Monday, April 12, 2010

First there is a Mountain, then there is No Mountain, then there is…

A couple posts back, I quoted the Dharmapada and asked if anyone actually believed that we create the world with our thoughts. I was surprised when the only response was a cleaver “set up” from Kaishin, whereby he introduced a scenario where he would be struck in the head by a meteorite. Was this meteorite his doing? Or was being struck in the head just his Karma for being such a smart-aleck?

But since that time this whole issue has arisen under a completely different posting and under another topic, Karma. Harry and I have had some wonderful commentary bouncing back and forth and I realized that this is just too heady of a subject to not be resurrected.

According to the Dharmapada the Buddha stated:

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”

Did the Buddha actually mean that we create the world with our thoughts? Or was he just speaking metaphorically? Do our thoughts actually manifest physically in the world? Even those we do not act upon? What about volition? Can we plead not guilty, just because we meant no harm? And what does this have to do with Karma?

24 comments:

  1. Hi Miles,

    “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”

    Did the Buddha actually mean that we create the world with our thoughts?


    I think he did, but this is only one perspective on it (i.e. from the perspective of thinking); we can act, and effectively 'make the world' without thinking too. Also, it would be worth considering and clarifying what the Buddha meant by 'thought'/thinking: If we are just letting thoughts come and go without getting involved in them (as in zazen etc) then can we really be said to be engaged in the act of 'thinking' even though thought is present? This raises the important question as to whether we are our thoughts at all, or if we only 'become' our thoughts, so to speak, when we act on them/identify with them. Although 'making ourselves by thinking' seems unavoidable we can come to see (through zazen/practice) that it is actually a choice: We do it willfully, as a volitional act.

    Do our thoughts actually manifest physically in the world? Even those we do not act upon?

    It seems to me that we can say that thoughts that we do not act on do indeed have a physical basis (i.e. the activity of our brain cells), but how often do we think 'oh, that's just my braincells again'?... I think we tend to accept our thoughts as real, and as ourselves, and that there is a problem there.

    What about volition? Can we plead not guilty, just because we meant no harm? And what does this have to do with Karma?

    It seems fair enough to plead 'not guilty' if we truly meant no harm, or if we didn't know we were doing wrong. This is recognised in criminal law where establishing a motive and intent is very important in prosecuting an accused person.

    Think of all those millions of folks who were using spray cans (CFC gases) before we knew that they were damaging the O-zone layer; were they doing wrong at that time? We can say that that they were retrospectively, but the time when a substantial difference could be made by doing 'right' or 'wrong' is gone. 'Could have' seems to be of very limited use really if we look at right and wrong from the perspective of our own conduct right now (which is the only time/place where we can actually change it).

    I think we have different ideas about karma; I don't see karma as some universal law of cause and effect, I see it as a mental aspect of individual humans which describes the diversity of human personality and conduct. Things are all interconnected through various causal laws, but karma describes just the area of intentional human action within this. So, if a person is truly happy that they have not done wrong then, karmically speaking, then they have not done wrong (even if this is out of step with others or society). But I am not sure that there are many people in the world who really, clearly understand karma and themselves in this way (I certainly don't!) It seems to me that only we ourselves can hope to understand and clarify our own arising karma*, how we react to it, and, importantly, how we can stop reacting to it in our habitual ways.

    (*Actaully, the arising 'fruit' of past actions in consciousness is called 'phala', but I think you know what I mean by using the general term 'karma' although keeping the two terms distinct has much merit methinks).

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  2. p.s.

    “We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.”

    As with much of what Buddha is supposed to have said I think this may have been intended to be a simple and practical teaching on conduct rather than a metaphysical explanation:

    We tend to act out our thoughts and 'make ourselves/ the world' accordingly. The simple implication he was getting at may be that, if we entertain bad thoughts then we'll likely make a bad world, and if we promote good thoughs, and/or refrain from bad thoughts, then we'll likely make a better world.

    Regards,

    H.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi,
    Well, from a Theravadan point of view (I don't call myself a Theravadin, but I started studying their teachings, so I'm very biased :P), I think the Buddha was pointing at the truth of anatta (Sanskrit: anatman), not-self. "We are what we think". No less, no more, "all that we are arises with our thoughts". So, indeed, "With our thoughts, we make the world": in creating our own "self" with our thoughts, we also create our relations and our responses to the environment. In this way, we create the world, the way we perceive it.

    As for the next question, "Do our thoughts manifest physically in the world?", I believe so. After a few years negating the existence of kamma/karma, I have come to the understanding that it is real, and that everything we do, say or think affects whatever surrounds us. For example, being angry makes me argue with my girlfriend, so my thoughts are manifesting themselves in the world, although indirectly. I have found many times that hidden feelings tend to affect the way I relate to other people, and it's not until much later that I discover the origin of that conduct (since I meditate, however, I can understand these things much sooner).

    Nevertheless, the effects of kamma are very difficult to untangle, and, as Miles said in the comments section, we shouldn't think of it as linear. The Buddha himself discouraged us from spending too much time thinking about the effects of kamma.

    As for guilt, I disagree with Harry, because laws are not always alligned with what I consider right and wrong, and besides (in Spain at least), the ignorance of the law doesn't liberate us from the obligation to live by it. But personally (not legally), I wouldn't consider someone guilty if there were no evil motivations behind their actions, but I understand this comes from a preliminar understanding of kamma, and I'm not very sure about it.

    Kind regards,
    Pablo

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Harry,

    Part of my original proposition is that our egocentric thinking, whether it be me thinking of myself and/or our egocentric culture/race thinking only about itself as a whole, is fundamentally Avidyā. This ignorance is the root of our suffering, no matter which level or plane one chooses to discuss. If we choose to subdivide the cause of our suffering into categories, physical, psychological, etc… we are only reducing our focus to a particular area and allowing our ignorance to remain at every other level.

    On possibly the most base level, our Karma is the level of that little hamster wheel of Samsara spinning in our brains. Whereby we see the world as either being good or bad, based our current moods and circumstances. I agree with you completely in this regard; however, to my way of thinking this is only the beginning, our mental anguish is far reaching.

    On the sociological level our egocentric culture/race thinking, is where our corporate ignorance kicks in, we feel that if enough people agree with us, that somehow our understanding is correct, no matter how devastating that may actually be. Here is where our innocence (or volition) comes into question. We may have understood individually that using spray cans to spray CFC’s into the atmospheres was a bad thing, but collectively it became part of the cultural ignorance and was therefore thought to be acceptable. Just as drinking water from plastic water bottles is now. None of us drink bottled water with malicious intent, but we continue to do it out of ignorance.

    Believe me, I understand what you are saying is Karma (by strict definition) and what is otherwise seen as outside physical cause and effect, but I believe that this distinction is purely a convenience for those of us who would just rather ignore the big picture. We want to believe that the effects our ignorance is not as far reaching as it actually is. This is because our egocentricity wants it all to be about us (which is simply the big me).

    I believe that it is a narrow interpretation of Karma that continues to keep us in bondage. Our perpetual involvement in samsara and the subsequent experience of suffering (on all levels, not just psychological) continues because we remain confused about the true nature of reality. We think that just because we were innocent (i.e. ignorant) that somehow it doesn’t count. I am familiar with all the debates over volition and how we have derived this notion of “intent” from our legal systems. But again this is a sociological construct and based purely in cultural justification (it is okay to murder when it is war because it is socially accepted).

    As you have pointed out, Karma is not deterministic, but can be changed by the way we act and think. The past cannot be altered, not even that past of only a moment ago, but the future is fluid and forever responsive to our thoughts and actions (combined with all previous thoughts and actions) and is therefore subject to change through the power of our thoughts. However, very few people believe this, and this is why things aren’t really getting any better.

    For us to think that our thoughts of murder (for example) are not the cause of murder, makes need for us to question our reasoning. Someone might ask (for example) that if they thought of murder once, but actually did not commit the crime, are they still guilty of murder? The simple meteorite to the head answer would be no. However, if we were to ask ourselves if our collective thinking of murder was the cause of murder, we would have to say- yes.

    If someone where to ask me- Am I (as an individual) responsible for all those murders that I did not actually commit? I would surely say no, but I would have to add, from my understanding of karma - No more than an individual rain drop is responsible for the devastation of the flood.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Miles,

    "If we choose to subdivide the cause of our suffering into categories, physical, psychological, etc… we are only reducing our focus to a particular area and allowing our ignorance to remain at every other level."

    Rather than saying that 'choosing to subdivide our suffering into catagories reduces our focus' I would say that it focuses on the root cause of the problem much, much more and presents a realistic (i.e. not idealistic) appraisal of our own responsibilities and potentials to act positively.

    "None of us drink bottled water with malicious intent, but we continue to do it out of ignorance."

    We are imperfect beings. We are not all-knowing. We are, and likely will always be, ignorant of some harm or other that we are currently doing to ourselves and others (stepping on bugs, breathing in microbes by the thousand, paying for goods made by lowpaid workers etc etc etc). We should, of course, make efforts to do our best, but I think we should also give ourselves a break. Superman is just a cartoon.

