Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Brane

About beginning of the mind, consciousness and karma

Recommended Posts

Tashi Delek!

 

I woud like to put you a two questions and ask you for answers:

 

At the principle of the Karma all of our acts, thinking and words although done negative or positive to the others sentient beings

will come back in that or another optios, forms in our life. What and how we are "sowed and cultivated" in our own life and how we influented and worked on an enviorment and with the other sentient beings around us we will reap, sooner or later.

How is it possible that people who reap fruits of the good karma planty, acts also planty in a way where the results is bad consequences for them for other people and etc. It is logically that in the past lifes are collected a lot of good merits and now come the moment of pay day for them. But it is happening what I wrote yet, that those people in present life done and do a lot of negative acts, how it is possible this? It is seems to me contradictory or understandable that they acting negative now-in present life, or in one of the lifes- because before they efforted maybe eons of years that they collecting merits and come to the relative very high state of mind and that good acts might (must be) stay in mind or consciousness of the people. Men with mind like this could say, that we dare not thinking something about what is conecting with the bad acting, what even done some bad act. But the fact is...

 

The second question is:

 

Can you tell me something about the begining of the consciousness?A begining consciousness of the all sentien beings? On a university profesor taught me and also when I read books about Budhism that the Buda do not answered on a question about the begining of the consciousness. On the other hand I also read and heard that Buda spoken about this topic and that he said that is very complicated to understand this.I heard a lot of time of the diferent people that this thema is not important for our every day life, thinking and acting but I thing that is very important.

 

Thak you for your answers, Brane :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ani.Chödrön

Tashi Delek!

 

How is it possible that people who reap fruits of the good karma (…) and do a lot of negative acts

 

We are living somewhere between heaven and hell and our minds reflect both. Unfortunately when we are inspired by good teachings or a good person and generate good thoughts this does not automatically mean that from now on all our thoughts will be beneficial. Unfortunately there is no such thing a constant evolution in one direction. But fortunately the opposite is not true either – a stream of negative thoughts could be stopped or redirected in a better direction.

 

We are a mixture of good and bad even when we see just one side – we don’t really know our own mind and we do not follow the roller-coaster of its continuous changes. So we don’t really control our mind (as we can notice in shine practice. :wink: ). We can see in our everyday life how in spite of our effort to be good person and live for the good of the others, bursts of negativities are still interrupting our path.

 

I see the macro perspective of many lives in a similar way as micro perspective of many moments. It takes long time before we really stabilise our mind. Before realisation of Bodhicitta I wouldn’t really on the lasting goodness – who knows what we have been creating in eons and eons of past lives. :lol:

 

Besides, usually we don't see our life as a net of thousand choices, so we don't take full responsibility for the consequences, but instead act by inertia and laziness. This can easily lead us to negativities. :?

 

Or from another perspective: even a hell being surely has something in his stream of consciousness that can help him to climb out of this suffering state. We need a clear awareness, a very deep motivation and a lot of perseverance to reach the Liberation and help the others to reach it too. But it is by no doubt possible. :D

 

Can you tell me something about the begining of the consciousness?

 

Everything that we are experiencing is based on the law of cause and effect. If you search for a cause for the present moment you come to a moment before. That moment has a cause in a moment before it. And so on. This life has a cause in the previous life. And so on. This eon in the previous one… There is no moment in time for which one could claim: there was no previous cause for it. (If God created everything, who created God?) This is one perspective, dealing with conventional reality in a logical way.

 

Another perspective is the Ultimate One: the view of Emptiness – there is no such thing as time, time is only a concept. How to combine both views is indeed a complicated – only a Buddha can perceive both at the same time.

 

but I thing that is very important.

 

Why? Our momentarily state of mind is a result of the many influences of this day / this week / this month / year / life… and myriads of lives before. Knowing them does not really help me to become a good and wise person. What helps me is following the advices and practices of the ones who are truly and lastingly Good and Wise. Even a simple person who cannot follow the complicated philosophical excurses can do it. ;-F

 

All the very best,

chödrön

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

There is no moment in time for which one could claim: there was no previous cause for it. (If God created everything, who created God?) This is one perspective, dealing with conventional reality in a logical way.

