Life is Easier Without Karma - a Discussion

Embers · #64 (**permalink**) 11-Aug-2012, 22:39 PM

Hello Confused Ji
Thanks for the reply. I do not understand how the end of Dukkha can imply a continuation of Dukkha? It doesn't make sense to me.

If it is because everything is always anicca, anatta and dukkha, then I cannot agree. I cannot agree that a stone lying on the floor is dukkha for me. Have I misunderstood what is meant by conditioned phenomena in your last post?

Be well!

Quote:

No, you have wrongly inferred this. And it appears that you are referring to Dukkha as in unpleasant mental feeling, not the Dukkha which is characteristic of all conditioned realities. The quote is not making a reference to ignorance or aversion and craving as cause for the experience of dukkha. It is describing how dukkha is intimately connected to the other two characteristic of anicca and anatta. It is stating that no reality can ever provide happiness, because of this characteristic of rise and fall. In other words it is Dukkha in and of itself and not because there is craving for objects. This is why the unconditioned Nibbana is said to be the only real happiness. Indeed this comes only after penetrating the Noble Truth of Dukkha. An enlightened person understands that all conditioned phenomena are anicca, anatta and dukkha.

...

The Dukkha that ends with the eradication of ignorance and craving refers to the Dukkha in the context of the Four Noble Truths where Craving or Tanha is the cause, i.e. the Second Truth. This is saying that with the eradication of ignorance and craving there will not be rebirth (hence the arising of Dukkha) anymore.

Even a Buddha experiences Dukkha as in unpleasant bodily feeling, being that he would receive the result of past kamma. And he and all the arahats would not perceive any of their experiences and the objects of the senses as anything but Dukkha, re: one of the three marks of existence.

Archived_member14 · #65 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 00:09 AM

Embers ji,

Quote:

Thanks for the reply. I do not understand how the end of Dukkha can imply a continuation of Dukkha? It doesn't make sense to me.

I already explained this. But I'll do it again another way.

Full enlightenment, namely the arising of path consciousness of the Arahat, has the implications that all defilements are eradicated such that there will therefore not be rebirth anymore. The Four Noble Truths can be divided into two parts, the first two pointing to samsara and the cause of samsara. In other words, Dukkha of the first Noble Truth refers to the continued arising of conditioned existence and craving is what causes this. The Third and Fourth Noble Truths point to the end of samsara and the Path leading to this. So when it is said that there is no more Dukkha, this is referring to Dukkha as in continued existence.

From your own quote in the last message:

Quote:
"Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress:[1] Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.”

Obviously, the arahat still ages and must finally experience death, even though he would not feel sorrow, distress and despair. And since these are given as examples of Dukkha (stress) why can't you see then that the context in which it is referred to in the quote is different from what you are trying to make it fit into?

You are not alone though in thinking this way. Many Buddhists like to imagine that an arahat will never perceive anything as Dukkha. But the fact is he'd perceive Dukkha more clearly than anyone else. Only he would never be distressed by it. And btw, what do you think the Noble in the Four Noble Truths imply, that it is what is seen by the noble ones is it not? Whereas what you are suggesting has the implication that everyone but the arahat would have the characteristic of Dukkha as part of their experience…..

Quote:

If it is because everything is always anicca, anatta and dukkha, then I cannot agree. I cannot agree that a stone lying on the floor is dukkha for me. Have I misunderstood what is meant by conditioned phenomena in your last post?

Stone is of course a concept, and as I suggested in my last message, Nibbana and concepts do not exhibit the characteristic of rise and fall. What does rise and fall however, are the ultimate realities which make up stone. Rising and falling away are therefore, the four primary elements of earth, water, fire and wind and the twenty odd derived physical elements. When you perceive 'stone', there must be seeing which experiences visible object and / or touching experiencing hardness (the earth element) for example. This visible object and the hardness are the physical phenomena which rise and fall away at the rate of billions of risings and falling away in one second. This rising and falling away is the anicca and dukkha of physical phenomena.

I refer again to the three meanings of Dukkha:

< (1) suffering as pain (dukkha-dukkhatā),
(2) the suffering inherent in the formations (saṅkhāra-dukkhatā),
(3) the suffering in change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā)" (S. XLV, 165; D. 33).

(1) is the bodily or mental feeling of pain as actual]y felt. (2) refers to the oppressive nature of all formations of existence (i.e. all conditioned phenomena), due to their continual arising and passing away; this includes also experiences associated with neutral feeling. (3) refers to bodily and mental pleasant feelings, "because they are the cause for the arising of pain when they change" (Vis.M. XIV, 34f).>>

You must take care not to conflate the second with the other two meanings, which is what I think you are doing and is the reason why you are having difficulty with this.

