Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

[Seiryu]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

I think the reason Dawkins and Darwin do not provide a complete answer to how we got here (although their answers are pretty damn good) is because language cannot do the job. as long as you call 'this' 'this' then by means of linguistics boundaries, 'this' is not in fact, 'that'
which is why I agree with Jundo when he repeats that when concepts such as here and there are dropped; we are all together.
I would like to add that, when concepts such as 'this' and 'that' are dropped; we are all one.

Gassho


Seiryu

[jrh001]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

Of course he was born, and so was his mum! Certainly.

Except that he wasn't, and never was. Basic Buddhism 101. That's his Original Face before even his Mum and Dad were born.
...

So he, his mum and dad (and every individual) are just expressions of this Original Face? And that is why you can say that they were never born and never die?

gassho,

JohnH

(PS I don't know why quotes and italics aren't working. Editing screen says BBCode is OFF. My preferences have BBCode ON)

[Jundo]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

Of course he was born, and so was his mum! Certainly.

Except that he wasn't, and never was. Basic Buddhism 101. That's his Original Face before even his Mum and Dad were born.
...

So he, his mum and dad (and every individual) are just expressions of this Original Face? And that is why you can say that they were never born and never die?

gassho,

JohnH

Yes, in the most intimate sense ... like a wave looking for the ocean, or the smile looking for the teeth, or wine looking for the grapes, or .... but this is where every Zen teacher thoughtout (timeless) time says something like "don't just think about it ... go sit". ops:

Why?

Well, kind of like those 3-D pictures they print in the paper, or this optical illusion of the "Old Woman/Young Woman". Which one is it? Why, one, the other, both at once ... but more than talking about it, you really need to see. Ya either see that or not.




Gassho, J

[Jundo]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

In all my days on Earth (20199) I have never heard anything or experienced anything that has convinced me to believe in an afterlife of any kind , or a soul or god or gods of any kind ... just saying ...

Personally (this is not a particularly "Zen" thing I am saying, just a feeling in my guts), the absolutely best argument I can come up with that something continues after death, or that we come back again is ...

... that we got here even once, popping up alive in the middle of time and space, despite how unbelievably-amazingly-ridiculous that having happened seems to have been. Despite all that seems to have been required for it, and the seemingly endless chances for it not to have happened ... here we are.

And since this ridiculous thing happened once ... might as well happen again! 8)

I tend to feel that the "dice are loaded" some way, that this is more than a one time ride. However, for purposes of Zen practice ... just fetch water and chop wood, and let what happens in the next life happen (or not).

Gassho, J

[captkid]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

A simple and direct question is asked. “What can I expect when my life comes to an end?” The answer given is “I do not need to know, and the whole question is rather unimportant.”
You may not know the answer to the question but anyone who’s held the hand of a person while they die knows THE ANSWER IS VERY IMPORTANT! And I would wager those who say the answer is unimportant to them now will likely change their minds when their life is ending.
This is the question that drove Siddhartha from his life in the palace. He may have left the question unanswered to some of his disciples but I don’t think all his effort left the question unanswered for him.

[Jundo]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

may have left the question unanswered to some of his disciples but I don’t think all his effort left the question unanswered for him.

Hi Captain,

I don't think this practice "leaves the question unanswered" for us either, and I think it provides some pretty fine answers ... in fact, several that may all be true in their way.

For one, we believe that there is something that goes on and on when we drop all human thoughts of "beginning and end, birth and death, me vs. you" ... much like the sea goes on and on, though its waves may come and go. In life, we tend to think of our "self" as just a wave, but we are the sea too! Whatever is at the heart of this life and reality, going on and on ... that's us too!

So, we rather trust in that fact, and go with the flow! Where the sea goes, that's where are going too!

We also think, as a corollary to that, that all the mountains, stars, bees and ants, trees and blades of grass, and babies born everywhere are "us" too ... so that, so long as there is any of that, there is us too!

A famous Koan says of this ...

Dogo and Zen-gen went to a house to show sympathy. Zen-gen hit the coffin and asked, "Alive or dead?" Dogo replied, "I won't say alive, I won't say dead." Zen-gen demanded, " Why won't you say?" Dogo repeated, "I won't say." On their way home, Zen-gen cried, "Tell me right now teacher, alive or dead; if you don't tell me, I will hit you." Dogo said, "You may hit me, but I won't say." Zen-gen hit him.

Later after Dogo died, Zen-gen went to Seki-so and told him the foregoing story. Seki-so said, "I won't say alive, and I won't say dead." Zen-gen said, " Why won't you say?" Seki-so repeated, "I won't say, I won't say." At these words Zen-gen came to awakening.

One day, Zen-gen took a hoe into the Buddha hall and crossed back and forth, from east to west and west to east. Seki-so asked, "What are you doing?" Zen-gen said," I am looking for my teacher's relics." Seki-so said, "Vast waves spread far and wide, foaming billows flood the skies - what relics of our late master are you looking for?"

Zen-gen said, "It is a way of repaying the kindness of my old teacher." Fu of T'ai Yuan said, "The late masters relics are still present. "

We also suspect that, since there is something very mysterious and strange about all cause and effect having come together to let us be born even once ... some reasonable chance that something is afoot, maybe it happens again! Hey, if it happened once ... why not twice or 10,000 times? Certainly, wherever we were before we were born ... we probably head back to the same.

Traditional Buddhist views say that we come back again and again depending on our actions in life, evil acts sending us downward into hells or the animal realm, good acts up to heavens. Such continues until our ultimate release from the wheel of rebirth as Buddhas. It could be true. A lot of Buddhists have thought so over the centuries.

Certainly, our effects go on and on ... like the spreading ripples from all our acts, good and bad, that have effects far far into the future. We live on in such way too, the effects of our life ... evil or for good ... spreading far and wide.

But at heart ... we Trust! We do not need to know the details because we trust in the process. I once wrote the following to a friend who was dying of cancer. He was not a "Buddhist" himself, but he wanted to know what Buddhists might teach on this. He often flew, like me, between Japan and America a lot, so I made the story in the top post of this thread (look there to read the rest) ...

How can I put this? Perhaps, in the Zen perspective, life is like being born ... for some mysterious reason ... in a certain seat on a trans-Pacific flight ... We are not quite sure how we got here on this flight, who paid for the ticket, the destination ... and certainly, we are not quite sure who is in the cockpit or how the plane got made. ...

So, in the meantime, little small creatures that we are, we do not know the answers. A famous story goes ...

A Zen master was asked about the after death state. The "master" responded with, "Why ask me?" The questioner said, "Because you are a Zen master." The master said, "Yes, but I am not a dead Zen master."

Did the Buddha really know what happens after death? Did he not know what happens after death? Sometimes he seems to speak on the subject in detail, sometimes to hold his tongue and say nothing.

Whatever the case ... Life is life and death is death. Fetch wood and carry water.

Gassho, J

[Seiryu]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

I love these kinds of questions. And I don't think they will ever be answered by the thinking mind, but I wanted to highlight this quote from Thich Nhat Hanh from one of the readings from the precept study that really speaks to me

"During my meditation, I had a wonderful image -- the shape of a wave, its beginning and its end. When conditions are sufficient, we perceive the wave, and when conditions are no longer sufficient, we do not perceive the wave. Waves are only made of water. We cannot label the wave as existing or non existing. After what we call the death of the wave, nothing is gone, nothing is lost. The wave has been absorbed into other waves, and somehow, time will bring the wave back again. There is no increasing, decreasing, birth, or death. When we are dying, if we think that everyone else is alive and we are the only person dying, our feeling of loneliness may be unbearable. But if we are able to visualize hundreds of thousands of people dying with us, our dying may become serene and even joyful. "I am dying in community. Millions of living beings are also dying in this very moment. I see myself together with millions of other living beings; we die in the Sangha. At the same time, millions of beings are coming to life. All of us are doing this together. I have been born, I am dying. We participate in the whole event as a Sangha." That is what I saw in my meditation. In the Heart Sutra, Avalokitesvara shares this kind of insight and helps us transcend fear, sorrow, and pain. The gift of non-fear brings about a transformation in us."

I think this is one way we can look at it...

[Jundo]

The History of Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Brahmanism

For Buddho-history junkies, a wonderful essay on the history of how the idea of "rebirth" was reborn and evolved over the course of development of early Buddhist history. It is continuing to evolve today, perhaps into oblivion. The author is a history buff, and open minded skeptic/agnostic (as am I) on overly detailed models of mechanical rebirth, associated with the Triratna Buddhist Order. I will take the liberty of posting the essay in full:

=============================


How Buddhist Rebirth Changes Over Time

ONE OF THE FACTS about the foundation texts of Buddhism that most people don't seem to have taken in is that rebirth is an idea with a history. The idea did not spring into being fully formed. And what's more we can discern this history in the Pāli texts themselves. It has been traced in detail by Gananath Obeyesekere in his book Imagining Karma. In this post I want to review the development of rebirth from its primitive form to the full blown received version, basing myself on Obeyesekere, along with some observations and diagrams of my own. The received tradition tends to obscure the variations in the texts, but they can be (at least partially) reconstructed. So this is a kind of archaeology in the spirit of Foucault. A caveat here is that we don't know the absolute chronology of these changes, we only know that they were all preserved, somewhat unevenly, with the fixing of the Canon.

The most basic form of rebirth eschatology is binary. It involves 'this world' (ayaṃ loko) and 'the other world' (paro loko) a way of referring to rebirth that one finds scattered throughout the Canon, and which may have been retained as an idiom long after the binary model had been augmented. In this simple model of rebirth one lives on earth; then after death one rises up to the other world (always up), where one lives for a long time; then one falls back to be reborn on earth again. For example in M 49 the movement is described by this sequence of verbs: jāyati jīyati mīyati cavati upapajjati--being born, living, dying, falling, being rebirth. Rebirth is automatic, and human.

binary-copy.png

Brahmins also began with a binary cyclic eschatology. Indeed it seems as though rebirth eschatologies were indigenous, or at least endemic, in India. The Brahmin ancestors (or fathers) live in the other world. This cycle is what is referred to as saṃsāra - which means 'going through; course; passage' (from saṃ- 'with, together, complete' √sṛ 'flow, run, move'). The cycle is believed to be endless and beginningless. At this early stage rebirth is not problematised; its just a description of the how the world is. However for the Brahmins going to the next world, like all significant life moments, required the performance of certain rituals. There is no sense of morality being a factor here, but the need for the rituals to be performed correctly had a similar effect. The arrival of morality is the next thing to discuss.

moral+1-copy-copy.jpeg

What morality does to any afterlife is divide it. If one has lived well the other world is a place of reward, and if one has not lived well the other world is a place of punishment. In Buddhist texts we find the distinction in the pair of terms 'good destination' (sugati) and and 'bad destination' (duggati. Skt durgati). Another pair of terms are 'heaven' sagga (Skt svarga) and 'hell' (niraya). The word svarga 'shining place' has a long history in the Vedic tradition. It was where the gods lived, but also where the ancestors lived, so in simple terms the other world was svarga. It was situated beyond the sky. However initially there is no clear reference to hell in Indian texts, it's not really until Buddhism that hell plays any definite role in Indian cosmology or eschatology. The word niraya means 'going down'. Because the idea of a subterranean hell appears to be absent from earlier Vedic texts, some scholars have speculated that the idea of hell comes Zoroastrianism (via the Iranian Śākya tribe - see Possible History). Like heaven, the early hell is a place where you go to live out the consequences of the actions done in life, but not a place where one does actions with consequences. We see this explicitly in the Devadūta Sutta (M 130) where one is tortured in hell, but does not die, and therefore cannot be reborn elsewhere until the wicked actions have exhausted their force. Actions carried out in hell appear to have no bearing on this fate.

Note that liberation is outside of space and time and described as "dhuva, sassata, nicca, etc." by both Brahmins and Buddhists. Because the Brahmanical diagram would look just the same I say the two are topologically identical.

At the same time a third option appears, which is liberation (mokṣa, vimokṣa) from going around the cycles. The idea is first seen in literature in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (BU). By re-jigging the dates of the ancient India texts and placing BU after the Buddhist texts, Johannes Bronkhorst manages to argue that this idea must have come from the śramaṇa milieu. However it's doubtful whether his revised chronology will stand up to scrutiny, and I know of no other scholar who has adopted it yet. Even so, my work on the Iranian origins of the Śākya tribe makes it seem possible that the idea of liberation (i.e. a single destination eschatology) might have been introduced into both milieus around the same time (ca. 850 BCE) from Iran; leaving the current consensus on chronology intact. However it arose, the option of liberation from saṃsāra becomes the major preoccupation of Indian religion from about the middle of the first millennium BCE down to the present. And given how it spread in various guises it must be seen as one of the most influential ideas in the whole history of ideas.

It seems as though these early versions of rebirth eschatology are similar to Brahmanical views, but they might have been more widespread. Rebirth eschatologies are not common amongst the Indo-European speaking peoples (with some ancient Greeks as a debatable exception) but they are ubiquitous in India. So, like linguistic features such as retroflex consonants, rebirth might have been a regional feature. In any case what happens next is the incorporation of some explicitly Brahmanical elements into the Buddhist model. These are not taken on their own terms, in fact presented in distorted, rather mocking ways.

moral+brahmin-copy-copy.jpg

For the Brahmins we meet in the Canon going to Brahmā's realm (brahmaloka) is synonymous with mokṣa or liberation from saṃsāra. Richard Gombrich has argued that the Buddha used brahmasahāvyatā as a synonym for nibbāṇa; which in turn explains the brahmavihāra (literally "dwelling with/on/like God") meditations. Buddhists denied Brahmanical soteriology, and did two things: they brought Brahmā's realm back into saṃsāra, but placed it over the god realm (devaloka) creating a new refined level of saṃsāra (also called ārupaloka); and they multiplied the Creator God into a whole class of very refined beings called Brahmās (plural). On one hand the Brahmās are the highest beings in saṃsāra and people in the texts are very impressed when one of them visits the Buddha, and one of them, Brahmasahampati, is responsible for convincing the Buddha to teach; and on the other hand they are depicted as being deluded about their own nature, trapped in saṃsāra and therefore subject to death. The other thing that happens at this stage is the separation of the spirits of the dead from the gods. The word peta (Skt. preta) has two possible etymologies one which derives it from the word for father (pitṛ) and the other which derives it (as an action noun) from a verb meaning 'gone before' or 'departed' (pra-√ī). In any case this common word for the spirits of the dead who are in the other world becomes a pejorative. Perhaps because the Brahmins made sacrifices to the gods and to their fathers, in Buddhism the preta came to stand for a class of ghosts who were constantly hungry, but unable to ever satisfy that hunger.

At the same time, or perhaps a little later, the idea arose that one could be reborn as an animal. This idea is first seen in the Bṛhadāranyaka Upaniṣad where the fate of those who do not carry out the rituals is to be reborn as an invertebrate. So at first it appears to be a somewhat chauvinistic Brahmanical idea, but it catches on and is incorporated into the Buddhist eschatology.

mature+tradition-copy.jpeg

The final stage involves the emergence of the full-blown version of the Buddhist cosmology with the brahmaloka, devaloka and hell realms being divided into many different layers, and the layers of the first two being related to states of meditation. The devas and their counterparts the asuras undergo their separation and the asuras are sometimes (but not always) given their own realm. In some older parts of the Ṛgveda the two terms deva and asura are synonyms. Varuṇa for example is referred to as both deva and asura. However the contest between them required a winner and loser, and the asuras lost. (In Iran they won and the devas are seen as demons.) Some remnants of the early stories are preserved, often with little alteration, in the sakkasaṃyutta of the Saṃyutta Nikāya (the 11th chapter, beginning on p.317 in Bodhi's translation). For the purposes of diagramming the brahmaloka and devaloka are often treated as aspects of a single domain, though Brahmā is never referred to a deva. This gives us the traditional six domains of rebirth: human, deva, asura, preta, hell, animal, as seen, for example on the bhavacakra or 'Wheel of Becoming'. It is possible to go to any realm from any other realm, but liberation is only possible from the human realm.

One of the major changes from beginning to end is the likelihood of a human birth. Initially it is 100% certain. Even in a morality influenced eschatology one always returns to this world as a human being eventually. However, by the end of the process the likelihood of being born human is vanishingly small. The chance compares unfavourably with the probability that a blind turtle raising its head from the great ocean just once a century might put its head through the hole in a plough harness (yoke not yolk!) which is floating about at random on the ocean. While this is not impossible, the chances are vanishingly small. If we take this on face value we have almost 0% chance of being born human. Related to this is the possibility of multiple rebirths in hell or heaven, particularly the former. This suggests a growing concern over the waywardness of human beings and a greater desire to curb behaviour with the threat of exile from humanity in the afterlife. In other words it looks like a hint that rebirth theory changed in response to social change. This should not be surprising as a huge number of Vinaya rules, including the pāṭimokkha ceremony itself, are made in response to public pressure.

In this essay I've been looking at the development of the idea of Rebirth in the Pāli texts. Given the way that kamma changed after the Pāli Canon was closed, it is only reasonable to assume that ideas about rebirth also continued to change. I will briefly mention one other major development in rebirth theory which was the invention of the so-called Pure Land: a parallel universe with a living Buddha. The Pure Land was not simply another level in this universe, not another level of heaven, but an entirely separate and complete universe (though usually lacking the durgati). The parallel universe was not invented because the ancients had insights into the nature of the multiverse or M Theory, it was a theological necessity for those who had begun to believe that the presence a living Buddha was necessary for liberation (the same theological anxiety can be see in the Suvarṇabhāsottama Sūtra; and in Peter Masefield's Theravāda oriented book Divine Revelation in Pali Buddhism.). The Pure Land is a place where liberation is guaranteed by the constant living presence of a Buddha (I would argue that at this point the Buddha has become a god, theos; and that the term theology is entirely appropriate). The resident Buddha in fact creates this parallel universe through their practice of the perfections, emphasising the importance of hard work. Fantastically rococo in many other respects, each Pure Land is entirely flat for some reason. I mentioned Pure lands last week, and it is a fascinating area, but for another essay. Those interesting in how Pure Land theory developed should read this article by one of my favourite authors:

Nattier, Jan. (2000) 'The Realm of Aksobhya: A Missing Piece in the History of Pure Land Buddhism.' Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies. 23 (1): 71–102. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/o...icle/view/9167

Those who oppose the idea that rebirth is implausible often fall back on simplistic arguments like: rebirth has always been accepted by Buddhists, it's been analysed and accepted as true many times. However this argument seldom takes in the subtleties of the history of the idea. Rebirth clearly changes during the period between of the inception of Buddhism and the closing of the canon. Several different versions of rebirth are, as it were, trapped in the amber of the Pāli texts. But rebirth continued to change. The received tradition, as is usual, never acknowledges the variety of the models, nor the subtle contradictions in the collection of texts. Received traditions are all about presenting an internally coherent narrative, and ironing out difficulties. So inconsistent aspects of the textual tradition are reinterpreted or simply bracketed out. This is not a new process. And confirmation bias is not a new problem.

Contrarily those who seek to deny that rebirth was part of the original teaching don't have a leg to stand on. Rebirth is prominent in the older hagiographical accounts like the Ariyapariyesanā Sutta, and in the older parts of the Sutta Nipāta. Rebirth is quite obviously an important part of Buddhism in the earliest records we have. The idea that rebirth is somehow in the background, or was added later, is insupportable based on current evidence. That rebirth no longer seems plausible is an entirely different proposition. And one that creates a dilemma that I have no wish to underplay. We have yet to really work out the implications of this news, though it is the news. Understanding that our doctrines have always been quite changeable and responsive to social change, seems to me to be an important factor in loosening our grip on traditional doctrines with a view to letting them go. Everything changes. Resisting changes causes suffering. The only way forward for Buddhism is, well, forward.

~~oOo~~

Other essays by the same author ...

http://jayarava.blogspot.jp/2012/05/rebirth-buddhist-fundamentalism.html

http://jayarava.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/rescuing-dharma-from-fundamentalists.html

[Shokai]

Thank you Jundo for once more adding clarity to the imponderables. Let's face it, everyone has to be somewhere :02.47-tranquillity:

[Kaishin]

"Everyone has to be somewhere" -- I love that, Shokai!

Thanks, Jundo--very informative!
Gassho, Kaishin

[Mp]

... everyone has to be somewhere

Thank you Shokai, love it!

I choose to be right here, right now.

