Hello friends,
Karma doesn't really work that way.. it doesn't mean that if you don't use your real names, your unwholesome actions don't bring bad results.
karma means action, action which is led by intentions. During the process of name calling, what went through your mind stream, did u want someone to suffer, was the intention wholesome or unwolesome?
In this case, the action is typing of the words. The words on the screen is the manifestation of the action. So the action is done. Question is, what was the doer's intention of the action, the volition of the action? Consider this question clearly, search yourself for the intention. After searching yourself deeply and finding the real intention behind the action, I think it(whether there will be bad karma involved) will be clear to you.
Remember, karma, whether good or bad, is created mainly from volitional action (actions with intentions). So always check your mind, your thoughts and intention. Be mindful.
After karma is created, how this karma is now manifested upon the doer is as said by An Eternal Truth.
With metta_(|)_,
Emanrohe
it doesn't mean that if you don't use your real names, your unwholesome actions don't bring bad results.
Perhaps to put it in another way, since you don't use your real name, you are calling yourself names.
If I follow your definition, then it's definitely karma. The action of calling myself names, with the intention of hiding my real identity, for good or for bad, depending on my character.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:What you said, then is nonsense.
If dependent origination does not occur everywhere, then if I do A (cause) + B (condition) then it may or may not result in C (effect)
It doesn't make sense. If I put a blue chemical and a green chemical together and it's supposed to have a chemical reaction resulting in a yellow chemical, you're saying the reaction may or may not take place.
Or if I hit the bell, and your ears are working properly, there's a probability you might not actually hear the sound.
I am not talking nonsense, just stating a known scientific fact.
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:LOL
Maybe will end up dead.
And the whole colony will go after the killer.
Originally posted by Emanrohe:Hello friends,
Karma doesn't really work that way.. it doesn't mean that if you don't use your real names, your unwholesome actions don't bring bad results.
karma means action, action which is led by intentions. During the process of name calling, what went through your mind stream, did u want someone to suffer, was the intention wholesome or unwolesome?
In this case, the action is typing of the words. The words on the screen is the manifestation of the action. So the action is done. Question is, what was the doer's intention of the action, the volition of the action? Consider this question clearly, search yourself for the intention. After searching yourself deeply and finding the real intention behind the action, I think it(whether there will be bad karma involved) will be clear to you.
Remember, karma, whether good or bad, is created mainly from volitional action (actions with intentions). So always check your mind, your thoughts and intention. Be mindful.
After karma is created, how this karma is now manifested upon the doer is as said by An Eternal Truth.
With metta_(|)_,
Emanrohe
well said !
if u say ass hole or go to hell to the other party, the effect should be the same, from being spoken to a typed one online. the intention is to humiliate or insult the other party isnt it.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
I am not talking nonsense, just stating a known scientific fact.
In case you forgot, an old quote from Thusness:
Chaos theory
breaks determinism, breaks boundary, yet does not deny order... a
higher order that is too complex to be determined. Initial cause
does not result into a predetermined action. From a spiritual
perspective,
the rigidity of ‘I’ as a fixed pattern order must be broken down
for life to be experienced in its full dynamics as wondrous
manifestation.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In case you forgot, an old quote from Thusness:
Chaos theory breaks determinism, breaks boundary, yet does not deny order... a higher order that is too complex to be determined. Initial cause does not result into a predetermined action. From a spiritual perspective,
the rigidity of ‘I’ as a fixed pattern order must be broken down for life to be experienced in its full dynamics as wondrous manifestation.
You can always try and quote people but yet they do not even know the basis of the theory and try to any old how describe it.
Originally posted by marcteng:if u say ass hole or go to hell to the other party, the effect should be the same, from being spoken to a typed one online. the intention is to humiliate or insult the other party isnt it.
So? Some people cannot get it across their mind that their actions affect others and the only way for them to even register your existence is by vulgarities and obsceneties.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
You can always try and quote people but yet they do not even know the basis of the theory and try to any old how describe it.
You're the one who don't know.
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:You're the one who don't know.
Who first wrote the Chaos theory?