 

The difference between christian and buddhist views seems to be rooted in seeing origin of

(conventional) reality in an act of supreme Creator or law of cause and effect. But if one analyses the conventional reality accepting the creation as its cause, one is almost forced to end up with a "perfect supreme Creator", who is the cause of everything and has no cause for itself. Wasn't this proof invented by Thomas Aquinas? Here is an excerpt of his philosophy taken from here.

 

"The Summa consists of three parts. Part i. treats of God, who is the " first cause, himself uncaused " (primum movens immobile) and as such existent only in act (actu), that is pure actuality without potentiality and, therefore, without corporeality. His essence is actus purus et perfectus. This follows from the fivefold proof for the existence of God; namely, there must be a first mover, unmoved, a first cause in the chain of causes, an absolutely necessary being, an absolutely perfect being, and a rational designer."

 

As buddhists we of course believe in the law of cause and effect, so this proof is not quoted to convince anyone in the opposite :lol:. And I am sure that Brane knows much more about this theme, so please correct me if I am wrong :oops:.

 

Best regards,

 

Draftsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is logically that in the past lifes are collected a lot of good merits and now come the moment of pay day for them. But it is happening what I wrote yet, that those people in present life done and do a lot of negative acts, how it is possible this? It is seems to me contradictory or understandable that they acting negative now-in present life, or in one of the lifes- because before they efforted maybe eons of years that they collecting merits and come to the relative very high state of mind and  that good acts might (must be) stay in mind or consciousness of the people.

I think the main problem is our ignorance and the wrong views we have. We don't understand why we have a certain type of life with its specific conditions. When we get another body, we "forget" about the previous life. We don't know about karma - eventhough people beleive that "you get what you give" they don't believe 100% that each small act of our body, speech and mind has its own causes and effects, they see it in a much broader sense - "when they asked me for help, I helped them, so now when I am in trouble, they are helping me". Our minds are quite unperceptive to the subtlety of the causes we are creating.

 

If one is born in very good conditions (as a millionare, for example) it is a result of good karma in the past, such as generosity. I am guessing here: in the past they could have little, but they gave away everything they had to their friends, relatives etc... Now, they are flooded with wealth. It's easier to be non-attached to normal-size property than great wealth, because you see how dependent you are on others. Now, there's no reason to share, you can enjoy your life beyond your wildest dreams, and as a by-product develop some negative attitudes based on pride, anger, jealousy and engage in nonvirtuous actions. This may be one point.

 

On the other hand there are millionares who are incredibly generous, patient and of great service to others (like Queen Noor of Jordan), relying on most Compassionate God and so on.

 

There is a difference between good karma and merit. Merit implies that you want your good deed to bring about, again and again, conditions in which you will be able to help even more. Good deeds can be done with a "worldly" attitude: I am glad that I give, but that also makes them my debtor (in one way or another). So, there is a difference. This could explain the different "types" of millionares, for example.

 

I heard a lot of time of the diferent people that this thema is not important for our every day life, thinking and acting but I thing that is very important.

The Buddha was practical. He taught methods that help us free ourselves completely, if we put them into practice. I think there's no greater gift than that. :)

 

All the best,

Khyenrab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

Ani Chodron, Khyenrab and draftsman, firstly I woud like to thank you for your effort and work that you put in thinking and words into the answers.

 

Before I started with countinuation of prewius topic, I woud like to say you-because of misunderstandigs which can be appers of the different reasons-that I am just that kind of human being who want to learning, working, listening, curiositing...who want to put effort and will in that way to be a better and more educated person like I am now, who could be able to help others now and in the future. And this palet include also answering on a different questions that is maybe not important, nonsensical. Ok?

 

Ani Chodron wrote: If God created everything, who created God?

Draftsman wrote:Was not this proof invented by Thomas Aquinas?...

