Hi Tilt,
How can we take refuge in our kamma if we know that we are bound to samsara due to our ignorance? This is like circular thinking. Many of our actions and intentions arise due to ignorance, craving, greed, delusion, etc.
If this weren't the case, we would have already gone beyond. That includes going beyond kamma and vipāka.
How could proper refuge be anything outside of the triple gem?
Best,
Drolma
The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
How do think we get out of the cycle, if not by making choices to follow the Eightfold Path, by going for refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha?Ngawang Drolma wrote:How can we take refuge in our kamma if we know that we are bound to samsara due to our ignorance?
That is why awakening can be a long process, but if an action is less colored by ignorance than another, it pushes us a bit further down the path, does it not?This is like circular thinking. Many of our actions and intentions arise due to ignorance, craving, greed, delusion, etc.
It is our choice to go for refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, and this is an ongoing - moment to moment - thing as we, by our choices, cultivate the precepts, mindfulness, and Right View. Kamma is not a mechanical process, as the texts I gave above show, which is why we can in time step out of its hold.How could proper refuge be anything outside of the triple gem?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Hi Tilt,
The Buddha did not advise that we take refuge in kamma. The quotes that you offer need to have their appropriate context and understanding. You said, "Kamma is our refuge." To me that appears to be a statement frought with misunderstanding about what it means to take refuge.
---------
Hi Marie,
That's not a fair assessment of what I've done. Go back and look at the four summaries of the Dhamma as presented in the text. What is their context? Your idea to draw God into the discussion is your idea. You can pretend that you've supported this with texts, but that's not what you've done.tiltbillings wrote:I have presented a textually supported argument. You have done no more than gainsay.
Hmmmm ... there seems to be a whole lot of atta in your anatta.tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha seemed to have thought otherwise.
The Buddha did not advise that we take refuge in kamma. The quotes that you offer need to have their appropriate context and understanding. You said, "Kamma is our refuge." To me that appears to be a statement frought with misunderstanding about what it means to take refuge.
---------
Hi Marie,
You still have to watch out for that stubborn self-identity-view with regard to right effort. You may find it helpful to think in terms of nutriment. What are you feeding this mass of suffering? Also remember that right effort is one of eight spokes in the wheel. Underlying it all is an understanding of anatta.imagemarie wrote:i'm sorry, but what then of "right effort"? That we are able to "(1)prevent unwholesome states of mind from arising,(2) to get rid of
unwholesome states that have already arisen, (3) to produce, to cause to arise, good and wholesome states of mind
not yet arisen, (4) to develop and bring to perfection the good and wholesome states of mind already present".
Is this "energetic will" ( Right Effort - Walpola Rahula), not kamma? And does it not provide a "refuge" then?
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
One could say this, and it's perfectly sound:
I take refuge in the Buddha's teachings on kamma.
Tilt, I'm thinking over what you wrote. Will respond after having chewed on it...
I take refuge in the Buddha's teachings on kamma.
Tilt, I'm thinking over what you wrote. Will respond after having chewed on it...
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Oye, this is sort of problematic. It's true that it's our intention, choice, and action when we go for refuge. Absolutely, that's kamma.It is our choice to go for refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, and this is an ongoing - moment to moment - thing as we, by our choices, cultivate the precepts, mindfulness, and Right View. Kamma is not a mechanical process, as the I gave shows, which is why we can in time step out of its hold.
But here we're claiming that it's our own choices in which we seek refuge rather than the teachings. But the teachings do exist outside of our own action. So the triple gem remains, despite our relationship to it. We should pursue the path as you said, and rejoice in our merits and wholesome activities, but not literally go to them for refuge. If we look to our own selves, no matter how wholesome our activities are, I think that's misguided. If nothing else, it would certainly extend our time in samsara!
So I think it's still the Buddha Dhamma and Sangha that are proper objects of refuge. Regardless of our relationship to them at any given moment.
