Why Karma is empty

• JitKiat

  22 Nov 08, 01:07

   
  顯�失之真 諸業本�生 以無定性故 諸業亦�滅 以其�生故

   

  Comment from Master Yin Shun:

   

  　　這是從�定自性而顯示緣起的業相。行業�失，確是釋尊所說的。他一方�是剎那滅的，一方��是能感果�失的。剎那滅了，存在還是�存在？�使存在，�以說�失，�就有了常�的�失，與無常相�。�存在，�以說無常，但�有斷滅�能感果的�失，與�失相�。這是佛法中的難題，�家種種說業，正�者立�失法，都為了此事，然都�離�失。�性空正義說 ，業是緣起幻化的，因緣和�時，似有業的�象生起，但究其實，是沒有實在自性的。既�從何處來，也�從無中生起一實在性。一切「諸業本�就「�生�，�生�沒有緣生，是說「無�有他的決「定�的自「性�，沒有自性生。一切「諸業�也本來「�滅�，�滅��失。他所以�滅，是因為本來「�生�。我們所見到的業相生滅，這是因果�象的起滅，�是有一實在性的業在起滅；沒有實在的業性生滅，唯是如幻如化的業相，�因緣的和�離散而幻起幻滅。如幻生滅，��以追求他的自性，他�是實有的常在，是因緣關係的幻在，幻用是�無的。此如幻的業用，在沒有感果之��失；感果以後，如幻的業用滅，而��說�一實在法消滅，所以說『滅無所至�。諸業�生，無定性空，雖空無自性，但緣起的業力，於百�劫�亡，所以��斷。�是實有常�故�斷，是無性從緣故�斷。行業�失滅，�以建立如幻緣起的業果�繫。

   

  業性空 => 缘起造业而有如幻的業相 => 如幻的業用感果之��失 => 感果以後，如幻的業用滅

  Excellent explanation really ...諸業性空 => 諸業�生�滅, now I understand

• An Eternal Now

  22 Nov 08, 02:01

  Well explained.

  Simplified Chinese:

  
  这是从�定自性而显示缘起的业相。行业�失，确是释尊所说的。他一方�是刹那�的，一方��是能感果�失的。刹那�了，存在还是�存在？�使存在，�以说�失，�就有了常�的过失，与无常相�。�存在，�以说无常，但�有断��能感果的过失，与�失相�。这是佛法中的难题，�家��说业，正�者立�失法，都为了此事，然都�离过失。�性空正义说，业是缘起幻化的，因缘和�时，似有业的现象生起，但究其实，是没有实在自性的。既�从何处�，也�从无中生起一实在性。一切「诸业本�就「�生�，�生�没有缘生，是说「无�有他的决「定�的自「性�，没有自性生。一切「诸业�也本�「���，����失。他所以��，是因为本�「�生�。我们所�到的业相生�，这是因果现象的起�，�是有一实在性的业在起�；没有实在的业性生�，唯是如幻如化的业相，�因缘的和�离散而幻起幻�。如幻生�，��以追求他的自性，他�是实有的常在，是因缘关係的幻在，幻用是�无的。此如幻的业用，在没有感果之��失；感果以後，如幻的业用�，而��说�一实在法消�，所以说『�无所至�。诸业�生，无定性空，虽空无自性，但缘起的业力，於百�劫�亡，所以��断。�是实有常�故�断，是无性从缘故�断。行业�失�，�以建立如幻缘起的业果�繫。
  
   
  
  业性空 => 缘起造业而有如幻的业相 => 如幻的业用感果之��失 => 感果以後，如幻的业用�

• Isis

  26 Nov 08, 14:00

  Juzt a sharin..

  Can karma affect free choice?

  Question: can karma affect free choice? How is free choice affected by karma?

  Ans: We all have karma, or mind-habit. It is not a special quality or condition. When a person is attached to his thinking, he develops a habit. When he is attached to his habit, he gets karma. And if he’s attached to that karma, he gets more karma. It is just a case of unending cause and effect. Although the person still has free choice in that cause and effect, it is affected by the karma he has created. Thus, the person creates karma and in turn, the karma affects his free choices, either severely or lightly limiting his free choices. In Buddhism, when a person really meditates, he will see that his karma is fundamentally empty, that it has no nature. But when you think your karma is real, it affects you. In meditation, when you see the substance of karma, of thinking and of the mind is fundamentally empty, then karma cannot affect you and your free choice is unhindered.

  If we are attached to desire, anger or ignorance, we make karma and this karma consequently controls our free choice, like a wind blowing on a moving object.