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Why not? Condition can have no manifestation and manifestation can have no conditions. Independent origionation is true.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
When there are causes with appropriate conditions, manifestations may or may not occur.When there are causes without appropriate conditions, manifestations may or may not occur.
When there are no causes with appropriate conidtions, manifestations may or may not occur.
When there are no causes without appropriate conidtions, manifestations may or may not occur.
The above situations can be seen in Chaos Theory which happens in daily life.
Therefore, there is independent origination.
The explanation does not seem apt wrt your views on Origination.
To me, I would prefer to do it as such:
1. Firstly, by not bringing in more than 1 variable for each category in the exposition
2. Therefore, by simplifying your exposition in such a way to dispel any confusion:
a) When there is a cause with a condition, the desired manifestation occurs.
b) When there is a cause with no condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.
c) When there is no cause with a condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.
d) When there is no cause with no condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.
3. Building on the basis from pt #2, we shall apply it to a minimal real-life scenario
the cause = existence of an eyeball
the condition = existence of a toycar
the desired manifestation = registering an image of the toycar by the eye
a) When there is an existence of an eyeball with an existence of a toycar, the eye registers the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation occurs)
b) When there is an existence of an eyeball with no existence of a toycar, the eye does not register the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)
c) When there is no existence of an eyeball with an existence of a toycar, there is no eye to register the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)
d) When there is no existence of an eyeball with no existence of a toycar, there is no eye to register something that doesn't exist. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)
The above scenario constitute a minimally 1 cause and 1 condition stance.
4. Hence in actual real life, one should proceed to progressively include conditions which influences the outcome of the desired manifestation, eg.
a) When there is a cause with a #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation occurs.
b) When there is a cause with a #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
c) When there is a cause with no #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
d) When there is no cause with a #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
e) When there is no cause with a #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
f) When there is no cause with no #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
g) When there is no cause with no #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
5. Hence building on the basis from pt #4, we shall apply it on a better real-life scenario than the previous one
the cause = existence of an eyeball
#condition 1 = existence of a toycar
#condition 2 = existence of light
the desired manifestation = registering an image of the toycar by the eye
Just substitute the coloured portions in their respective positions and you will yield the same results.
6. Continually add more conditions to fulfil the actual final real-life scenario
eg.
#condition 3 = the person bearing the eyeball must be alive person
#condition 4 = the distance between the eyeball and the toycar fixed at ??cm
#condition 5 = the person's eyes must not be blind
#condition 6 = the toycar must not be hidden in a box
.....
.....
..... (could be up to infinity)
7. Therefore, there is no way for one to say "manifestations may or may not occur", we can only say "the desired manifestation occurs" or "the desired manifestation does not occur". "The desired manifestation does not occur" just implies "it is not the desired manifestation that occured but still there is a result (the non-occurence of the desired manifestation)". We should visualize both occurrence and non-occurrence of an event on a same level to realise this fact.
8. Conclusion, there is no such thing as Independent Origination, as the occurence of a desired manifestation is the coming together of existence of the cause and all the various conditions, while the non-occurence of a desired manifestation is still the coming together of existence and non-existence of the cause or some of the various conditions, which resulted in it's non-occurence. Everything is still dependent on one another.
Thing is, you don't even know who you are insulting other than a virtual nick... Basically just insulting nothing... Insulting no one... Insulting something that is unreal...
And name callings... Name is just an external thing... it's just a name, just a form of reference for someone... So what? Does it even matter? And especially when you consider that people here are using virtual nicknames as well?
And if you know the person is out to create trouble in forums?
As said by the moderator, everything done is because of intentions. Were your intentions there to make the person feel sad? Or were your intentions there to warn others about this troublemaker? Or were your intentions to humiliate the person so that (1) he will back off and not create trouble again, or (2) just for plain humiliation to show your superiority?
This can be observed - the state of mind one already in during name calling online or offline - agitated and not a happy state of mind. You are already not happy and by hurling insults onto others, i think it make things worse... if the person react towards it negatively too.. i think it will be like never-ending stories .. like samsara.