What do you think?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
You have not shown otherwise.Jechbi wrote:Hi Tilt,That's not a fair assessment of what I've done.tiltbillings wrote:I have presented a textually supported argument. You have done no more than gainsay.
Again, you are doing nothing more than gainsaying. In context of the passage and in broader context of the suttas, reading abh-issaro in terms of a god - a supreme protector - is not out of context. Keeping in mind that the Buddha has addressed god- issara - notions quite directly, what would be the supreme protector of the world? Not a king, not dad, not mom. In life there is no supreme protector to appeal to. The immediate and broader textual context supports my reading.Go back and look at the four summaries of the Dhamma as presented in the text. What is their context? Your idea to draw God into the discussion is your idea. You can pretend that you've supported this with texts, but that's not what you've done.
There is no argument from you here; just variations of gainsaying.Hmmmm ... there seems to be a whole lot of atta in your anatta.tiltbillings wrote:The Buddha seemed to have thought otherwise.
And I have supplied textual context for what I have said. You have offered nothing.The Buddha did not advise that we take refuge in kamma. The quotes that you offer need to have their appropriate context and understanding. You said, "Kamma is our refuge." To me that appears to be a statement frought with misunderstanding about what it means to take refuge.
---------
Cultivating, by choice, Right View, the precepts, bhavana does not necessitate cultivating a stubborn self-identity-view. The reality also is, however, that until we awaken we are stuck with a self-view, which is why we have the precepts, which is why we have Right View and all the practices that help us see through the self. We cannot will the self away. It comes to an end with insight. Following the Buddha’s path - which is an ongoing moment to moment process of choice - is a way of freeing ourselves from the bondage of the delusion of self. In this process we keep the self in check with the precepts, with mindfulness, with Right View.J wrote:Hi Marie,You still have to watch out for that stubborn self-identity-view with regard to right effort.imagemarie wrote:i'm sorry, but what then of "right effort"? That we are able to "(1)prevent unwholesome states of mind from arising,(2) to get rid of
unwholesome states that have already arisen, (3) to produce, to cause to arise, good and wholesome states of mind
not yet arisen, (4) to develop and bring to perfection the good and wholesome states of mind already present".
Is this "energetic will" ( Right Effort - Walpola Rahula), not kamma? And does it not provide a "refuge" then?
The there is nothing in what she said that is not feeds the idea of self.You may find it helpful to think in terms of nutriment. What are you feeding this mass of suffering? Also remember that right effort is one of eight spokes in the wheel. Underlying it all is an understanding of anatta.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Hi Tilt,
What of a being who has taken birth in the animal realm? Or the formless realm?
Is the triple gem still an object of refuge, or the animal's kamma? Remember that there are many, many beings other than those in the human realm.
What of a being who has taken birth in the animal realm? Or the formless realm?
Is the triple gem still an object of refuge, or the animal's kamma? Remember that there are many, many beings other than those in the human realm.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Okay.Ngawang Drolma wrote:Oye, this is sort of problematic. It's true that it's our intention, choice, and action when we go for refuge. Absolutely, that's kamma.It is our choice to go for refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, and this is an ongoing - moment to moment - thing as we, by our choices, cultivate the precepts, mindfulness, and Right View. Kamma is not a mechanical process, as the I gave shows, which is why we can in time step out of its hold.
If you pay attention to what I have written, the choices are grounded in the teachings. I have said nothing other than that.But here we're claiming that it's our own choices in which we seek refuge rather than the teachings.
In one sense, but they only have real meaning when they are put into action by our choices. It is what brings them truly alive, figuratively speaking.But the teachings do exist outside of our own action.
Where does it remain? In each moment we choose to follow the teachings, we are going for refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.So the triple gem remains, despite our relationship to it.
Except as the teachings unfold in our lives, that is the Triple Gem manifest. I am not saying we do not bow before a Buddha-rupa, honor the monastic Sangha, listen to the teachings, while we choose to do that, we make all of that alive in our lives by the choices we make in each moment. And it is only by the choices we make that the path is followed, manifest, and completed.We should pursue the path as you said, and rejoice in our merits and wholesome activities, but not literally go to them for refuge.
