Theraveda, not Mañana

[Guest guest]

On Monday, January 27, 2003, at 11:26 PM,

wrote:

 

> The concept of karmic intent derives from the mahayana

> path of buddhism; specifically in Tibet.

 

Whereas I have been educated in Theraveda Buddhism and Zen, which eschew

such considerations.

 

> It is not

> comparable to the idea that the thought is the sin,

> not at all; that a western concept; karma is not some

> great machine or cycle we have no control over and we

> are trapped in, those are myths based on primitive

> interperetations of the karmic wheel.

>

> In essence, it is very hard to describe the concept in

> a western framework; even the words will often fail.

> To say karma is derived from intent is because one of

> the fundamental rules of karma is that everythig is a

> series of cause and effect relationships and if this

> is true, then the original intent that creates and

> outcome will be the outcome of a previous outcome;

> cause and effect , over and over again, which spins

> the karmic wheel. The intent, however, is in the human

> perception and the filter that determines a desire for

> negative or positive results or outcomes.

 

Speak rather of will, or even Will, in a spiritual sense, perhaps?

 

>

> For instance: If you intend to rape a woman, but trip

> on a rock while following her, and as you stand up you

> bump into someone who is running away from a poor

> little old lady with her purse that has all her life

> savings in it, and he trips and falls and the police

> catch him- your karma is still bad. Why? Because your

> intent, which houses itself in your mind, and thus

> your soul, is still dark and festering there

 

Very close to Roman Catholic interpretation of intent, sin, and guilt.

>

> On the other hand, if you offer to help an old lady

> across the street out of kindness, but you trip and

> fall and push her by accident and she gets wasted

> horribly by a bus in front a group of schoolchildren,

> your karma is still good... your intent, in your

> heart, was pure, and thus karmic justice will not

> visit upon you.

 

I imagine crusading demi-gods swooping down to lop off our spiritual heads.

... Is it not a fallacy to think we can even know good from bad? When

balance is spoken of, it refers to things mere humans cannot know, and yet

things embodied by them when they are corporeal, or incarnate, (in a body)

, and thus inescapable, too.

 

>

> Everything is a series of cause and effect

> relationships;

 

Is this not linear? Are there not more holistic approaches?

 

> our perceptions are the filters of the

> souls that feed the vast wheel of karma and determine

> the paths our lives take us on.

>

> Essentially, to paraphrase H.H. The Dalai Lama, 'It is

> not whether we succeed or fail in life, but at the

> end, knowing we did the right thing.'

 

And how can one choose right action? The only way known is to attempt to

alleviate suffering where and when and how one can, and to seek to avoid

adding to the world's suffering. This is but a guide, and a vague one

each must interpret his or her own way.

 

>

> I have been studying buddhism for years, and I have

> often found that many conceots are very misaligned in

> our societey in the west, partly I think because of

> language barriers; so we bastardize the meanings of

> certain terms. I do love the discourse though; Im by

> no means an expert but I have probably read more than

> most, at least in terms of the Mahayana Path.

 

The more we learn, the less we know. Knowledge is an island and, as it

grows, so does the shoreline where what we don't know laps and surges.

 

>

>

" I'm a writer. "

" Can you prove it. "

" Look. " Holds up a pen. " I have a writing implement. "

 

--from David Cronenberg's film NAKED LUNCH

Bill Lee talking to an InterZone border guard.