Buddhism's take on fate
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
If Buddha is a human being, then he cannot stop creating karma accidentally.
That was Buddha's karma. Buddha still had karma so he suffered headaches, sickness, and didn't want to stop them. The difference is that a Buddha [b]stops creating karma, while sentient beings are always creating karma.[/b]
If Buddha is a spiritual being, then he does not exist, thus has no karma.
If Buddha is truly enlightened, then he would have sense the microbes(living things) present in the food and would have not eaten them.
Are my above points logical enough to understand? -
Death by disease is natural. I'm sure you've read in reports that we all have certain generic links to diseases, like cancer. Some people maintained a very healthy lifestyle, but yet contracted terrible diseases. This is karma, but very likely the causes were not planted in this life.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Death by disease is different from dying from natural causes(old age).
I just disagree with the theory of Karma, that's all.
If there's no karma, there's no life and death in the first place. Everything will be at a standstill. -
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Karma requires intentional actions. A Buddha has totally liberated from intention and mind (thinking happens but not dualistic thinking, therefore no-mind)
If Buddha is a human being, then he cannot stop creating karma accidentally.If Buddha is a spiritual being, then he does not exist, thus has no karma.
My definition of Spiritual is different from yours. For me, spirituality is to realise our Buddha Nature, the "primordial reality". It has nothing to do with being an invisible spirit or angel or whatsoever.If Buddha is truly enlightened, then he would have sense the microbes(living things) present in the food and would have not eaten them.
Do you know that the Buddha once held a cup of water and said that there are 84000 (meaning uncountable) microorganisms in that cup of water? Of course nobody understood what he meant and his claim was not proven until the microscope was finally invented thousands of years later.
Obviously he knew what he had eaten was going to trigger some sort of illness. He knew it but he let it happen, just as Mogallana who is the most skilled disciple in Supernatural Powers knowingly allowed some people to throw rocks and kill him, because it has to do with their karma and supernatural powers cannot supercede karmic effects. I can show you a story regarding this. In fact it is very difficult to thwart certain karmic effects, and the more you try to prevent it, it just delays but eventually it will happen. Anyway the Buddha has already finished his job by establishing the Sangha and teaching the dharma, so it is time for him to leave. The mara invited him to pass into Parinirvana 3 months ago but he refused, and said it will happen only when his job is done. So 3 months later it's done and he wants to clear his remaining karma.Are my above points logical enough to understand?
No. It just shows your utter ignorance of Buddhism. -
It also shows that you are utterly ignorant of history. Why would Gautama be travelling when he died? Because he was going somewhere to give a talk. If so, then his duty in this life is not yet over. If so, then Gautama should not have taken the food with the microbes in it. If so, your explaination of karma would be wrong.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No. It just shows your utter ignorance of Buddhism. -
It was because of where Buddha died that the last guy to meet the Buddha can have a chance to talk with him and take refuge with him. He came just in time and the Buddha was able to teach him the dharma.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:It also shows that you are utterly ignorant of history. Why would Gautama be travelling when he died? Because he was going somewhere to give a talk. If so, then his duty in this life is not yet over. If so, then Gautama should not have taken the food with the microbes in it. If so, your explaination of karma would be wrong. -
---
-
But that wasn't his original destination, was it?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It was because of where Buddha died that the last guy to meet the Buddha can have a chance to talk with him and take refuge with him. He came just in time. -
That was his original destination. He purposely stated he did not want to die in any of the great cities.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But that wasn't his original destination, was it? -
You trying to lie on purpose, right?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:That was his original destination. He purposely stated he did not want to die in any of the great cities.
"Kusavati resounded unceasingly day and night with ten sounds -- the trumpeting of elephants, the neighing of horses, the rattling of chariots, the beating of drums and tabours, music and song, cheers, the clapping of hands, and cries of "Eat, drink, and be merry!"
Siddatha died in Kusavati. -
It is good for you to be skeptical and ask questions but some of your questions are very bizarre.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:But that wasn't his original destination, was it?
You ask questions based on what you have read and not based on first hand knowledge.
That is what you read and that is what is in the history books. Yet you have no qualms jumping to conclusions and drawing conclusions from it.
These are the very things that Buddhism is telling to be careful of. This is what creates illusions and delusions.
