On "Buddha’s Little Joke"

[apophenia]

It's interesting that despite our vast differences in views regarding karma, enlightenment, theology, etc. we all remain remarkably human and ordinary. I don't know why I thought to share that on this particular thread. Perhaps I sense a kinship with the OP, but it just seems important. We are all profoundly ordinary. From kings to beggars, we are equal expressions of the cosmic vibrations.

I like you Straw Dog. You sound like me on one of my better days. But more consistently

 

[Straw Dog]

I like you Straw Dog. You sound like me on one of my better days. But more consistently

Well, I try dude. I don't know that I'm more consistent so much as I realize most of my musings may result in bullcrap so perhaps I should just sit on it until there's something to flush haha. In general, I do seem to resonate wth you and YmirGF. Perhaps we're all on the same page or, at least, within the same book.

 

[YmirGF]

Are you saying that the change your self embodies is causeless (which would violate scientific investigation as we know it) or are you saying that the change the self embodies is entirely self-referential? (Are you a solipsist?)

First off, no, I am not a solipsist. I don't believe that the self is the only thing that exists even if much that is experienced by that self is indeed created by that self. There is a bit more to my thinking than it is possible to render into conventional verbal terms.

I see personality as energy. Energy is action. We are action personified. It is inarguable that we are not affected by our actions. We are continually performing actions and that will never cease to be the case, however, karma does not explain the intricacies of action/reaction accurately, imho. It glosses over far too much. It ignores how the most simple act can have massive consequences and fixates on supposedly "good" actions and "bad" actions. There is no inherent "good and bad", there is only action. Also there is the notion that we are somewhat at the mercy of "past" karma and "past karma" is often used to explain away unfortunate incidents in our current experience.

To my view, experience or being is a vastly more complex array of unending choices and actions. True, we are affected by our choices, but they don't necessarily haunt us from one "lifetime" to another. In theory, we do learn from our choices, so, again, in theory, we do take that inherent knowledge with us into our "next" experience, but I would urge you to not get too hung up on this linear explanation. Time is much more flexible that we have led ourselves to believe.

I don't know if that answers your question, but it should give an idea of where I am coming from however poorly worded I have made it. Hopefully it is a bit clearer than mud.

 

[crossfire]

First off, no, I am not a solipsist. I don't believe that the self is the only thing that exists even if much that is experienced by that self is indeed created by that self. There is a bit more to my thinking than it is possible to render into conventional verbal terms.

I see personality as energy. Energy is action. We are action personified. It is inarguable that we are not affected by our actions. We are continually performing actions and that will never cease to be the case, however, karma does not explain the intricacies of action/reaction accurately, imho. It glosses over far too much. It ignores how the most simple act can have massive consequences and fixates on supposedly "good" actions and "bad" actions. There is no inherent "good and bad", there is only action. Also there is the notion that we are somewhat at the mercy of "past" karma and "past karma" is often used to explain away unfortunate incidents in our current experience.

Indeed, our minds are quite complex, and trying to precisely trace how the actions of such a complex system will affect said system can be quite maddening. (Especially if your mind is impaired by these effects!)

To my view, experience or being is a vastly more complex array of unending choices and actions. True, we are affected by our choices, but they don't necessarily haunt us from one "lifetime" to another. In theory, we do learn from our choices, so, again, in theory, we do take that inherent knowledge with us into our "next" experience, but I would urge you to not get too hung up on this linear explanation.

Imagine the affect that speculation in this area might have on our minds.

Time is much more flexible that we have led ourselves to believe.

Hence the value of being present in the present moment.

I don't know if that answers your question, but it should give an idea of where I am coming from however poorly worded I have made it. Hopefully it is a bit clearer than mud.

Thank you for the reply. I think I get the gist of what you are trying to convey.

 

[apophenia]

I see personality as energy. Energy is action. We are action personified. It is inarguable that we are not affected by our actions. We are continually performing actions and that will never cease to be the case, however, karma does not explain the intricacies of action/reaction accurately, imho. It glosses over far too much. It ignores how the most simple act can have massive consequences and fixates on supposedly "good" actions and "bad" actions. There is no inherent "good and bad", there is only action. Also there is the notion that we are somewhat at the mercy of "past" karma and "past karma" is often used to explain away unfortunate incidents in our current experience.