    "Believe me, I understand what you are saying is Karma (by strict definition) and what is otherwise seen as outside physical cause and effect, but I believe that this distinction is purely a convenience for those of us who would just rather ignore the big picture."

    I disagree. I think the distinction was made as part of a diagnosis of, and a course of action to counter, root ignorance. I think it has been misused and misunderstood as a shoody belief system and/or as some deterministic myth or religious assumption, but it was always intended that we clarify it in our own lives/direct practice-experience as something more than an assumption or article of faith.

    "Our perpetual involvement in samsara and the subsequent experience of suffering (on all levels, not just psychological) continues because we remain confused about the true nature of reality. We think that just because we were innocent (i.e. ignorant) that somehow it doesn’t count."

    I think countering samsara with an ideology of guilt and responsibility for everything bad is unwise and, well, samsaric in the extreme. We can, and I think we should, vow to do the right thing without being burdened by guilt or oppressive feelings of responsibility. I think the oppressed have a responsibility not to be oppressed by oppression.

    Are you an undercover Catholic Priest by any chance!?

    :-0

    "As you have pointed out, Karma is not deterministic, but can be changed by the way we act and think."

    Karma is not a thing, it doesn't exist anywhere to be found. If it's anything it's a process. Karma (as far as I'm concerned) describes a volitional action and the resulting 'seed' this produces in human consciousness.

    "The past cannot be altered, not even that past of only a moment ago, but the future is fluid and forever responsive to our thoughts and actions (combined with all previous thoughts and actions) and is therefore subject to change through the power of our thoughts."

    The past and the future exist nowhere but as thoughts in our heads. If we stop thinking then 'the past' and 'the future' cease to exist. The only time we can really act is in the present. That is the only real time we have in which to act. Can you see the karmic implication of this? It's not a matter of belief.

    I agree that we shouldn't dwell on thoughts of murdering people, but neither should we dwell on feelings of guilt or responsibility for things we haven't done. It might be better to focus on what we can do right now in the situation that presents itself in whatever situation our life presents (regardless of whether we are Mother Teresa, a ditch digger, an organic gardiner or, indeed, Superman).

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Harry,

    No, I am not an undercover Catholic Priest, I’m just a crazy old man with a stick! ;-)

    I like what you said about focusing on the “root cause” and “posing a realistic appraisal of our own responsibilities and potentials to act positively.” I do believe that it is unrealistic for any of us to believe that we can change the world if we cannot even change our habitual ways of thinking and/or interacting with the world. I also believe that the way to do this is to address the “root cause” which is exactly as you propose. Our Zen practice works on the root problem, while our living by the precepts and eightfold path should (theoretically) cover the rest. We must each choose where we need to do our own work in this regard.

    Not to intentionally expose my own hypocrisy, but I too have been a sprayer of canned paint and a drinker of bottled water, just as I am a driver of a car, and an eater of meat. But I must confess that I really do not harbor any guilt for thus being human and making my own mistakes and/or living in this cultural veil of ignorance that we all share. As you have already pointed out about karmic seeds, guilt is about volition.

    I wholeheartedly agree with you that- “countering samsara with an ideology of guilt and responsiblitiy for everything bad is unwise” and I was not even proposing such a thing. However, I do believe that we must recognize that we are fully integrated in the world as it is, and to truly understand this is where our awakening begins. A lot of people (mostly Buddhists) have an idealistic view of enlightenment and for the most part, ignore the fact that the very first realization of the Buddha in his awakening was the realization that life is suffering.

    From my end of the telescope, I see all of our suffering as mental suffering. In fact, I have come to not even consider any of my physical discomforts as suffering, they are discomforts. I put up with a number of medical problems (including the ever-present lifelong discomfort of having broken my back as a teenager) as simply among the many inconveniences of life. I can tell you from experience that any suffering we think we endure from sickness, old age and death, can’t even hold a candle to the suffering caused by our jealousy, anger and greed.

    I also agree with you that: “Karma is not a thing, it doesn't exist anywhere to be found. If it's anything it's a process” and I apologize if my attempts to make a point have confused this issue. Where I think we tend to diverge in our thinking, is that I believe all actions produce karma, not just volitional actions, and that the physical laws of cause and effect (from our actions) also follow similarly.

    As for the past and the future, I think we at least have to give these concepts space in our vocabulary, otherwise all this talk about thoughts and actions that produce seeds and/or fruits karma (and/or issues of cause and effect) have nowhere to reside.

    I want you to know that this is great stuff!
    I’m looking forward to more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi Miles,

    "A lot of people (mostly Buddhists) have an idealistic view of enlightenment and for the most part, ignore the fact that the very first realization of the Buddha in his awakening was the realization that life is suffering."