The history books said that Buddha was on the way to a certain city when he died...
From that bit of information you can draw so many conclusions it is mind boggling.
Are you able to perceive Buddha's mind? Can you know his intentions?
-
Kusavati is not one of the major cities.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:You trying to lie on purpose, right?
"Kusavati resounded unceasingly day and night with ten sounds -- the trumpeting of elephants, the neighing of horses, the rattling of chariots, the beating of drums and tabours, music and song, cheers, the clapping of hands, and cries of "Eat, drink, and be merry!"
Siddatha died in Kusavati.
Maha-parinibbana Sutta
The Past Glory of Kusinara
41. When this had been said, the Venerable Ananda spoke to the Blessed One, saying: "Let it not be, Lord, that the Blessed One should pass away in this mean place, this uncivilized township in the midst of the jungle, a mere outpost of the province. There are great cities, Lord, such as Campa, Rajagaha, Savatthi, Saketa, Kosambi, and Benares — let the Blessed One have his final passing away in one of those. For in those cities dwell many wealthy nobles and brahmans and householders who are devotees of the Tathagata, and they will render due honor to the remains of the Tathagata."
42. "Do not say that, Ananda! Do not say: 'This mean place, this uncivilized township in the midst of the jungle, a mere outpost of the province.' In times long past, Ananda, there was a king by the name of Maha Sudassana, who was a universal monarch, a king of righteousness, a conqueror of the four quarters of the earth, whose realm was established in security, and who was endowed with the seven jewels.53 And that King Maha Sudassana, Ananda, had his royal residence here at Kusinara, which was then called Kusavati, and it extended twelve yojanas from east to west, and seven from north to south.
43. "And mighty, Ananda, was Kusavati, the capital, prosperous and well populated, much frequented by people, and abundantly provided with food. Just as the royal residence of the deities, Alakamanda, is mighty, prosperous, and well populated, much frequented by deities and abundantly provided with food, so was the royal capital of Kusavati.
44. "Kusavati, Ananda, resounded unceasingly day and night with ten sounds — the trumpeting of elephants, the neighing of horses, the rattling of chariots, the beating of drums and tabours, music and song, cheers, the clapping of hands, and cries of 'Eat, drink, and be merry!' -
Agree!Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is good for you to be skeptical and ask questions but some of your questions are very bizarre. -
I think you should learn to have the courage to some times say "I don't know!" Rather than entertain these type of questions... creates illusions in their minds. You have to explain why you don't know of course.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Agree!
-
No la, most of what is asked is kinda common senseOriginally posted by AndrewPKYap:I think you should learn to have the courage to some times say "I don't know!" Rather than entertain these type of questions... creates illusions in their minds. You have to explain why you don't know of course. -
True also...Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No la, most of what is asked is kinda common sense
-
If I am to ask questions based on first hand knowledge, then I would be bloody old by now.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:It is good for you to be skeptical and ask questions but some of your questions are very bizarre.
You ask questions based on what you have read and not based on first hand knowledge.
That is what you read and that is what is in the history books. Yet you have no qualms jumping to conclusions and drawing conclusions from it.
These are the very things that Buddhism is telling to be careful of. This is what creates illusions and delusions.
The history books said that Buddha was on the way to a certain city when he died...
From that bit of information you can draw so many conclusions it is mind boggling.
Are you able to perceive Buddha's mind? Can you know his intentions? 
I am left with books to answer my questions but I am also questioning all known information left. -
left with books? actually yes and no because the ultimate prove of Buddhism is in your own life.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:If I am to ask questions based on first hand knowledge, then I would be bloody old by now.
I am left with books to answer my questions but I am also questioning all known information left.
When I say "first hand knowledge" I mean questions that arises as you live your life or philosophical questions that you encounter...
not let's imagine what happened 2500 years ago and have a debate based on our imagination... -
I am asking questions based on the life of Prince Siddatha Shakya so how in my own life would I know about Siddatha except through reading?Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:left with books? actually yes and no because the ultimate prove of Buddhism is in your own life.
When I say "first hand knowledge" I mean questions that arises as you live your life or philosophical questions that you encounter...
not let's imagine what happened 2500 years ago and have a debate based on our imagination...