  If you just follow your karma, it controls you and many kinds of actions appear. Therefore, if you are attached to your karma, you make more karma. You have to see that your karma is essentially empty. It is like when you have a dream of a big, hungry tiger chasing after you. In the dream, you think it is real, so you run really, really fast to get away. But when you wake up, you realise you are in your room, on the bed and that the tiger is not real. When you thought the tiger was real. When you thought the tiger was real, the tiger affected you. But the whole time, the tiger wasn’t there. It was completely empty. When you wake up and realise the tiger is a dream and see that it is empty, there is no more running. Karma is exactly like that. Any kind of karma is just a dream, created by the thinking which you are attached to. When you let go of the attachment and see that karma is empty, then you are free.

  - Ven. Hyon Gak

   

• maggot

  27 Nov 08, 08:44

  Tell this stuff to prisoners see if this theory really applies or not :lol: Even our birth as human is also influenced by karma
• maggot

  27 Nov 08, 08:47

  Don't use tricks to trick our mind But let our mind be ready for anything that will be coming:) I have nothing against the Threadstarter
• JitKiat

  27 Nov 08, 15:09

  Hah hah I am not offended in anyway.

  Karma is empty does not mean karma has no effect. It just means that karma is following law of dependent arising. Once you are enlightened (e.g. at the Arhat level), your past karma will be just a dream. Since we are not enlightened yet, we need to be very very careful about our thoughts so that we do not create bad karmas and motivate ourselves to create good karmas to facilitate our progress along the path.

  And the above explanation also help us to understand why in Heart Sutra, it is said that:

  "Sariputra, the Characteristics of the
  Voidness of All Dharmas
  Are Non-Arising, Non-Ceasing ..."

  It is true that it might not help a prisoner :-) Preaching amitabha pureland to a prisoner waiting to be executed is a better approach.

• JitKiat

  27 Nov 08, 15:12

  And I practise pureland too. But it does not mean understanding prajna paramita is not useful for me.

• An Eternal Now

  27 Nov 08, 23:33

  To understand how karma is empty it's better to understand why ALL feelings, sensations, and thoughts, are empty. Empty does not mean non-existent, it means insubstantial, empty of a solid, inherent, independent existence.

  Emptiness means everything, including karma, is a dependently originated appearance -- due to certain conditions, karmic consequences 'appear' but are without substantial inherent existence. When new karma arise they are also dependently originated appearance -- they are momentary instants of consciousness dependently arisen.

  As I wrote recently (slightly edited):

  ...

  The short answer is whatever feelings are present, it is just a momentary, conditioned appearance. There is no substantiality, or essence, or any tangible, permanent, inherent existence to it.

  Whatever we feel and experience, we somehow give it more 'solidity' and 'reality' than it actually has, much like treating a mirage/appearance for a solid reality. And we become attached to it. 

  When the condition is not, then the feeling/sensations/experience isn't. When condition is there then the feelings are there but it is simply part of the transient flow of phenomenality, like a mirage, but with no tangible existence on its own

  Like a thirsty person chasing the mirage of water in a desert, we human beings chase after feelings, experiences, 'things'. We are unable to see that they are insubstantial, momentary 'instants' of manifestation/consciousness without any concrete permanent inherent existence. It has no inherent characteristics, qualities, shapes, or forms -- only a momentary appearance. Our thoughts and feelings and emotions are insubstantial too, due to certain conditions the *appearances* of these emotions arise, but after a while when the condition subsides they also disappear. It's not constant and is part of the everchanging flow of consciousness, it's not always there, and there is no tangible independent existence apart from those conditions that give rise to the appearances/mirage/etc.

  So even though they vividly appear, like the mirage of water, they are not 'real' (tangible). While they are not real, they are still the vivid display of our luminous clarity/pure awareness, like the bright mirror having the capacity to reflect all appearances. Our Buddha-Nature is just this, luminous-emptiness.
  
  On the insubstantiality of our experiences, Buddha taught:
  
  "....Now suppose that in the autumn — when it's raining in fat, heavy drops — a water bubble were to appear & disappear on the water, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a water bubble? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any feeling that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in feeling?
  
  "Now suppose that in the last month of the hot season a mirage were shimmering, and a man with good eyesight were to see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a mirage? In the same way, a monk sees, observes, & appropriately examines any perception that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in perception...

  This applies not only to our thoughts and emotions but to our experience of the "physical world". For example, we experience the physical universe as having some solid existence "out there". For example when we see a tree, we immediately label it and have preconceived notions about a tree, and we treat that image as being an accurate representation not only of our immediate experience but rather, of "things" having an independent existence or inherent characteristic.
  
