My views on Buddhism - weblog.
A few questions on kamma and anatta.
I was interested that, in the context of a logical argument, and what you write about anatta and kamma, that you would then proceed to ascribe ongoing existence to your teachers, and aim to benefit them. I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all, logically.
Which is it to be, anatta or kamma? Or do you believe they are not mutually exclusive? If so, can you clarify that logically?
My opinion:
I know exactly what you mean. If there is non-self, then who creates kamma? If there is non-self, then who goes to Nibbana? Right?
An important question in Buddhism is, “If I won’t be 'me' in my next life and I won’t remember who I will be in my next life, then why should I be doing good deeds now? I won’t be able to enjoy the good results in my next life anyway, so does it matter if I do good or evil in this life? And also, why do I have to suffer the consequences of the actions that the past 'me' had sowed because I don’t remember who it was that did it anyway.”
This type of questions arises because of the wrong idea of Anatta. In other religions, the concept is simple; when they do good deeds, they will go to heaven and they will remember exactly who they are, and they will enjoy heavenly bliss because it is them, the exact same person who goes to heaven.
In one way, I also think that Buddhism is a bit complex. That was why at first the Buddha didn’t want to teach because he knew that it will be difficult to teach. Only a few people who had little dusts in their eyes were able understand his teachings.
But in my opinion, to gain release from sufferings, we don’t need to go into all the complexities of Anatta.
We only have to follow what the Buddha taught, 'we reap what we sow'. If we have good intentions and do good deeds, we will get good results. We cannot fathom how Kamma works. Kamma is not a formula that we can write out.
At first, I thought Kamma was a 'direct cause and effect' thing. When I was 10 years old, I heard a dhamma talk about Kamma and I thought Kamma works in linear ways, so I asked the monk some questions. “For example, if I stole some money from A in my past life, will A be reborn in this life and steal my money? Or will someone else, B, in the future steal my money? And I also asked, “What will happen to B? Was he born on earth, for his mission to come back to steal my money? Also, won’t B have the same consequence of his money getting stolen in his future life? But B was only acting out the stealing, only to punish me, right? Then this vicious cycle would not end, right?”
Those questions were the ones I asked when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember what my teacher replied, this was the same teacher whom after 20 years, I asked the first set of questions above, “Why do I need to do good deeds if I won't be the same 'me' in the future life?”
My teacher said, “You cannot think of it that way, even though it is not the 'same you' in the future, there is still kamma! You have to understand the law of Kamma, if you do good deeds, you get good results, bad deeds, you get bad results”.
The bottom line is, 'we reap what we sow', don’t ask “who” is it that reaps it in the future. How Kamma works, how is kamma inter-related among human beings is too complex, only a Buddha knows the answer.
So, Herman, I know exactly what you are asking. I get a little doubt here and there sometimes, but I know there is Kamma. Kamma is not exactly like Newton’s third law of motion, which says “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, Kamma is not as linear as that, but Kamma is real and every good action will reap good results and vice-versa.
As for the questions “Why is there no-self but there is Kamma”? I hope you can read Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s essay called, “The Questions of Skill”. I think we cannot ask questions that starts with, “If there is no-self, then…..?”
This type of questions will not give you satisfactory answers. You have to ask the question in a different way in order to understand it.
Ahhh, I’ve written an essay, heheh. Sorry if it has been boring to read. :-)
An important question in Buddhism is, “If I won’t be 'me' in my next life and I won’t remember who I will be in my next life, then why should I be doing good deeds now? I won’t be able to enjoy the good results in my next life anyway, so does it matter if I do good or evil in this life? And also, why do I have to suffer the consequences of the actions that the past 'me' had sowed because I don’t remember who it was that did it anyway.”
This type of questions arises because of the wrong idea of Anatta. In other religions, the concept is simple; when they do good deeds, they will go to heaven and they will remember exactly who they are, and they will enjoy heavenly bliss because it is them, the exact same person who goes to heaven.
In one way, I also think that Buddhism is a bit complex. That was why at first the Buddha didn’t want to teach because he knew that it will be difficult to teach. Only a few people who had little dusts in their eyes were able understand his teachings.
But in my opinion, to gain release from sufferings, we don’t need to go into all the complexities of Anatta.
We only have to follow what the Buddha taught, 'we reap what we sow'. If we have good intentions and do good deeds, we will get good results. We cannot fathom how Kamma works. Kamma is not a formula that we can write out.
At first, I thought Kamma was a 'direct cause and effect' thing. When I was 10 years old, I heard a dhamma talk about Kamma and I thought Kamma works in linear ways, so I asked the monk some questions. “For example, if I stole some money from A in my past life, will A be reborn in this life and steal my money? Or will someone else, B, in the future steal my money? And I also asked, “What will happen to B? Was he born on earth, for his mission to come back to steal my money? Also, won’t B have the same consequence of his money getting stolen in his future life? But B was only acting out the stealing, only to punish me, right? Then this vicious cycle would not end, right?”
Those questions were the ones I asked when I was 10 years old. I don’t remember what my teacher replied, this was the same teacher whom after 20 years, I asked the first set of questions above, “Why do I need to do good deeds if I won't be the same 'me' in the future life?”
My teacher said, “You cannot think of it that way, even though it is not the 'same you' in the future, there is still kamma! You have to understand the law of Kamma, if you do good deeds, you get good results, bad deeds, you get bad results”.
The bottom line is, 'we reap what we sow', don’t ask “who” is it that reaps it in the future. How Kamma works, how is kamma inter-related among human beings is too complex, only a Buddha knows the answer.
So, Herman, I know exactly what you are asking. I get a little doubt here and there sometimes, but I know there is Kamma. Kamma is not exactly like Newton’s third law of motion, which says “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”, Kamma is not as linear as that, but Kamma is real and every good action will reap good results and vice-versa.
As for the questions “Why is there no-self but there is Kamma”? I hope you can read Bhikkhu Thanissaro’s essay called, “The Questions of Skill”. I think we cannot ask questions that starts with, “If there is no-self, then…..?”
This type of questions will not give you satisfactory answers. You have to ask the question in a different way in order to understand it.
Ahhh, I’ve written an essay, heheh. Sorry if it has been boring to read. :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment