Do buddhists entertain the idea they mght be delusional abou

last SG · 2009-12-31T11:42:39+00:00

I believed the Buddha never said the world is a illusion. In fact, the nature of our 'world' is such that it cannot be defined or explain by mere concepts.Bu...

Larryteo SG

As I said, life is an illusion and it is simulated by a computer, how many times do you want me to repeat???????

Spnw07 SG

imagine you are a character in an action movie, and you see someone who's drowning or bleeding, and if you don't do anything, the person will naturally die as a result. if you save the person, he/she will not die as a result of your action. all laws of karma will still function as usual in the movie.

but if you change your perspective and realize that all these happenings is nothing but a movie, it appears like an illusion (since movie is not real-life). but nevertheless, characters in the movie still goes through sufferings, happiness, lives and dies, as a consequence of how the plot unfolds, and all laws of nature and karma will still be very real from the movie's content perspective.

this is just an analogy for purpose of providing a quick response to your question. don't take it too literally and over-analyse :-)

Maybe you can substitute the word 'character' with 'actor'. If I'm an actor acting out an character who looks at another co-actor acting out a drowning character, I won't be so foolish as to be anxious to save him or her, unless it's part of the script. Safety procedures will definitely be in place (maybe divers are supporting that co-actor under the sea surface). This will also be the same if I'm acting out the drowning character.

If the setting is a mere swimming pool but merely flimed in such a way to appear like the sea, there's little need to raise a real alarm of danger, isn't it?

Anyway, this is just sharing my thoughts. Don't take it too literally and over-analyse too. =)

An Eternal Now SG

Compassion arises naturally in regards to appearances? Why? If appearances of suffering are like illusions, then they will also disappear like illusions without our intervention or regardless of how we feel.

Do we bother to save the morning dew that gets evaporated when the sun comes out?

Do we bother to save the zebra we see getting chased by a lion?

As I explained to AndrewPKYap, there is a big difference between 'the world is an illusion' and 'the world is LIKE an illusion'. And because the world is not an illusion, it cannot disappear (though the mental suffering arising due to ignorance can disappear). While non-Buddhist teachings preach the prior, Buddhism teaches the latter. What's the difference?

From my post to AndrewPKYap:

I like buddhist philosophy because one of the main ideas I gather from buddhism is that the world is an illusion and therefore people should know their own delusions.

Actually it is not that the world is literally an illusion, but LIKE an illusion... there's an important difference between these two and although it might be a little off topic, I thought it is important to clarify the Buddhist view, and distinguish it from other non-Buddhist teachings.

The following excerpts is from a very enlightened yogi and teacher (he had attended more than a decade of meditation retreat and was given the titled 'Mahayogi Rinpoche' by his guru) and I have posted it in my blog on Thusness's suggestion. Anyone who still holds an ultimate reality to be real hasn't pass beyond Stage 4 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

...So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory Samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahma, which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that Samsara is merely an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge, if there were no eternal Brahma remaining, it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance), an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (Skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation, else one would fall into nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: “How can there be liberation if a Brahma does not remain after the illusory Samsara vanishes in Gyana?” is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism...

Physical and mental pain or discomfort are two separate things? I thought they are inter-connected.

Is having a headache or migraine something physical or mental? There are no specific external body parts involved.

When I'm hungry, I feel weak. Is that physical or mental? Can I wish or will away hunger? When I am having a fever, I feel hot and uncomfortable. When I am diagnosed with kidney failure and undergo daily dialysis (which is freaking uncomfortable), can I wish or will away sickness?

If there is no sufferer apart from suffering, why do Bodhisattvas need to have compassion for beings? There should be NO beings to feel or develop compassion for, isn't it?

If suffering is impermanent, insubstantial, and empty, then is compassion impermanent, insubstantial and empty too?

You have an extreme view of non-existence: that the world is non-existent, an illusion. However in Buddhism we do not teach that the world is an illusion, as explained above. Whereas in Buddhism we do not deny the reality of pain, the reality of world, but that the world is empty of inherent, independent existence. It is ungraspable but clearly presence-ing, appearing, as the most clear and vivid Presence itself. If you realise this Presence you cannot deny this because it is the luminosity of Buddha-Nature itself which is so clear, more real than real that you cannot have a doubt about it. There is no separation between you and what is perceived, so there is just THAT - the vividness of sound, the pain, the scenery. Yet when we try to locate it, and find an independent inherent existence of say a person, a self, or the 'redness' of a red flower, it cannot be found anywhere we look. It is just appearing but without substance, however this does not deny the presence, appearance, reality of the pain/suffering/etc.

Compassion is a natural response to perceiving someone elses pain. Because pain is arising and it is not an illusion -- it is the experiential reality of the other person, and action can be done to help the other person relatively speaking, but at the same time there is no need for an illusion that there is 'someone suffering' or 'someone who can save the person suffering'. There are just experiences without experiencer, action without doer, and all experiences are vivid but empty.

Yes, physical pain and suffering can be separated. I cannot say I am at that level, so I can quote something from a highly experienced monk Bhante Gunaratana to give you an idea:

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english_12.php

That last part is more subtle. There are really no human words to describe this action precisely. The best way to get a handle on it is by analogy. Examine what you did to those tight muscles and transfer that same action over to the mental sphere; relax the mind in the same way that you relax the body. Buddhism recognizes that the body and mind are tightly linked. This is so true that many people will not see this as a two-step procedure. For them to relax the body is to relax the mind and vice versa. These people will experience the entire relaxation, mental and physical, as a single process. In any case, just let go completely till you awareness slows down past that barrier which you yourself erected. It was a gap, a sense of distance between self and others. It was a borderline between 'me' and 'the pain'. Dissolve that barrier, and separation vanishes. You slow down into that sea of surging sensation and you merge with the pain. You become the pain. You watch its ebb and flow and something surprising happens. It no longer hurts. Suffering is gone. Only the pain remains, an experience, nothing more. The 'me' who was being hurt has gone. The result is freedom from pain.

This is an incremental process. In the beginning, you can expect to succeed with small pains and be defeated by big ones. Like most of our skills, it grows with practice. The more you practice, the bigger the pain you can handle. Please understand fully. There is no masochism being advocated here. Self-mortification is not the point.

Spnw07 SG

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna, Samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only ‘like an illusion’ i.e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when Samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahma arises like the sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of Samsara is itself Nirvana.

So whereas Brahma and Samsara are two different entities, one real and the other unreal, one existing and the other non-existing, Samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of Samsara or in Nagarjuna’s words shunyata is the nature of Samsara. It is the realization of the nature of Samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond Samsara but of the way Samsara itself actually exists (Skt. vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it-is-ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really is) of Samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of Samsara to the unconditioned experience of Samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of Samsara and Nirvana (Skt. Samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being Samsara in the context of DzogChen, Mahamudra and Anuttara Tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. The Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming the Brahma. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (Skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from Samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and improvable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other ‘ism’, is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahma is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking, you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism...

Is the true nature of Nirvana Samsara as well since it is one and not two?

I’m merely very confused, rather than holding an extreme view of non-existence per se. I’m trying to understand properly the various explanations of ‘like an illusion’ and ‘is an illusion’ from both Buddhist and non-Buddhist view-points.

Yes, physical pain and suffering can be separated. I cannot say I am at that level, so I can quote something from a highly experienced monk Bhante Gunaratana to give you an idea:

http://www.vipassana.com/meditation/mindfulness_in_plain_english_12.php

If compassion is a natural response, then why we do see and experience cruelty, apathy and indifference in ourselves and from fellow humans?

Why are there wars, torture chambers, rape and sexual slavery?

It sounds like profound, indirect masochism to me. Only that there may be an absence of intention to deliberately self-harm.

If everyone or at least a quarter of the world population succeeds in the above mental training, then theoretically speaking, the demand for painkillers, doctors and hospitals would decrease and eventually died out.

Furthermore, since this method sounds rather non-religious but yet highly effective in eliminating physical pain completely (it should in theory work for emotional pain as well), then what real motivation is there for aspiring Bodhisattvas to develop compassion and wisdom to that of a fully enlightened Buddha?

Jamber SG

If the setting is a mere swimming pool but merely flimed in such a way to appear like the sea, there's little need to raise a real alarm of danger, isn't it?

Anyway, this is just sharing my thoughts. Don't take it too literally and over-analyse too. =)

let's take this a little further while trying not to distort this analogy too much, though it'll break at some point i think :-)

the catch here is that this reality show that we're starring in has no safety procedures - everything we do has real-world consequence a.k.a workings of karma. the other catch is we are unaware that we are merely actors in this drama and thus we put in our real feelings and anguish into the drama.

the only other personal experience i can relate to is while we're in a dream. when someone insults me in a dream, i really get angry and retaliate. when i get into a disastrous accident in a dream, there is real feeling of panic. i invest my instinctive emotions into the dream because i'm unaware that it is merely a dream. i only realize its all a dream after waking up, but nevertheless, the emotions and anguish i experience in the dream are "real", as far as the dream lasts.

in fact, if you're sensitive enough, you can still experience the "real" emotions of anguish and panic of the dream lingering in your waking moments, shortly after you have waken. in that moment of awareness as you look at those dreamy emotions, they are still "real" because you can really feel it (eg. your heart still pounding from panic..etc) but at the same time you're also aware that it is all merely a dream so you're not genuinely panicking anymore. so in that sense, it is like an illusion because it is "real" as you can really feel the dream emotions, but "not real" as you are aware it is merely a dream.

hope it helps, and i didn't push the analogy too far.

Spnw07 SG

let's take this a little further while trying not to distort this analogy too much, though it'll break at some point i think :-)

hope it helps, and i didn't push the analogy too far.

gravity still works even if you are an actor, right?. So shouldn't Karma be present even in a dream? Karma is not created, influenced or limited by human thoughts and feelings, time and space right?

What is a dream? What defines a dream? We can be talking about dreams we have while we are asleep or the abstract sense of the word.

So if I killed someone, do I tell myself I'm merely dreaming and I can 'wake up' without having to bear any negative consequences?

I feel the fear of having killed someone, I also feel the excitement. So do I tell myself that the feelings of fear and excitement aren't 'real' as I further remind myself I'm merely having a dream of feeling fearful and excited after killing someone in a dream?

An Eternal Now SG

Is the true nature of Nirvana Samsara as well since it is one and not two?

David Loy:

"Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth"

It sounds like profound, indirect masochism to me. Only that there may be an absence of intention to deliberately self-harm.

Well if it were that simple, then yes, perhaps, there would be much less need for painkillers, doctors and hospitals. But is it realistic that everyone can immediately reach Bhante Gunaratana's level of practice considering that Bhante Gunaratana actually started meditating since he was a kid and is already an old man now?

So realistically speaking I believe painkillers is still needed for most people. The next thing is, pain is usually a symptom of a deeper physical illness. If we simply ignore the pain and not address it from its roots by seeing a physician and getting a diagnosis, then we aren't doing well to take care of our body.

That said, there are many stories of miraculous healing through Vipassana meditation as described in many instances (scroll down to the bottom in http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebmed006.htm for an example of having long term or terminal illnesses cured by simply practicing vipassana meditation), and my dharma teachers and master also attest to the healing power of practicing dharma.

Our moderator Thusness used to tell me many years ago so I can't remember the exact details, of how he used to displaced a bone or something and it was very painful, but he just keep sensing fully and practicing vipassana until it self healed and the next x ray showed that it completely healed by itself.

Anyway, Vipassana practice (i.e. insight meditation) in fact is only taught in Buddhism, and is the path to liberation.

Spnw07 SG

David Loy:

"Nothing of saṁsāra is different from nirvāṇa, nothing of nirvāṇa is different from saṁsāra. That which is the limit of nirvāṇa is also the limit of saṁsāra; there is not the slightest difference between the two." [1] And yet there must be some difference between them, for otherwise no distinction would have been made and there would be no need for two words to describe the same state. So Nāgārjuna also distinguishes them: "That which, taken as causal or dependent, is the process of being born and passing on, is, taken noncausally and beyond all dependence, declared to be nirvāṇa." [2] There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvāṇa is the world as it is in itself, nondualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Mādhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakīrti: "Nirvāṇa or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogācāra nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth"

If Nirvana cannot be characterised, how do we know it is a reality? Wouldn't samsara be the more real reality? What do you mean by samsara being a relative world? The above is quite deep for me.

Anyway, Vipassana practice (i.e. insight meditation) in fact is only taught in Buddhism, and is the path to liberation.

However, time is not necessarily a guarantee (many other conditions are involved) that one would naturally advance like Bhante. He must have practised very well in his previous rebirths, so that in this lifetime, it appears that he achieved this stage because he started early from childhood.

Although Vipassana practice is only taught in Buddhism, not many would know what really constitutes vipassana practice as taught by the Buddha.

Since those who are liberated usually keep silent or have already passed away into blissful rebirths, it's anyone's guess as to whether one is really liberated by following what appears or is spread by word or mouth as vipassana practice.

Theoretically speaking, if we take care of our mind through the mental training you have described, we should be able to eliminate any root cause of our physical illness, isn't it? Then taking good care of our mind would be the same as taking good care of our body?

And you haven't answered this part of my earlier post:

If compassion is a natural response to perceiving someone else's pain, then why we do see and experience cruelty, apathy and indifference in ourselves and from fellow humans?

Why are there wars, torture chambers, rape and sexual slavery?

An Eternal Now SG

Illnesses that cannot be cured by doctors, such as that which Thusness encountered, and others like my Taiwanese teacher who also encountered an injury that his friends and doctors all thought will leave him paralysed for life yet he miraculously healed himself through dharma practice within 1-2 weeks are examples of the miraculous healing power of dharma if practiced well. However I am not sure if this will happen every time and I suppose sometimes, if the bad karma is really strong one still cannot avoid certain amount of suffering, as even the Buddha and his Arhat disciples are known to get sick at times.

Actually, the instructions taught by Buddha are laid out very well in the suttas, for example the Mahasatipatthana Sutta is so precise and detailed on the practice of Vipassana as to go into every single details on how one is to be mindful of each minutest details of our sensate reality so as to realise its true nature, and that such a practice is able to result in realisation and liberation in a period of 7 days to 7 years of practice (serious practice of course). Many people have practiced this today and continue to attain liberation or at least gain a high degree of insight, which testifies to the success and relevance of such a practice to people even in the modern world.

The Buddha said that when he is no longer around, then let the Dhamma be the guide. In this case, suttas like Mahasatipatthana Sutta and other suttas comes in handy for sincere practitioners. And of course, the Sangha (the enlightened beings in the sangha) as well, can be a valuable source of guidance and experience for other practitioners.

Why do I say compassion is natural? As a matter of fact it motivates everything we do in life, unfortunately it is twisted by the ego into the three poisons.* If you are suffering, do you want to end the suffering? Of course, and you'll do something about it and the response is natural. However because we have a false division of subject and object, me and others, our concern is on the 'me' instead of others. We become concerned about our own well-being than others because of our narrow scope and fixation on the 'me' and 'mine'. If we do not divide into 'me' and 'others', if we let go of self-fixation and expand our awareness, then our compassion becomes more natural and spontaneous. When suffering happens, compassionate action to end suffering will happen and there is no self-centeredness that will hold you back.

*Dharma Dan:

Spnw07 SG

The tough part is in knowing clearing when to accept that one's bad karma is really strong. For some, paralysis within 1-2 weeks can be considered strong bad karma. But if one gets cured like your Taiwanese teachr, then you would think you might be foolish for thinking it is strong bad karma.

So the paradox or irony (correct my vocaubulary if you like) is, if it's really bad, you can't avoid suffering. And you can never know whether this unavoidable certain amount of suffering is actually the original, full amount of suffering that ripens for your bad karma.

So you can console yourself either foolishly that my karma has been reduced, but without insight knowledge of the actual, full impact of your bad karma, how do you compare and know whether your effects and duration of your strong bad karma has been reduced?

Only the Buddha and his Arhat disciples can make an accurate and non-biased comparison as to the extent of their suffering for any ripened or soon-to-ripen strong bad karma.

Then it is quite sad that this sutta is not widely published and distributed enough to beginner Buddhists through temples or affliliated organisations. Since this sutta is so precise, detailed and clearly beneficial even within short time span, then more talks should be held not only to promote awareness, but to clear doubts and help plant seeds of motivation for serious practice among Buddhists. I mean such a good sutta should not only be confined to meditation classes in temples or any Buddhist organisation.

Why do I say compassion is natural? As a matter of fact it motivates everything we do in life.* If you are suffering, do you want to end the suffering? Of course, and you'll do something about it and the response is natural. However because we have a false division of subject and object, me and others, our concern is on the 'me' instead of others. We become concerned about our own well-being than others because of our narrow scope and fixation on the 'me' and 'mine'. If we do not divide into 'me' and 'others', if we let go of self-fixation and expand our awareness, then our compassion becomes more natural and spontaneous. When suffering happens, compassionate action to end suffering will happen and there is no self-centeredness that will hold you back.

*Dharma Dan:

Can you give me real-life examples, as current as possible, on "misdirected compassion"?

If we were to follow the above guideline, some would learn something different. Some kill people and get away with it by doing things to cover up or give a twisted interpretation of whatever evidence unearthed by the authorities.

The first time I kill, I get away with it. The second time too. When I do get caught, the most is just decades of jail, death or life imprisonment. What consequences do I need to fear for myself or consider for everyone?

How do we know when we have become obsessive in the above practice to examine the consequences of our actions?

Jamber SG

gravity still works even if you are an actor, right?. So shouldn't Karma be present even in a dream? Karma is not created, influenced or limited by human thoughts and feelings, time and space right?

What is a dream? What defines a dream? We can be talking about dreams we have while we are asleep or the abstract sense of the word.

So if I killed someone, do I tell myself I'm merely dreaming and I can 'wake up' without having to bear any negative consequences?

i'll just take the definition of a dream as in our dreaming in normal sleep. during the dreaming, our experience tells us that the dream "I" believes 100% in "my" own dream existence and the environment in the dream. the dream "I" behave as if "I" am living a normal life doing whatever activities that "I'm" supposed to do depending on the dream content. the dream "I" do not question a single bit about whether that experience itself is a dream or real. only upon waking up and in retrospect of reviewing the dream, is it possible to realize that the dream "I" is not really existent in waking moments, but yet not non-existent either since it is experienced as 100% real during the dream. spiritual liberation may be somewhat like that kind of realization, but obviously not exactly the same. if you don't understand what i'm blabbering about its ok, coz its just my own conceptual interpretation. may be total gibberish for someone else.

karma is a profoundly big topic, i'll leave it to the more learned ones to explain it more completely. but my humble opinion is that one aspect of karma is in its manifestation of our instinctive tendency or propensity. so yes, the dream itself is the manifestation of our karmic propensity. usually, how you behave in your dream (as in your character traits, emotions, instincts..etc) would not be very different from your behavior in real life. but since dreaming happens only in our mind consciousness, with all our physical senses(eyes, ear, nose, tongue, body) in dormant during sleep, law of physics obviously works different in our dream (able to fly, no sense of concreteness.. etc).

if "I" kill someone, obviously "I" have to bear all karmic consequences. from buddhist liberation perspective, "I" cannot wake up from the dream because "I" created the dream. "I" cannot achieve enlightenment because "I" is the source of all sufferings. the karmic mechanism fulfills the wishes of "I" by creating this human existence and all those baggages that comes with it.

reading up on the following teachings will help you a long way to better appreciate buddhist teachings and philosophy.

The 3 Universal Characteristics - http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud13.htm

Dependent Arising - http://www.dharmanet.org/BBodhiDependent.htm

An Eternal Now SG

Can you give me real-life examples, as current as possible, on "misdirected compassion"?

How do we know when we have become obsessive in the above practice to examine the consequences of our actions?

Any kind of crime is misdirected compassion. Finding happiness by robbing, killing, having affairs, using drugs, all kinds of stuff.

There is no need to go into specifics of the karmic cause and effect, except to know what is right and wrong and avoid doing unwholesome things that could harm ourselves and others, being aware that there is wholesome and unwholesome karmic consequences as a result.

An Eternal Now SG

If Nirvana cannot be characterised, how do we know it is a reality? Wouldn't samsara be the more real reality? What do you mean by samsara being a relative world? The above is quite deep for me.

Just realised you had more questions in the 'Show' section which I didn't see earlier.

Samsara means the relative world of experience. Nirvana isn't something you experience separate from yourself, therefore it is the opposite of a dualistic experience which is to split up our experience into a 'me' experiencing a world made up of a collection of objects interacting in time and space. In non-dual experience there is just the pure experience of whatever is appearing without separating into a perceiver and perceived, subject and object. You do not objectivize what you experienced.

As for Madhyamika, the reason why say Nirvana cannot be charactized is because all things are empty. Madhyamika teachings emphasize on emptiness. Everything is already empty without characteristic. (see Heart Sutra) And Nirvana is the realisation of this.

For example, if we were to observe a red flower that is so vivid, clear and right in front us, the “redness” only appears to “belong” to the flower, it is in actuality not so. Vision of red does not arise in all animal species (dogs cannot perceive colours) nor is the “redness” an inherent attribute of the mind. If given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere appearances without inherent/objective existence.

An Eternal Now SG

Only the Buddha and his Arhat disciples can make an accurate and non-biased comparison as to the extent of their suffering for any ripened or soon-to-ripen strong bad karma.

In Buddhism, there is the saying that practitioners can avert bad karma by having bad karmic consequences become only small karmic consequences, and there are many examples in the Buddhist scriptures. They are able to dissolve the karma easily. For example he often gets sick or goes to the hospital because he is always taking up the karma of his students (and he has thousands of students), and was able to heal many of them even of terminal illnesses. But he will have some effects as a result, though he is able to dissolve them through his practice. However the healing can only take place if the other party is also sincerely practicing the dharma. Otherwise he will not help them.

As for Mahasatipatthana Sutta, The Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta^[1] (Sanskrit: Smṛtyupasthāna Sūtra) and the Mahāsatipaṭṭhāna Sutta^[2] are two of the most popular discourses in the Pali Canon, embraced by both Theravada and Mahayana practitioners (see, for example, Nhat Hanh, 2005). (These two discourses are identical except that the latter includes extended exposition regarding mindfulness of the Four Noble Truths).

Spnw07 SG

reading up on the following teachings will help you a long way to better appreciate buddhist teachings and philosophy.

The 3 Universal Characteristics - http://www.buddhanet.net/funbud13.htm

Dependent Arising - http://www.dharmanet.org/BBodhiDependent.htm

I read about those before. It's only that I find it difficult to understand. For dreams wise, I generally behave in a gentle way to people in my dreams, but in real life, i'm more aloof, more cold..

