Mahayana schools like Pure Land or Tien Tai.

I'd love to read Engyo's perspective on this with the Nichiren POV, too.




Peace,
Mystic

[MysticSang'ha]

Regarding the subject of karma, and the cool discussion between Paul, zenzero, and koan:

Where to start? The topic is so far-ranging and applicable in every area of phenomena. I agree with most everything that Paul is saying from a Vajrayana perspective; however, I think he knows or is vaguely aware that he and I part ways just a tad bit when it comes to bringing past karma with you into this lifetime..........since he dismisses this concept and I embrace it.

Well, at least this is how I've interpreted our past discussions, Paul. Am I correct, compadre?

I am certainly not ignoring what koan and zz has stated, since I find myself nodding in agreement with your perspectives, too. But, from the Vajrayana POV here, karma is a biggie in our discussions and debates. How is it defined? Does it explain why "bad" things happen to "good" people? Can it be categorized? Can "bad" karma be purified? If so, how? And how far do purification rituals go before conceptualizing them as mere superstitions?

We are here to work out our past karma, and on this I agree with koan, but I also might add that we are here because of our past karma and because of our habits. Like being caught in samsara, we continue to commit the same actions based on the same delusions until we become aware of what we are doing...........period. And for this reason, I can only agree so far with Paul that karma is an auto-correcting feature of the universe.

I'm pulling a "YmirGF" here and admitting that I could be wrong about all this, too.




Peace,
Mystic

[Engyo]

Originally Posted by MysticSang'ha

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Jataka tales, where Buddha's lives are recounted before his incarnation as Siddhartha............if memory serves me correctly, he is referred or described much like a Bodhisattva.

Again, though, I'm interpreting this part of the Tipitaka with Vajrayana lenses, so I'm not sure how exactly Theravada practitioners and elders interpret the term.

I wonder if the reason why Zen doesn't talk about Maitreya is because it prefers to focus on the disciplines surrounding meditation and various rationalizations of the sutras and not on the complex cosmology that is so often referred to in other Mahayana schools like Pure Land or Tien Tai.

I'd love to read Engyo's perspective on this with the Nichiren POV, too.




Peace,
Mystic

Hi, Heather -

In the Nichiren tradition we take the 4 Bodhisattva Vows every time we offer service. We look at Bodhisattvas as examples - a sort of ideal figure of how to exist in the world. Since the Lotus Sutra (our basis) is focused on this world, rather than on some other realm such as the Pure Land, our practice and outlook is focussd here as well. We do recognize Maitreya as the next Buddha prophesied for our world, but do not focus on this, as that time is very far from now. We focus instead on what we can do here and now to prolong and spread the teachings of our current Buddha, in order to have a positive impact on our world and society right now - and to lead all beings to awakening. BTW - Maitreya is spoken of in the Lotus Sutra as a Bodhisattva in his current incarnation, and was present at the Assembly described therein.

In the Lotus Sutra, Shakyamuni also recounts stories of his previous existences, often (but not exclusively) referring to himself in those existences as a Bodhisattva.

Is this what you were looking for?