Embers · #66 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 04:19 AM

Confused Ji
Thanks for the continued explanation.
Unless a being is still opposed to change through craving, clinging and aversion. Buddhism may address well a person who is undergoing suffering because they cannot get what they want, cannot avoid what they do not want or remain neutral. I can see that the body will bring pain.

If someone knows there is anatta and anicca then all that happens will arise and pass away. There will be dukkha, the body ages and dies (disease etc), but this is recognised as anicca and dukkha, but there is still anatta; it is all arising and passing away for 'nobody'.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/controversies/38889-life-is-easier-without-karma-discussion.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889

Unless I am continuing to miss something, I cannot see anything further in it?

I am aware that all suffering is transient and it is happening to 'nobody', it arises and passes that is all.

Archived_member14 · #67 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 10:11 AM

Embers ji,

I am not sure what it is that you understand and agree and disagree with.
I get the impression that you are not so interested in continuing with this discussion. If that is not the case, then could you please give your answer to the following?

1. What is reality and how does one distinguish this from what is not real?
2. What is anicca or impermanence and how is it known?
3. What is anatta or non-self and how is it known?
4. What is dukkha or suffering and how is it known?
5. Why do you say that “Buddhism addresses well a person who is undergoing suffering”? Does this imply that it does not address those who do not undergo suffering? And who might these be?
6. In stating that “There will be dukkha, the body ages and dies (disease etc), but this is recognised as anicca and dukkha,” are you saying that dukkha although it is experienced, can’t be said to be a characteristic as are anicca and anatta?
7. In saying, “all suffering is transient and it is happening to 'nobody', it arises and passes that is all” are you here referring to suffering as in displeasure? Because if you are referring to Dukkha as in one of the three marks of existence, it would sound like that you are saying that this Dukkha itself is impermanent. In other words, this one general characteristic has in turn the characteristic of impermanence….
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889

I hope that this is not asking too many questions. But please do take your time with them.

Embers · #68 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 13:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Confused

Embers ji,

I am not sure what it is that you understand and agree and disagree with.
I get the impression that you are not so interested in continuing with this discussion. If that is not the case, then could you please give your answer to the following?

1. What is reality and how does one distinguish this from what is not real?
2. What is anicca or impermanence and how is it known?
3. What is anatta or non-self and how is it known?
4. What is dukkha or suffering and how is it known?
5. Why do you say that “Buddhism addresses well a person who is undergoing suffering”? Does this imply that it does not address those who do not undergo suffering? And who might these be?
6. In stating that “There will be dukkha, the body ages and dies (disease etc), but this is recognised as anicca and dukkha,” are you saying that dukkha although it is experienced, can’t be said to be a characteristic as are anicca and anatta?
7. In saying, “all suffering is transient and it is happening to 'nobody', it arises and passes that is all” are you here referring to suffering as in displeasure? Because if you are referring to Dukkha as in one of the three marks of existence, it would sound like that you are saying that this Dukkha itself is impermanent. In other words, this one general characteristic has in turn the characteristic of impermanence….

I hope that this is not asking too many questions. But please do take your time with them.

Confused ji
I think the conversation is coming to an end, which is fine.

Your questions are quoted followed by my answer below, my answer is personal i.e. I am not quoting scripture or being philosophical for the sake of it. I am using my own vocabulary a little here, as I cannot remember Buddhist vocabulary well.

1. What is reality and how does one distinguish this from what is not real?

Reality is that which does not change or cannot change. It is unconditioned.
That which changes or is subject to change is not reality, although it may 'exist' now. It is distinguished through insight or the inner eye, for want of a term.

2. What is anicca or impermanence and how is it known?

Anicca is the 'quality' of change. It is not a thing in itself but rather an observation. It is known to the 6 senses, including inner perception of emotion, thoughts etc. It includes the 6 senses and the mind which are themselves subject to anicca (anatta and dukkha).

3. What is anatta or non-self and how is it known?

Anatta is the recognition that there is no fixed phenomena inherent in any phenomena. In other words it is recognition that there is no fixed unchanging self (or concept of self) in phenomena. By phenomena I mean material elements, thoughts, emotions etc.

4. What is dukkha or suffering and how is it known?

Dukkha is unsatisfactory quality of phenomena, it is not a thing in itself. It is known through the 6 senses and inner perception. It can also mean pain, such as physical or emotional pain.