 

This philosophy and theology-about creating everything and who create God-were very intensively done in the Middle Age, more exactly in the 13 century-when different theologists on a rationaly way disscused about God, eshatology, creating everything and God etc. They disscused for an example how many Angels could seat on a tip of the needle.But we must now something; theologists are used also an old Greec philosophy when formed a particular parts of theology, specially Thomas Aquinas. This is mean that origin idea about chain creating of everythin and God and who created God, is exactly idea of Aristoteles. Aquinas just borrowed and upgraded Aristoteles idea.

We must now also that Aquinas a few mounts to his death fallen in a deep silent. When he passed it said:" All my philosphy and theology, everything what I wrote, looks like a tresh empty straw."

 

Theologists nowadays teach that God is uncreated creator. He exist from ever and ever. He is absolutely unconditioned, unlimited, Love...Mysticists also use this expression besides others for description of the God. Aquinas model is the just one of the historical models description of God.

 

My question was not about Thomas Aquinas philosophy either who create God. You very heelped me with the answers you made but maybe I was not very clear with the asking of my question about begining of counsciousness. I will ask in other form:

Why I am exist-in material form; my body and in ontological form; my consciousness-namely, it could be that I not be exist neither material nor ontological form?

 

With best regards, Brane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

I will ask in other form:

Why I am exist-in material form; my body and in ontological form; my consciousness-namely, it could be that I not be exist neither material nor ontological form?

I am not sure I understood the question above correctly, but I will try to answer considering your first post. Hopefully, the answer will be of some use to you. As I see it, we have to differentiate between intellectual and experiental understanding. Intellectual understanding about who we are, where do we come from and where are we suppose to go, is always speculation, until it is supported by experience i.e. some kind of realizations. So, intellectual explanation obviously represents a field prone to manipulation, especially if promising the good stuff after death :lol: .

 

Buddhism is here perhaps an exception. It satisfies with the answer that the "law of cause and effect is in action since beginningless time", not really bothering with the metaphysical backround of its origin. This is obviously fuelled by belief that the knowledge about the origin of Samsara (i.e. beginning of our suffering) wouldn't really contribute to individual's Liberation, or would perhaps even hinder it. And the path to Liberation seems to be the main focus of Buddhism. If I remember correctly, Buddha Sakyamuni once said, that a human is like a soon-to-be-born chicken, waiting to crack his shell. So instead of speculating about what will one see after the birth, one should rather focus on cracking the shell. Anyhow, it is said that once Enlightened, one will see "the whole picture." Since Enlightenment can be achieved in this very lifetime, we are obviously still in contention to find out about it :lol: .

 

Best regards,

 

Draftsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why I am exist-in material form; my body and in ontological form; my consciousness-namely, it could be that I not be exist neither material nor ontological form?

 

Tashi Delek,

 

That's a question about emptiness I believe... Our bodies are not us, they are vessels which our minds have created under the illusion of karma... These bodies are born, grow old, die and decay, but the ming goes on and on and on, constantly changing from one moment to the next...

 

Another way to look at it is, if all things really existed from their own side, and not as projections of the mind onto forms, then we wouldn't have to learn anything... For example, when confronted with the letter "A", we would instinctively know that this is "A", because "A" would in a way "project itself" onto us. But when we are kids beginning to learn how to read and write, and the teacher points to the letter "A" on the board asking us "what is it?", all that we see is a vague shape made of /, - and , but it means absolutely nothing to us, "A" is simply not there!

 

The teacher then makes "A" appear by telling us "this is "A", and then we are like "Oh yeah, right, this is "A"" and we start believing that on the side of "A" there is an actual "A" existing, when actually, what just happened is that our minds have projected the label onto the form, and that's all there is! But in our ignorance we start believing that our projections exist in themselves outside of us, so then there is "us" and "the things outside of us", therefore duality is born, therefore by reacting to things wich are in fact us but believing they are them :lol:, we create karma, desire, attachment, aversion, wrath, etc. (through body, speech, mind) and causes for future rebirths within samsara...