The question is: To whom do we look when following the path laid out for us?If we look to our own selves, no matter how wholesome our activities are, I think that's misguided. If nothing else, it would certainly extend our time in samsara!
Sure. I have not said anything otherwise than what the Buddha said.So I think it's still the Buddha Dhamma and Sangha that are proper objects of refuge. Regardless of our relationship to them at any given moment.
The above.What do you think?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
See if the above msg answers those questions.Ngawang Drolma wrote:Hi Tilt,
What of a being who has taken birth in the animal realm? Or the formless realm?
Is the triple gem still an object of refuge, or the animal's kamma? Remember that there are many, many beings other than those in the human realm.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Hi Tilt,
You've given some good responses, I'll have to think it over.
It's kind of complex, for me. I know you're not denying that in a conventional sense the triple gem exists.
But I understand what you are saying, that it is through us that he teachings are manifested and alive.
Will return to this...
Thanks, good conversation!
Best,
Drolma
You've given some good responses, I'll have to think it over.
It's kind of complex, for me. I know you're not denying that in a conventional sense the triple gem exists.
But I understand what you are saying, that it is through us that he teachings are manifested and alive.
Will return to this...
Thanks, good conversation!
Best,
Drolma
- Ngawang Drolma.
- Posts: 805
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Hi again Tilt,
I know that you have 20+ years of practice and study under your belt.
It's possible that you're explaining something that I can't see now, with my rather concrete thinking.
Kindly,
Drolma
I know that you have 20+ years of practice and study under your belt.
It's possible that you're explaining something that I can't see now, with my rather concrete thinking.
Kindly,
Drolma
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Hi Tilt,
Once again we have differing perceptions of what I did, and what you did, in our respective posts.
From my perspective, the four summaries of Dhamma as presented in the text are profound, and to assert that one of the summaries of Dhamma is the proposition that there is no God strikes me as a woeful oversimplification. Looking at the text itself, and looking at the overall context, I don't see this alleged abnegation of the God concept present anywhere in the text. It is absent. You may regard this as gainsaying, but basically all you're doing is saying that, no, you're correct that an abnegation of the God concept is present in the text. So it's basically two different interpretations. I really don't think the text is about God. You really think it is about God.
It seems to me the burden is on you to show that this text can only be interpreted as referring to God, and my assessment is that you have not met this burden. Again, you may regard this as gainsaying.
As you wrote earlier, God is an irrelevant idea in the Buddhadhamma. So why then do you imagine the abnegation of the God concept would be one of the summaries of Dhamma? Why would the Buddha put such great emphasis on a concept that is irrelevant?
With regard to your repeated contention that I have offered nothing, there is nothing I can say about that. It has not been my intent to offer nothing to this discussion, but if there is nothing here for you to take away, nothing here for you to think about or to consider, nothing here of possible benefit to you, then that's the reality as you see it, and there's nothing I can do about it.
Metta
Once again we have differing perceptions of what I did, and what you did, in our respective posts.
From my perspective, the four summaries of Dhamma as presented in the text are profound, and to assert that one of the summaries of Dhamma is the proposition that there is no God strikes me as a woeful oversimplification. Looking at the text itself, and looking at the overall context, I don't see this alleged abnegation of the God concept present anywhere in the text. It is absent. You may regard this as gainsaying, but basically all you're doing is saying that, no, you're correct that an abnegation of the God concept is present in the text. So it's basically two different interpretations. I really don't think the text is about God. You really think it is about God.
It seems to me the burden is on you to show that this text can only be interpreted as referring to God, and my assessment is that you have not met this burden. Again, you may regard this as gainsaying.
As you wrote earlier, God is an irrelevant idea in the Buddhadhamma. So why then do you imagine the abnegation of the God concept would be one of the summaries of Dhamma? Why would the Buddha put such great emphasis on a concept that is irrelevant?