5. Why do you say that “Buddhism addresses well a person who is undergoing suffering”? Does this imply that it does not address those who do not undergo suffering? And who might these be?

It implies that once the teaching (Buddhism) has done its job (Nibbana, the end of the the holy life) it is no longer to be clinged to (it is let go). The question who might these be does not apply at this stage (Nibbana).

6. In stating that “There will be dukkha, the body ages and dies (disease etc), but this is recognised as anicca and dukkha,” are you saying that dukkha although it is experienced, can’t be said to be a characteristic as are anicca and anatta?

No, I am saying that dukkha can be seen as arising and passing away (anicca) without any inherent self (anatta). It simply happens.

7. In saying, “all suffering is transient and it is happening to 'nobody', it arises and passes that is all” are you here referring to suffering as in displeasure? Because if you are referring to Dukkha as in one of the three marks of existence, it would sound like that you are saying that this Dukkha itself is impermanent. In other words, this one general characteristic has in turn the characteristic of impermanence….

Dukkha here can be pain (physical, emotional) as well as unsatisfatoriness. It is not real in the sense that it arises and passes away. So yes, it has the characteristic of impermanence. Dukkha is not a thing in itself.

Hope that helps.

Gyani Jarnail Singh · #69 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 16:57 PM

Dukh par har Sukh Ghar ley jayeh....

Embers · #70 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 18:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gyani Jarnail Singh

Dukh par har Sukh Ghar ley jayeh....

Dukh Par-Har Sukh Ghar.wmv - YouTube

Taranjeet singh · #71 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 22:40 PM

Embers ji.

Duality lies till we are not united/merged with the Lord i.e. we are all different from God-Lord. There becomes two planes of thinking i.e. pre-merger state and post merger state. In the pre -merger state we are acting as individuals under the effect of 'ego hood'. In this stage we keep on accumulating Karma the sum total of which may be Karmic credit of Karmic debits. In this plane, we shall move to next life along with the sum total Karmas.

Once we have overcome ego and have attained the stage of liberation the stage of duality ends; 'I' and 'He' becomes one; duality ends and then the Karmas become redundant as one shall be performing deeds for God-Lord (seeing Him in everyone one comes across). Thus soul shall not be accountable for any deed done under the post merger stage.

In nutshell , duality continues to exist till we have not overcome 'egohood' and there would be effect of Karmas as per Laws of Karma.

Mr. Surinder Singh Kohli has, in his book " Grace", covered the aspect of Karma and Transmigration of soul in detail and provides insight into philosophical insight to the laws of Karmas. As per him every soul is born with some set of accumulated karmas that he calls as 'Sanchit Karmas'; during the life span the soul may have the effect of some Karmas- the Karmas that have fructified are called as "Prarabdh'. There are other Karmas called as 'Aagami Karmas' i.e. the Karmas that are yet to be performed through out the life span of the soul. The closing balance of the Karmas becomes the 'Sanchit Karmas' for the next life and so on and so forth.... this goes on till the balance of Karmas is reduced to nil. It is possible only with His Grace only i.e at the time of merger with God -Lord. There is also second possibility that our Karmic accounts may be reduced to nil by God Lord as per His wishes even though we may not be merged with Him. This is , in essence, the sikh philosophy, i.e. Karmas can be reduced to Zero when He is pleased.

According to oriental philosophy including Hindu philosophy also one is required to transmigrate even if one is Liberated in order to bring one's Karmic Balance to Zero.

In Sikhi Karmas are absolutely extinguishable by the Grace of God. Bani also mentions that Karmas can be extinguished by True Guru as well.

ਪਉੜੀ ॥ Pauree:

ਤੂੰ ਸਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਅਤਿ ਵਡਾ ਤੁਹਿ ਜੇਵਡੁ ਤੂੰ ਵਡ ਵਡੇ ॥ O
True Lord and Master, You are so very great. As great as You are, You are the greatest of the great.

ਜਿਸੁ ਤੂੰ ਮੇਲਹਿ ਸੋ ਤੁਧੁ ਮਿਲੈ ਤੂੰ ਆਪੇ ਬਖਸਿ ਲੈਹਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਛਡੇ ॥
He alone is united with You, whom You unite with Yourself. You Yourself bless and forgive us, and tear up our accounts.

ਜਿਸ ਨੋ ਤੂੰ ਆਪਿ ਮਿਲਾਇਦਾ ਸੋ ਸਤਿਗੁਰੁ ਸੇਵੇ ਮਨੁ ਗਡ ਗਡੇ ॥
One whom You unite with Yourself, whole-heartedly serves the True Guru.