 

So, if on the side of things there is nothing, why would there actually be something on the side of us? In Buddhism we speak of the 5 aggregates that make up a human being: "senses, sensations, perceptions, mental formation, consciouness". So where is the "I" that actually perceives the things in all that? l-) l-)

 

If the "I" were any one of these 5 aggregates, then it would be separated from the other 4, disconnected! But we know it is not the case... We also know that the "I" is not these fives aggregates all at once, otherwise there would be five distinct "I's", but instinctively we feel there is only one "I". So if "I" is neither any one of these 5 aggregates, nor all of them at once, then we can conclude that it is simply not there, just like everything else, it doesn't exist in itself, "I" is just a label that the mind projects onto this collection of aggregates.

 

more here

 

And that's why some great buddhist masters have compared samsaric life to a dead wooden logg soaked with water floating on a river... I take it the the logg is the body, empty in itself, the water and the river, karma.

 

Eventually, just like you say, "it could be that I not be exist neither material nor ontological form"... But be careful :wink: . Buddhism doesn't say that nothing exists, rather it says that things exist relatively as labels projected by mind onto what it perceives through the senses, mind ultimately being empty. This is in order not to fall into the extremes of "nihilism" or "eternalism". That's one of the 2 pillars of the path to Buddhahood: Ultimate Wisdom. The other and most important one being, Ultimate Compassion.

 

Material for l-) :)

 

Om Mani Padme Houng

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, by going a little further, we have:

 

- shapes, sounds, smells, sensations and tastes, which wouldn't be perceived if it weren't for our 5 senses,

 

and then we have:

 

- mind, which projects labels and meanings onto these perceptions...

 

So if we really think deeply about it, the senses still being there only because mind has created them through ignorance, all we end up with is ignorant mind labeling itself, all we have is mind perceiving mind without yet having realized it! Wouldn't you agree? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek!

 

Frederic, and also Draftsman, thank you very much for your knowledge and thinking that you gave me into the answers. Once more new topic, knowledge and thinking for a develop my mind. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

I'd like to join your discussion about the beginning of the mind and consciousness.

 

Refering to Frederic's parable:

And that's why some great buddhist masters have compared samsaric life to a dead wooden logg soaked with water floating on a river... I take it the the logg is the body, empty in itself, the water and the river, karma.

 

I would like to know what was before the wooden logg fell into the river? What 'constituted' that tree at that piont of being outside the water?

 

Was there a pre-samsaric period and what caused that 'we' fell into it?

 

Would appreciate your thougts on it.

Thanks and all the best! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Lillipooh,

 

In Buddhism it is said that the mind is beginingless, that we have lived countless lives before this one. Buddha Shakyamouni never told us about the "origin", believing he said that if he did reveil it to us, this would hinder us more than it would help us in our way towards enlightenment. We probably just couldn't seize it with our limited understanding, or it probably cannot be expressed with words... So He "just" showed us what we should do in order to liberate ourselves! Knowing what was "before" is not important for us in order to reach enlightenment, and we will seize the whole picture once we become buddhas! :) Although if there was such a thing as a presamsaric era, desires for wordly pleasures probably caused us to fall into it... don't hesitate to correct if this is wrong, or add to it if you have other relevant elements...

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although if there was such a thing as a presamsaric era, desires for wordly pleasures probably caused us to fall into it... don't hesitate to correct if this is wrong, or add to it if you have other relevant elements...Thanks

 

Hello Frederic,

 

As you explainet it , we don'nt have much information on pre-samsaric life... it is so far away, we lost memory of it!...:D

For the few I know, His Holiness wrote that because the "consciousness" had thoughts, it believed there was another entity (thinking). It could not recognize its own mere mental projections. For this reason, it created a "gap" and the belief in a" and a you", 2 separated entities, exterior and interior.