What you are saying, if I understand you, is that you reject the simplistic misunderstanding of karma.

The way it was discussed by the Tibetan teachers I encountered is basically much the same as what you are saying here. Karma literally means action, it does not refer to moral evaluations, reward and punishment. (Except insofar as our conscience is also a reality which affects our experience).

So your earlier statement rejecting karma is now clarified as a rejection of the half-baked Jiminy Cricket version of karma used by the hippies, New Agers and insufficiently educated buddhists and hindus.

I concur.

 

[crossfire]

I see personality as energy. Energy is action. We are action personified. It is inarguable that we are not affected by our actions.

What you are saying, if I understand you, is that you reject the simplistic misunderstanding of karma.

The way it was discussed by the Tibetan teachers I encountered is basically much the same as what you are saying here. Karma literally means action, it does not refer to moral evaluations, reward and punishment. (Except insofar as our conscience is also a reality which affects our experience).

So your earlier statement rejecting karma is now clarified as a rejection of the half-baked Jiminy Cricket version of karma used by the hippies, New Agers and insufficiently educated buddhists and hindus.

I concur.

Now that we have established that karma is action that affects the mind, you might want to reexamine the similarities between your model of the self as being "action personified" and the yogacara model of the seventh consciousness mistaking the storehouse consciousness which holds the karmic seeds as being the self. (Wouldn't this fit your description of "action personified?")

{Yes, I'm horribly relentless.}

 

[YmirGF]

What you are saying, if I understand you, is that you reject the simplistic misunderstanding of karma.

The way it was discussed by the Tibetan teachers I encountered is basically much the same as what you are saying here. Karma literally means action, it does not refer to moral evaluations, reward and punishment. (Except insofar as our conscience is also a reality which affects our experience).

So your earlier statement rejecting karma is now clarified as a rejection of the half-baked Jiminy Cricket version of karma used by the hippies, New Agers and insufficiently educated buddhists and hindus.

I concur.

What can I say? I suppose I reject the idea of karma because of the baggage it has acquired. Human animals of little intelligence extrapolate on karmic this and karmic that. It is just whimsical whistling in the wind that tells us precious little about the nature of reality.

Now that we have established that karma is action that affects the mind, you might want to reexamine the similarities between your model of the self as being "action personified" and the yogacara model of the seventh consciousness mistaking the storehouse consciousness which holds the karmic seeds as being the self. (Wouldn't this fit your description of "action personified?")

I bridle at the notion of clearly delineated layers of realization. There is too much give and take between ahhh.... areas of activity. Also, I see the mind as being more of a (very large) workspace of the psyche, though in conventional, limited, 21st century terms, I will grudgingly have to agree on the more common understanding of mind. Following this, I suppose that ones workspace can get a bit messy, but I tend to keep my area clean and tidy. Mileage for others will vary.

{Yes, I'm horribly relentless.}

This made me laugh out loud. I like you Crossfire. Welcome to the Crosshairs of reality. For the record, I am as anal as you appear to be relentless.

 

[crossfire]

This made me laugh out loud. I like you Crossfire. Welcome to the Crosshairs of reality. For the record, I am as anal as you appear to be relentless.

Bwahahaha! Am I going to need to dust off my asbestos suit? :angel2:

 

[crossfire]

Bwahahaha! Am I going to need to dust off my asbestos suit? :angel2:

Flame on on this new thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ire-flamethrowers-self-karma.html#post3086959

 

[crossfire]

OK, LegionOnomaMoi explained the scientific reasoning behind us being action personified, as far as the brain is concerned, in a post here.

I guess I owe you an apology, Ymir.

 

[YmirGF]

OK, LegionOnomaMoi explained the scientific reasoning behind us being action personified, as far as the brain is concerned, in a post here.

I guess I owe you an apology, Ymir.

I just read it, and though the explanation is dense, it is the gist of what I was trying to explain. He is right about the forcing into a linear format. That is the problem, as far as I can see. It's when you jump or vault away from that linear format that one begins to see a different "messier" picture, but likely, far more accurate.