[Thane]

Thank you very much Mujo, this is very wise, nevertheless the belief in Heaven's reward and fear of hell's are of such a nature that they won't help the very person to come back to the simplicity of home. And a would be "good action" arising from the field of fear or greed has a poisonous nature that will even outgrow its primary direction. Crusaders of the past, suicide bombers of today are drunk with Hell and Heaven visions and promises. The toys have become weapons. And on the top of all this, the belief in Heaven or Hell is always happening" over there, out there, after death...", the teaching of the Buddha is to free yourself from these chains and see your reality as one witth the whole reality. Heaven and Hell are the the major obstacles to the display of the empty field, hope and fear are the way religions have controlled people and unlieshed the most dreadful hounds of human beings turned into hungry dogs.
In fact I have heard your answer many times in the mouth of Christian priests who were trying to justify why people should believe in such things, immature and ordinary people would, according to them, do bad things if they did not dread the wrath of God. This is exactly what religions are aiming at: keeping people in a dependant state and and viewing them as inferior. Not my cup of tea.

Heaven and Hell are ways to taste and experience reality. This is a story I remember: A famous swordman challenged a Zen monk once asking him to show him the nature of Heaven and Hell. The old monk started to dismiss the request and show great contempt for the warrior who lost it and in a fit of rage raised his sword to kill the monk. At this very moment the monk said:"this is Hell", the swordman, surprised and amazed, lowered his sword down, the monk thenuttered gently: "this is Heaven".

Hi Taigu and Jundo

Thank you both for these teachings on rebirth. Taigu i have never heard this story before about the monk and the swordsman. A beautiful story and one that makes me think about how we create our own heavan and hells.

Gassho

Thane

[Dave Schauweker]

Dear folks,
I'm enjoying reading these posts - one thing that I would like to hear more about is a line from the airplane analogy:

" ...leads me to conclude that our appearance on this plane is not mere happenstance, and the trip not without purpose... "

Is there anything 'wrong' from a zen point of view, with seeing life as nothing but happenstance? or as being totally without purpose? I feel that a belief in any meaning to life, whether veiled or somehow comprehendable, is related to our human predilection for patterning existence. It's what our consciousnesses need to do in order to function.

[I would just add though that I don't find this in any way depressing, and hope no one else finds it depressing either - personally I've always found the idea of a totally random and pointless universe rather refreshing and enlivening, even if it does mean that after I die I have to spend eternity in the corner with everyone else around me having a lovely time, pausing only to tell me, "We TOLD you so!".]

Random happiness to all,
Michael

Michael,

Just a few "random" thoughts about a "happenstance" universe:

. Along with Jundo, I suspect that if the universe were truly random and happenstance, it would not have evolved humans with their complex intelligence.

. Following Krishnamurti, I believe that we talk about the "meaning" or "purpose" of life because we are separated from life. If we were enlightened, life would be plenty "meaningful" and we would not be
looking for some extrinsic purpose for it all. Nor would we be thinking about the future and what happens after we die (Krishnamurti claims that death did not exist for him as a future psychological event).

. I believe there is nothing "wrong" with looking at life as happenstace, purposeless, meaningless, random, or any other way, but I believe the Zen way is to ultimately transcend any and all such dualistic
perspectives and to experience life directly.

Of course, these are just personal opinions from a personal perspective, but such a perspective does provide me an urgent motivation to practice Zen diligently.

Gassho,
Dave

[Byokan]

Step back!

Seeing beyond the particular- thus All becomes clear.

Single brushstrokes unnoticed, and a painting beheld,

much as the Ocean appears by absorbing each drop.

It is the eye’s focus, with expansive vision,

for our thoughts set life’s boundaries, shapes and forms.

When leaf is forgotten, a Tree is there;

unseeing of sand grains, wide desert found;

overlooking the many, the One comes in view…..

Mankind, your Self is, as self drifts from mind.

Gassho
Lisa
sat today

[Luciana]

Hello, Taigu--I'm new to this forum and don't know whether anyone will even see this post to a very old thread. And perhaps the question really belongs in the Karma discussion. But I have a problem with "And a would-be "good action" arising from the field of fear or greed has a poisonous nature that will even outgrow its primary direction."

I have heard that Karma is considered to arise from one's intention rather than one's action, and I think that's what you're saying here. Yet, how can this be? If the action has a good outcome for the other person, how can the action be completely negative? I can see where the do-er of the action may cause further suffering for him- or herself if the motive isn't pure, but I can't see how the act of feeding a hungry baby (for example), with whatever motive, could ever have an entirely 'poisonous nature', especially for the baby.

Thank you!

K

0
/\

sat today