With regard to your repeated contention that I have offered nothing, there is nothing I can say about that. It has not been my intent to offer nothing to this discussion, but if there is nothing here for you to take away, nothing here for you to think about or to consider, nothing here of possible benefit to you, then that's the reality as you see it, and there's nothing I can do about it.
Metta
Rain soddens what is kept wrapped up,
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
But never soddens what is open;
Uncover, then, what is concealed,
Lest it be soddened by the rain.
- appicchato
- Posts: 1602
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:47 am
- Location: Bridge on the River Kwae
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
tiltbillings wrote:If it is not by our own actions, by our own choices, by own deeds to follow the Eightfold path, who is going to do it for us? God? Some bodhisattva?appicchato wrote:tiltbillings wrote:Kamma is not our refuge?
Mmm, no...if this were true we'd be in a lot more trouble than we already are...
Well, I can't argue with the text (MN II 68), and there (unambiguously) it is...I stand corrected, and thank you...and no, it's not (a) God or bodhisattva, but ourselves who make the choices we live (and die) by...(Dhammapada 1)...but you knew that...
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
That does not tell us anything other than what I said strikes you as a woeful oversimplification.Jechbi wrote:
From my perspective, the four summaries of Dhamma as presented in the text are profound, and to assert that one of the summaries of Dhamma is the proposition that there is no God strikes me as a woeful oversimplification.
Looking at the text itself, and looking at the overall context, I don't see this alleged abnegation of the God concept present anywhere in the text.
Looking at the text itself, we see that Ven Ratthapala is addressing laity and he is relating what he heard of the Dhamma as a lay person. Now, I asked you: “Keeping in mind that the Buddha has addressed god- issara - notions quite directly, what would be the supreme [abhi] protector [issaro] of the world?” You did not address this question.
The word issara could have been used in the text, which might imply a god notion or a maybe a worldly ruler, but abhi-issaro was used, which is far more emphatic. So, tell us what would be the supreme [abhi] protector [issaro] of the world? Also, do not forget that theism in various forms was not at all foreign to the Buddha’s milieu.
In negating an abhi- [higher, supreme] protector of the world, what is being negated? Maybe the idea that something, or someone, can protect one from the inevitabilities of life? The most potent protector would be a god, if such a thing existed.
I have presented textual support and an actual argument for my position.You may regard this as gainsaying, but basically all you're doing is saying that, no, you're correct that an abnegation of the God concept is present in the text.
Who knows what your assessment is based upon. It is not something you shared with us. I certainly could be wrong, but at least I gave a careful textual contextualization in an attempt to support my position.It seems to me the burden is on you to show that this text can only be interpreted as referring to God, and my assessment is that you have not met this burden. Again, you may regard this as gainsaying.
The Buddha addressed the idea of god more than once in the suttas. The idea of a god as a supreme protector of the world is a potent idea. Abhi-issaro is a powerful way of making a point that there is no thing, no one, no force outside us that can protect us.As you wrote earlier, God is an irrelevant idea in the Buddhadhamma. So why then do you imagine the abnegation of the God concept would be one of the summaries of Dhamma? Why would the Buddha put such great emphasis on a concept that is irrelevant?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
- imagemarie
- Posts: 420
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:35 pm
Re: The universe is without a refuge, without a Supreme God.
Cultivating, by choice, Right View, the precepts, bhavana does not necessitate cultivating a stubborn self-identity-view
From Wings to Awakening..Thanissaro Bhikkhu
"In his effort to master kamma in such a way as to bring kamma to an end, the Buddha discovered that he had to abandon the contexts of personal narrative and cosmology in which the issue of kamma first presented itself. Both these forms of understanding deal in categories of being and non-being, self and others, but the Buddha found that it was impossible to bring kamma to an end if one thought in such terms. For example, narrative and cosmological modes of thinking would lead one to ask whether the agent who performed an act of kamma was the same as the person experiencing the result, someone else, both, or neither.In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes". (my emphasis)