All the dualistic way of thinking is based on an error, an illusion, on something which does not exist. It seems we have 2 consciousnesses: one ordinary, limitated because not knowing its true nature, and the primordial one which has been always here, like the sky behind the clouds.

 

Kalu Rinpoche explained that before being humans, we were gods who could fly in the space, have no need of light (their body was luminous), nor gross food (they drunk some nectar) and lived very long periods of time.

Some day, the gods begun to go down on earth and liked to stay here till coming back to god realm for some nectar. Then by laziness, they begun to think they were tired to travel, and stayed longer on earth: but they had to eat. Taking gross ailments such as "earth" to start...so their bodies transformed in gross body etc....and the wheel turned.

 

best regards :)

 

Ani Chönyi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hoila frederic and Chönyi,

thanks for your thoughts.. Just in a reflection to Frederic:

 

>Although if there was such a thing as a presamsaric era, desires for >wordly pleasures probably caused us to fall into it...

 

Hmm, if we were in the Buddhahood (to which we aspire to return sometime) in this presamsaric 'era' then I can't understand what on earth could have attract a Buddha nature to become worldly and to de-enlight itself?!

 

Why would a pure mind become attracted to something limited or less pure? A Buddha doesn't care about the pleasures. Or am I wrong? ;)

 

(of course, we're speaking here about Buddha state as if we'd know what's like, but still it's good to think about it..)

 

Cheers,

 

Lipooh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good evening Lillipooh,

 

Are you right or wrong, I couldn't tell you for sure as I have never been a Buddha myself yet! But I would say you're right! :) But once you get enlightened, there is no going back! Therefore we have never been enlightened before! Never have we been Buddhas, although forever have we carried the Buddha "seed" within us... Yet it is too covered by ignorance for us to see it :( And so Buddha Shakyamouni taught us the way to let go of our ignorance so that one day our true nature will arise. Compare ignorance to clouds... You see, it does not really exist, you cannot grab it (although you might try and try and try again and again and again...ok I stop) and one day, with the right efforts, the clouds will go away and the sun will shine once and for all o:)

 

For details on samsaric cycle, click on the Encyclopedia and search for the term Kalpa.

 

May we all reach enlightenment this very second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

I'd like to join your discussion about the beginning of the mind and consciousness.

 

Refering to Frederic's parable:

And that's why some great buddhist masters have compared samsaric life to a dead wooden logg soaked with water floating on a river... I take it the the logg is the body, empty in itself, the water and the river, karma.

 

I would like to know what was before the wooden logg fell into the river? What 'constituted' that tree at that piont of being outside the water? (/quote)

 

Was there a pre-samsaric period and what caused that 'we' fell into it? (/quote)

 

Would appreciate your thougts on it.  

Thanks and all the best! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello,

 

I'd like to join your discussion about the beginning of the mind and consciousness.

 

Refering to Frederic's parable:

And that's why some great buddhist masters have compared samsaric life to a dead wooden logg soaked with water floating on a river... I take it the the logg is the body, empty in itself, the water and the river, karm

 

I would like to know what was before the wooden logg fell into the river? What 'constituted' that tree at that piont of being outside the water? quote

 

Was there a pre-samsaric period and what caused that 'we' fell into it? quote

 

Would appreciate your thougts on it.  

Thanks and all the best! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

Lillipooh asked: I would like to know what was before the wooden logg fell into the river? What 'constituted' that tree at that point of being outside the water?

Was there a pre-samsaric period and what caused that 'we' fell into it?

 

Do you have possibility to get a book of Dalailamas words? Spiritual message for today and tomorrow, selection done Gilles Van Grasdorff. The book is translated into the Slovenian language at the book Paroles des Dalai- Lamas, Editions Ramsay, Paris, 1996.

On a page 96 you can find a quotation on your question written by his Hollines Dalai Lama. If you have no possibility to find or get a book then I can borrow you.

 

All the very best,

Brane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was there a pre-samsaric period and what caused that 'we' fell into it?

 

Dilgo Kyentse Rinpoche says in " The treasure of the heart of enlightened beings" (Patrul' Rinpoche's commentary), that the true begining of the samsara is the ignorance of the emptiness of the mind".

 

Erratic thoughts (without any control) create the cycle of existences. Out of any analysis, they keep their illusory reality, perpetuating the samsara with more and more strength.

 

This emptiness with its inherent compassion is recognized when the consciousness free from the influence of the thoughts, awakes at the clear consciousnesss ot the present moment.

 

Patrul Rinpoche said that is the "error clinging to the reality of the mental perceptions".

 

We must develop mental quietness and analytical meditation on the true nature of existence. Both are necessary to perform the liberation of the mind from ignorance and its effect the cycle of conditionned non-wished rebirths pervaded by suffering.

 

 

Ani Chönyi :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek,

 

I have read your interesting discussion.

There is one question I have:

What is the difference between mind and consciousness?

 

All the best

Kama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek, Kama.

 

What is the difference between mind and consciousness?

 

Mind and mental factors (mind states) compose the consciousness. Yet, in some books the idea of the mind reffers to the mind with the mental factors all together. There are also several aspects of the mind, which should be taken into the consideration (conceptual/non-conceptual, gross/subtle, positive/negative/neutral, uncontrived/contrived, relative/ultimate...I guess this is it).

 

N.B.: If I may, I would suggest you to read one of the topics "Where is death", where mind and consciousness were discussed recently.

 

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek :)

 

From my knowledge of Buddhism, there is only a relative difference between mind and consciousness... Consciousness is one of the 5 aggregates that compose a sentient being (5 senses, sensations, perceptions, mental formation, consciousness).

 

Ignorant mind which grasps at independent existence, which has been believing forever that its thoughts, emotions, etc, exist outside of itself, thus reflects its karma in one of the 6 realms of samsara. By reflecting its karma in the human realm, it shapes into a human body (5 senses) which will have sensations, thus developping perceptions, creating mental formations and hence consciousness...

 

From this perspective, consciousness is a creation of the ignorant mind.

 

In order for the mind to stop grasping at the illusion and reflecting itself (being "reborn"...), a human being has to engage with full heart and dedication into meditation, purification practices and accumulation of merits, so that when the time of death comes, as all the gross perceptions have faded away and the clear light experience manifests, the mind can be stabilized in it long enough and recognize that "THIS" is its true nature, instead of not recognizing it or being "scared" of it and fleeing away from it, like it has been doing forever, perpetuating the never-ending cycle of samsara... Yet, if it does recognize it, it becomes free from samsaric illusions...

 

Best regards :)

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would even add that mind comes to existence only because it believes that its thoughts and emotions exist outside of itself... Hence the dualism that derives, mind observing its thoughts and emotions and believing that they exist outside of itself, and reacting to them, when in fact it is itself... Maybe in a way, mind likes to believe that it exists, otherwise why would it still "be there" after countless lives? At the moment of death, when mind sees its true nature, it probably simply refuses to admit that it is its true nature, because in a way, it is accustomed to "existing", it wants to go on "existing", selfishly?

 

Buddhists masters teach us renonciation, yet they don't just teach us to stop grasping at the pleasures of relative existence! Rather, and more profoundly, they tell us that if we truly want to stop suffering for good, we must stop grasping at relative existence, we must stop grasping at our belief in duality... Not an easy task!

 

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek, frederic. :)

 

... Maybe in a way, mind likes to believe that it exists, otherwise why would it still "be there" after countless lives?

 

The mind does not exist as it appears to. From where does the appearing mind get the knowledge that there is the true existence of the mind if not within itself?

 

Best regards,

Simona

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tashi Delek Simona,

 

From where does the appearing mind get the knowledge that there is the true existence of the mind if not within itself?

 

I wouldn't call it a knowledge, as it is rather ignorance, an illusion that is thought by its creator to exist concretely and independently outside of it... Otherwise, that's right, it is all within itself (the "creator"), which does not even truly exist if we take away its ignorance l-)

 

Frederic :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...