ਤੂੰ ਸਚਾ ਸਾਹਿਬੁ ਸਚੁ ਤੂ ਸਭੁ ਜੀਉ ਪਿੰਡੁ ਚੰਮੁ ਤੇਰਾ ਹਡੇ ॥
You are the True One, the True Lord and Master; my soul, body, flesh and bones are all Yours.

ਜਿਉ ਭਾਵੈ ਤਿਉ ਰਖੁ ਤੂੰ ਸਚਿਆ ਨਾਨਕ ਮਨਿ ਆਸ ਤੇਰੀ ਵਡ ਵਡੇ ॥੩੩॥੧॥ ਸੁਧੁ ॥
If it pleases You, then save me, True Lord. Nanak places the hopes of his mind in You alone, O greatest of the great! ||33||1|| Sudh||

Second Shabad
Gurbani further states that without the Grace of Guru Karmas cannot be extinguished:Following is an extract of shabad at ang 56:

ਕੇਤੇ ਪੰਡਿਤ ਜੋਤਕੀ ਬੇਦਾ ਕਰਹਿ ਬੀਚਾਰੁ ॥
There are so many Pandits and astrologers who ponder over the Vedas.

ਵਾਦਿ ਵਿਰੋਧਿ ਸਲਾਹਣੇ ਵਾਦੇ ਆਵਣੁ ਜਾਣੁ ॥
They glorify their disputes and arguments, and in these controversies they continue coming and going.

ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਕਰਮ ਨ ਛੁਟਸੀ ਕਹਿ ਸੁਣਿ ਆਖਿ ਵਖਾਣੁ ॥੭॥
Without the Guru, they are not released from their karma, although they speak and listen and preach and explain. ||7||
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889
]
ਸਭਿ ਗੁਣਵੰਤੀ ਆਖੀਅਹਿ ਮੈ ਗੁਣੁ ਨਾਹੀ ਕੋਇ ॥
They all call themselves virtuous, but I have no virtue at all.

ਹਰਿ ਵਰੁ ਨਾਰਿ ਸੁਹਾਵਣੀ ਮੈ ਭਾਵੈ ਪ੍ਰਭੁ ਸੋਇ ॥
With the Lord as her Husband, the soul-bride is happy; I, too, love that God.

ਨਾਨਕ ਸਬਦਿ ਮਿਲਾਵੜਾ ਨਾ ਵੇਛੋੜਾ ਹੋਇ ॥੮॥੫॥
O Nanak, through the Shabad, union is obtained; there is no more separation. ||8||5|

Third shabadAng-66

ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ ਮਹਲਾ ੩ ॥ Siree Raag, Third Mehl:
ਪੰਖੀ ਬਿਰਖਿ ਸੁਹਾਵੜਾ ਸਚੁ ਚੁਗੈ ਗੁਰ ਭਾਇ ॥
The soul-bird in the beautiful tree of the body pecks at Truth, with love for the Guru.

ਹਰਿ ਰਸੁ ਪੀਵੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਰਹੈ ਉਡੈ ਨ ਆਵੈ ਜਾਇ ॥
She drinks in the Sublime Essence of the Lord, and abides in intuitive ease; she does not fly around coming and going.

ਨਿਜ ਘਰਿ ਵਾਸਾ ਪਾਇਆ ਹਰਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਮਿ ਸਮਾਇ ॥੧॥
She obtains her home within her own heart; she is absorbed into the Name of the Lord, Har, Har. ||1||

ਮਨ ਰੇ ਗੁਰ ਕੀ ਕਾਰ ਕਮਾਇ ॥
O mind, work to serve the Guru.

ਗੁਰ ਕੈ ਭਾਣੈ ਜੇ ਚਲਹਿ ਤਾ ਅਨਦਿਨੁ ਰਾਚਹਿ ਹਰਿ ਨਾਇ ॥੧॥ ਰਹਾਉ ॥
If you walk in harmony with the Guru's Will, you shall remain immersed in the Lord's Name, night and day. ||1||Pause||

ਪੰਖੀ ਬਿਰਖ ਸੁਹਾਵੜੇ ਊਡਹਿ ਚਹੁ ਦਿਸਿ ਜਾਹਿ ॥
The birds in the beautiful trees fly around in all four directions.