    I think maybe that the Buddha, if the accounts are accurate, was suffering from what we might now call a mental illness. I think life disgusted and scared him to the bone. He felt the suffering of life more than most people, and maybe this is the context in which he saw life as suffering. This is suffering looked at from the point of view of intense suffering. It was his acute suffering, arising from his own life situation, which propelled him onwards towards the truth. Of course he realised also how deep this suffering ran through his own practice, how pervasive it is.

    "Where I think we tend to diverge in our thinking, is that I believe all actions produce karma, not just volitional actions, and that the physical laws of cause and effect (from our actions) also follow similarly."

    Well, I think that all actions have an effect. As to whether they produce karma, it depends on what you consider 'karma' I suppose (if 'karma' is the result of volitional action does non-volitional action produce 'karmic' results?). A distinction that is made between being 'turned' by karma and not being turned by it is made in old texts. Dogen refers to 'turning the wheel [of Dharma], rather than being turned on it [as the wheel of samsara]' this sort of thing points to a distinction to be made between being flung around by karma and not being flung around by it although not being flung around by it is never remote or seperate from karma, it's just a different reaction to it in practice/conduct. This is why the old teacher was at error in the Wild Fox koan when he said that the person of Great Practice is free of cause and effect.

    "As for the past and the future, I think we at least have to give these concepts space in our vocabulary, otherwise all this talk about thoughts and actions that produce seeds and/or fruits karma (and/or issues of cause and effect) have nowhere to reside."

    Yes, at the same time, at the only real-time, karma only ever happens now.

    I'm enjoying the chat too!

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hi Pablo,

    I have really enjoyed your contributions to the blog and I look forward to reading your comments. As for being a Theravadan (and biased) we won’t let our bias, hold your bias against you! ;-)

    Early on, in my obsessive study of Buddhism I really got wrapped up in the teachings (and debates) of the Southern Buddhism and delved quite deeply into the "teaching of the Elders." However the more I got into it, the more realized that the "doctrine of analysis" was not so much my cup of tea. I thought that if I was ever going to speak or write coherently about Buddhist philosophy, I needed to be able to pronounce and spell the terms I was using, so to me Zen was a slam dunk!

    As for “the effects of Karma being very difficult to untangle” and the Buddha discouraging us from spending too much time thinking about it, I couldn’t agree more. I think the more we think about karma, the more entangled we get, and if we let that overtake us, we end up obsessively commenting on blogs on the internet.

    Best wishes,
    Miles

    ReplyDelete
  9. "...the Buddha discouraging us from spending too much time thinking about it [karma]..."

    Again, this seems to be practical advice: He suggested we don't spend too much time thinking about the 'effects' of it (which we can't really predict and control very far beyond our own actions). I suspect he would have had us understand what it describes very clearly. Certainly both the koan tradition and the writings of Master Dogen would have us understand 'it' very clearly and directly.

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Ben Gomez -

    I think this is a matter of what he considers the world. Is the world a planet with people and animals and mountains? Or, is the world something bigger than that, like the sum of all the Karma in the world, the people, beliefs, traditions, aspirations, and direction of everyone summed together?

    There are obviously no thoughts that built Mars. In ancient times this thought probably applied better to individual civilizations. Now our planet is becoming more global and the thoughts of one country or hemisphere affect those of others.

    I think this statement is a multi-level statement. It starts with the individual and how you can change your entire world by what you think. But then too, the collective thoughts of a city, nation, or planet can change the reality of that group of people. How is the world different if every single person believes a particular religion? Is the world a different place if we find out today that it will all end tomorrow?

    I tried not to ramble much, but failed, so call this mostly a brain dump inspired by your questions. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Harry,

    I believe you are correct in assuming that if the Buddha were alive today he would be diagnosed with a mental illness, but probably not for the reason(s) most of us would think. Our culture has always considered those with “unusual” perspectives as being abnormal or mentally ill, or at least heretics. Nicolaus Copernicus was considered both a heretic and mentally ill.

    For example, in America in the 1960’s the Diagnostic Symptom Manual for Mental Illness and Psychological Disorders (DSM) included a mental disorder that seemed to only occur in People of Color (mostly young black men) called Angry Black Man Syndrome. In the late seventies it was removed from the book as a form of mental illness when it was finally recognized that they(people of color) actually had cause to be angry… No joke!

    In this light, I have developed (in good humor) a six step scale by which I see our society categorizing this particular kind of mental illness. I call it Radical Awareness Disorder (RAD) and personally know people who fit into each category.