Spnw07 SG

What is heavy karma converted to less heavy can be relative and subjective for each and every individual. For a singer, losing her voice is heavy karma. But unless you have insight knowledge of her past lives and the original severity of her ripening or ripened karma, you wouldn't know whether losing her voice is her original heavy karma unchanged, or otherwise.

Furthermore we might have done many things in our countless past lives and of course present ones as well that might have heavy karma, so there's no guarantee that any good effort we do will so conveniently be directed to eliminate every heavy karma from every single bad deed or thought we had committed or had...

Btw, following the logic of your Master's case, then the Buddha should be recorded as being sick even more often, since he should be taking on the karma of countless beings who are serious practitioners...?

An Eternal Now SG

You will not be able to eliminate all bad karma, only lighten them. Even the Buddha experience the effects of his bad karma though to a lesser extent.

As for healing, even though Buddha certainly has the powers to heal people, he may have chosen not to use them. These kind of healing is not exactly rare, I heard other masters do it. BTW my Taiwanese teacher is not my master. My master passed away over a decade ago. My Taiwanese teacher is his dharma successor. Both of them healed many people before including terminal illness people.

BTW, Master Sheng Yen (who also happens to be my Master's dharma brother) said the reason Jesus had to die such a terrible death is precisely because he was using his powers to heal people (as shown in many of his stories). My Taiwanese teacher was well aware of the possibility that his death will not be so good because of his taking up the bad karma of others, but he always said, I will only die once in this life, so whatever happens that's fine.

Spnw07 SG

Any kind of crime is misdirected compassion. Finding happiness by robbing, killing, having affairs, using drugs, all kinds of stuff.

There are things which are not necessarily criminal, but still cause harm to others. Having affairs is not a crime by law, but recognised by law to be a good legal basis for divorce.

What is wholesome and unwholesome in various real-life scenarios is still vague to me, that is why I'm going into specifics.

I'm asking about examples of misdirected compassion which are not necessarily criminal in nature, and or may look trivial and insignificant to most...

And furthermore, the examples you gave suggest more strongly the nature of the doer being totally uncompassionate at all, rather than misdirected compassion.

For example, forcing people to do things when they don't want to or can't do at the moment, by constantly harping, suggesting in various ways, on the serious cumulative effects of their karma if they don't change...

That to me is misdirected compassion.

An Eternal Now SG

There are things which are not necessarily criminal, but still cause harm to others. Having affairs is not a crime by law, but recognised by law to be a good legal basis for divorce.

What is wholesome and unwholesome in various real-life scenarios is still vague to me, that is why I'm going into specifics.

I'm asking about examples of misdirected compassion which are not necessarily criminal in nature, and or may look trivial and insignificant to most...

And furthermore, the examples you gave suggest more strongly the nature of the doer being totally uncompassionate at all, rather than misdirected compassion.

That to me is misdirected compassion.

Any form of greed, hatred, ignorace is misdirected compassion since it is compassion filtered through the egoic separation into subject and object:

Spnw07 SG

You will not be able to eliminate all bad karma, only lighten them. Even the Buddha experience the effects of his bad karma though to a lesser extent.

BTW, Master Sheng Yen said the reason Jesus had to die such a terrible death is precisely because he was using his powers to heal people (as shown in many of his stories). My Taiwanese teacher was well aware of the possibility that his death will not be so good because of his taking up the bad karma of others, but he always said, I will only die once in this life, so whatever happens that's fine.

It seems you are talking about the Buddha bearing his own karma, but not really about him bearing the karma of others, unlike the example you gave about your Taiwanese teacher.

Again it is not easy for anyone to know whether their karma has been really going on the path of reduction. Can it be that it's not reduction that we experience but merely a natural expiration of bad karma?

« Previous Page Next Page »