ਜੇਤਾ ਊਡਹਿ ਦੁਖ ਘਣੇ ਨਿਤ ਦਾਝਹਿ ਤੈ ਬਿਲਲਾਹਿ ॥
The more they fly around, the more they suffer; they burn and cry out in pain.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=38889

ਬਿਨੁ ਗੁਰ ਮਹਲੁ ਨ ਜਾਪਈ ਨਾ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਫਲ ਪਾਹਿ ॥੨॥
Without the Guru, they do not find the Mansion of the Lord's Presence, and they do not obtain the Ambrosial Fruit. ||2||

ਗੁਰਮੁਖਿ ਬ੍ਰਹਮੁ ਹਰੀਆਵਲਾ ਸਾਚੈ ਸਹਜਿ ਸੁਭਾਇ ॥
The Gurmukh is like God's tree, always green, blessed with the Sublime Love of the True One, with intuitive peace and poise.

ਸਾਖਾ ਤੀਨਿ ਨਿਵਾਰੀਆ ਏਕ ਸਬਦਿ ਲਿਵ ਲਾਇ ॥
He cuts off the three branches of the three qualities, and embraces love for the One Word of the Shabad.

ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤ ਫਲੁ ਹਰਿ ਏਕੁ ਹੈ ਆਪੇ ਦੇਇ ਖਵਾਇ ॥੩॥
The Lord alone is the Ambrosial Fruit; He Himself gives it to us to eat. ||3||

ਮਨਮੁਖ ਊਭੇ ਸੁਕਿ ਗਏ ਨਾ ਫਲੁ ਤਿੰਨਾ ਛਾਉ ॥
The self-willed manmukhs stand there and dry up; they do not bear any fruit, and they do not provide any shade.

ਤਿੰਨਾ ਪਾਸਿ ਨ ਬੈਸੀਐ ਓਨਾ ਘਰੁ ਨ ਗਿਰਾਉ ॥
Don't even bother to sit near them-they have no home or village.

ਕਟੀਅਹਿ ਤੈ ਨਿਤ ਜਾਲੀਅਹਿ ਓਨਾ ਸਬਦੁ ਨ ਨਾਉ ॥੪॥
They are cut down and burnt each day; they have neither the Shabad, nor the Lord's Name. ||4||
ਹੁਕਮੇ ਕਰਮ ਕਮਾਵਣੇ ਪਇਐ ਕਿਰਤਿ ਫਿਰਾਉ ॥
According to the Lord's Command, people perform their actions; they wander around, driven by the karma of their past actions.

E & O E

Archived_member14 · #72 (**permalink**) 12-Aug-2012, 23:19 PM

Embers ji,

Response to your answer to question 1.

Quote:

1. What is reality and how does one distinguish this from what is not real?

Embers: Reality is that which does not change or cannot change. It is unconditioned.

Is this some philosophical school you are going by where reality is defined in such terms? The dictionary meaning of reality includes the following:

re•al•i•ty (r-l-t)
n. pl. re•al•i•ties
1. The quality or state of being actual or true.
2. One, such as a person, an entity, or an event, that is actual: "the weight of history and political realities" (Benno C. Schmidt, Jr.)
3. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence.
4. That which exists objectively and in fact: Your observations do not seem to be about reality.

I have stated that there is conditioned reality and the unconditioned reality. Your qualifying “reality” with unconditioned, to me does not invalidate the other reality, namely the conditioned. So please explain how “unchanging” and “unconditioned” give validity to the concept of “reality” while being conditioned invalidates it?

And btw, you said that you have read only the Theravada, but this idea about the unconditioned being the only reality is in fact what the Mahayana school believes in which I consider as essentially, wrong view.

Quote:

That which changes or is subject to change is not reality, although it may 'exist' now.

The dictionary seems to be making a connection between “existence” and “reality” in such a way that one implies the other. If you say therefore, that conditioned phenomena “exist”, then according to the dictionary you must also admit that they are “real”.

And is it not strange that you should so confidently claim as the “only reality”, namely the unconditioned, something which is never part of your experience? Would this not then mean that you claim to be “reality” what exists only as an idea as far as your experiences are concerned, whereas the experiences through the five senses and the mind which in fact forms the basis for *all* your conceivings / thoughts, this you deny as being real? In other words you are taking as basis for denying the reality of your moment to moment experience, an idea which in fact would not have been conceived of without those experiences performing some very real functions to begin with?

Or are you going to tell me that this is not so, but that in fact it is your “inner eye” which has seen this to be the case?

Quote:

It is distinguished through insight or the inner eye, for want of a term.

I wasn't asking about what it is that “understands”, but what characteristic or mark distinguishes reality from that which is not real. This you already gave an answer, namely that reality is that which is “permanent and unconditioned”. But as you would have seen, I have a problem with this proposition. So I shall await your response to this.