  When we look at lets say a red flower, we think that there is a truly a "red flower" out there with a particular shape, size, colour, etc... i.e. there are inherent attributes to an external object. But reality is, there is no objective reality apart from the perception itself. For example: the perception of "red" is due to certain biological and karmic conditioning of humans alone, other animals like dogs etc cannot perceive the same way as we do. In fact they cannot perceive colours. So how can we say that there is an inherent "red" flower out there? Furthermore, if we are given a “quantum eyesight” to look into the atomic structure, there is similarly no attribute “redness” anywhere found, only almost complete space/void with no perceivable shapes and forms. Whatever appearances are dependently arisen, and hence is empty of any inherent existence or fixed attributes, shapes, form, or “redness” -- merely luminous yet empty, mere Appearances without inherent/objective existence. What gives rise to the differences of colours and experiences in each of us? Dependent arising... hence empty of inherent existence. This is the nature of all phenomena. Whatever we see, hear, etc, is empty of an "objective" or "inherent" existence out there -- and our vision is completely conditioned arising, having no independent, inherent existence of its own (i.e. is empty).
  
  As you've seen, there is no ‘The Flowerness’ seen by a dog, an insect or us, or beings from other realms (which really may have a completely different mode of perception). 'The Flowerness' is an illusion that does not stay even for a moment, merely an aggregate of causes and conditions. Analogous to the example of ‘flowerness’, there is no ‘selfness’ serving as a separate observer either -- awareness is not a background witness. Rather, the entire whole of the moment of manifestation is our pristine awareness; lucidly clear, yet empty of inherent existence. This is the way of ‘seeing’ the one as many, the observer and the observed are one and the same. This is also the meaning of formlessness and attributelessness of our nature. But "formless" and "empty" does not mean nothingness or void, as Heart Sutra said, Emptiness is Form -- Forms are vividly luminous but empty of inherent existence....

• JitKiat

  28 Nov 08, 00:58

  问：如何将中观应用在修净土法门？(How to use Madyamaka i.e. prajna paramita to practise pureland)
  
  ��法师答：

   

  我对佛法的体会是，修行有两�，一为有相修一为无相修。�禅��是属无相而修，没有个形象�供观想。如中观的观空亦是无相而修，这�根机是上等利根人，这是究竟了义说。若是方便说�有相修行（有相是指有个外在形�供我们观想）如观想��世界，观想佛身万德庄严这些皆属有相修。密宗也是有相修，我的根��自密教的大日�，全�「大毗��那佛神�加��。�简称大日�，其七�。里�所谈�外教相�事相。教相是教典�论，事相是曼�罗�手��供物等。�文亦说：「甚深无相法，劣慧所�堪，为应彼等故，兼存有相说。�中观的空�无相�无愿是甚深无相法，故众生难修。应知�宗�派皆�离�事，学中观的人欲修净土法，就必须先�会中观的�，�观想他方净土，�念佛�。在中观的正知�引导下修净土法门，将会更深澈。
  

• maggot

  28 Nov 08, 07:34

  若以色�我，以因声求我，是人行邪�，�能�如�� Diamond sutra
• An Eternal Now

  28 Nov 08, 11:12

  Here's another one from Diamond Sutra: 凡所有相，皆是虚妄。若�诸相�相，��如�。

  ......

  “一切有为法，如梦幻泡影，如露亦如电，应作如是观”

   

  BTW Pu Men Ping said

  "�色明心，闻声悟�"

  So is that contradictory to Diamond Sutra? No.

  The difference is one is seeking forms... experiencing forms as external and objective realities and attaching to them. The other is realising that all forms are Mind, are manifestation of Buddha-nature.

  
  

   

  To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening.

  ~ Zen Master Dogen Zenji

   

• JitKiat

  28 Nov 08, 12:18

  《增壹阿�經》說﹕「諸佛皆出人間，終�在天上�佛也�

• maggot

  28 Nov 08, 23:06

  《增壹阿�經》說﹕「諸佛皆出人間，終�在天上�佛也� Based on what you quote, in pureland a person cannot become buddha because it is not 人間 ?
• JitKiat

  29 Nov 08, 10:59

  From Nagajurna's ��毘婆沙論:

   

  佛法有无�门。如世间�有难有易。
  陆�步行则苦。水�乘船则�。���亦如是。或有勤行精进。
  或有以信方便易行疾至阿惟越致者。如�说。

  　　....　　 若人疾欲至　　�退转地者
  　　 应以�敬心　　执�称��

   

  �退转地 (无生�/八地）is not yet Buddhahood

   

  This is consistent with Amitabha sutra translated by Kumarajiva.