    THE SIX CATEGORIES OF RADICAL AWARENESS DISORDER

    NORMAL PEOPLE(base line)- Believe that they are totally independent entities and nothing they think or do affects anything outside themselves.

    STRANGE PEOPLE- Think that the everything is totally interconnected and thus feel that what they think and do actually affects the world.

    NEUROTIC PEOPLE - Worry about everything being totally interconnected and obsess about how everything they think and do affects the world.

    ECCENTRIC PEOPLE- Believe the world is totally interconnected and work at living as if everything they think and do affects the world.

    MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE- See that the world is totally interconnected and believe everything they think and do makes them personally responsible for what happens in the world.

    WACKO PEOPLE- See that the world is totally interconnected and believe everything they think and do makes them personally responsible for what happens in the world, and radically change their lifestyle in an attempt to mitigate the damage.

    This is not to make light the issue of mental illness (serious business!), or of your observation that if the Buddha lived today, he would more than likely be diagnosed as having a mental illness, but to point out that this business of “awakening” is taken far too lightly by nearly everyone. While it is true that the Zen notion “to swallow a ball of hot iron” is only a rhetorical example, it is an accurate one.

    Miles

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Miles,

    Just to clarify: I was talking about the Buddha-to-be's suffering that caused him to be listless and disatisfied and upset and to find no joy in anything around him (I should have refered to him as 'Siddhartha' I suppose)... his suffering that caused him to pursue the truth that is; I did'nt mean that his awakening nor his life afterwards was a 'mental illness' (although, yes, I'm sure there are people in the world who would consider it so).

    It seems like his intense suffering (pre awakening) was clearly a 'mental illness' by today's terms, and the descriptions of his condition are very like modern symptoms of depression and/or anxiety... if it was really like the stories state... if not it's a good observation of the human condition anyway.

    More recently, Hakuin is said to have had recurring turbulent mental health issues also.

    I'm not convinced that there is only one model of awakening, nor any destination or ultimate state or zone called "awakening" at which an awakened person 'arrives' that is other than what they are as unique individuals. Everyone/everything is different. The awakened people I have met have been different to each other. The accounts of awakening in the Chinese tradition in particular seem wonderfully diverse.

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Harry,

    I agree with you completely. I was just having fun with the idea of enligntenment (as being seen in our culture) as a form of mental illness.

    I can clearly visulize the Buddha (even after his enlightenment) being Kinzen's homeless man on the street corner.

    However, I still do feel strongly that the suffering he went through was that "ball of hot iron" that we all have to swallow (in one way or another) in order to break us free our habitual ways of thinking.

    Just me being crazy,
    Miles

    ReplyDelete
  14. Miles,

    Yes, a lot of Western culture (including therapies and a lot of the 'new agey' stuff that, unforunately, often gets associated with Buddhism) seems to be about avoiding 'the ball'.

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Yea... as if they could avoid that ball.

    ReplyDelete
  16. My thoughts do not make the world. I have given many Nobel prize acceptance speeches in my head, but thus far collected no Nobel prizes.

    My thoughts do, however, make my world. I have chosen not to be bitter about the lack of Nobel prizes and so my world contains no bitterness towards the Nobel prize committee.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi Michael,
    isn't your world also the world? I mean, how can your reality be isolated from the whole?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dear Mr. Pockley,

    I heartily agree with your last ignoble piece of Anti-Buddhist nonsense.

    I hereby award you The Ignoble Piece Prize in recognition of your last piece which clearly aims to subvert the teachings of a high-born philosophical genius.

    Good day to you, Sir, etc etc,

    H. Ignoble (Chair of IPP Panel)

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hernan,

    my reality is not the same as your reality because my brain does not work very well.

    Only a limited amount of data comes in - from that my brain guesses what the universe is like. Sometimes it guesses right, but sometimes it guesses wrong.

    And sometimes it doesn't like the universe the data implies, so it makes up something entirely fictional!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hi Michael,

    Yes, our 'realities' are not the same, but they're not separate nor cut off from each other either.

    I like Master Dogen's image of dew drops in the moonlight: Every dewdrop reflects and contains the moon (in it's own way), and they can perfectly contain the whole moon and sky without bursting and without any sort of conflict or friction at all.

    And dewdrops are all just water.

    ...but I doubt the notion of the 'self' as opposed 'other' is a big issue for dewdrops as it is for us humans!

    Regards,

    Harry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Are you sure about that, Harry?
    Perhaps dewdrops also have books like "10 ways to learn how to love your universal self" or stuff like that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. :-)

    Maybe, Hernan, Maybe... and their own dewdrop versions of Oprah and Dr.Phil?

    Regards,

    H.

    ReplyDelete