And if you know the person is out to create trouble in forums?
As said by the moderator, everything done is because of intentions. Were your intentions there to make the person feel sad? Or were your intentions there to warn others about this troublemaker? Or were your intentions to humiliate the person so that (1) he will back off and not create trouble again, or (2) just for plain humiliation to show your superiority?
Humilating the person - it is one's ego to think there the person is inferior, superiority or equal to others. No one is superiority / inferior / or equal to others. Everybody has their strength and weakness and these traits do change. In buddhism, there is no a concrete I that does not change.
I think treat any decent people with decent respect, they will corresponding accordingly. If all else fail, just give a warning and press the ban button- short and sweet. Sometime, there isn't a need to give more humilation already.
Originally posted by Bangulzai:
The explanation does not seem apt wrt your views on Origination.
To me, I would prefer to do it as such:
1. Firstly, by not bringing in more than 1 variable for each category in the exposition
- let's focus on a minimum of 1 cause and 1 condition for 1 simple manifestation
- "conditions". Instead of attempting to classify conditions as appropriate or inappropriate, I need to simplify the concepts as thus, # the conditions that react with a cause to form a manifestation are automatically labelled "conditions" (which you mean the appropriate ones). # Therefore, conditions that does not combine with the cause to form a manifestation are automatically labelled "no conditions" (which you mean the inappropriate ones)
2. Therefore, by simplifying your exposition in such a way to dispel any confusion:
a) When there is a cause with a condition, the desired manifestation occurs.
b) When there is a cause with no condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.
c) When there is no cause with a condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.
d) When there is no cause with no condition, the desired manifestation does not occur.3. Building on the basis from pt #2, we shall apply it to a minimal real-life scenario
the cause = existence of an eyeball
the condition = existence of a toycar
the desired manifestation = registering an image of the toycar by the eyea) When there is an existence of an eyeball with an existence of a toycar, the eye registers the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation occurs)
b) When there is an existence of an eyeball with no existence of a toycar, the eye does not register the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)
c) When there is no existence of an eyeball with an existence of a toycar, there is no eye to register the image of the toycar. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)
d) When there is no existence of an eyeball with no existence of a toycar, there is no eye to register something that doesn't exist. (i.e. the desired manifestation does not occur)The above scenario constitute a minimally 1 cause and 1 condition stance.
4. Hence in actual real life, one should proceed to progressively include conditions which influences the outcome of the desired manifestation, eg.
a) When there is a cause with a #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation occurs.
b) When there is a cause with a #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
c) When there is a cause with no #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
d) When there is no cause with a #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
e) When there is no cause with a #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
f) When there is no cause with no #condition 1 with a #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.
g) When there is no cause with no #condition 1 with no #condition 2, the desired manifestation does not occur.5. Hence building on the basis from pt #4, we shall apply it on a better real-life scenario than the previous one
the cause = existence of an eyeball
#condition 1 = existence of a toycar
#condition 2 = existence of light
the desired manifestation = registering an image of the toycar by the eyeJust substitute the coloured portions in their respective positions and you will yield the same results.
6. Continually add more conditions to fulfil the actual final real-life scenario
eg.
#condition 3 = the person bearing the eyeball must be alive person
#condition 4 = the distance between the eyeball and the toycar fixed at ??cm
#condition 5 = the person's eyes must not be blind
#condition 6 = the toycar must not be hidden in a box
.....
.....
..... (could be up to infinity)7. Therefore, there is no way for one to say "manifestations may or may not occur", we can only say "the desired manifestation occurs" or "the desired manifestation does not occur". "The desired manifestation does not occur" just implies "it is not the desired manifestation that occured but still there is a result (the non-occurence of the desired manifestation)". We should visualize both occurrence and non-occurrence of an event on a same level to realise this fact.
8. Conclusion, there is no such thing as Independent Origination, as the occurence of a desired manifestation is the coming together of existence of the cause and all the various conditions, while the non-occurence of a desired manifestation is still the coming together of existence and non-existence of the cause or some of the various conditions, which resulted in it's non-occurence. Everything is still dependent on one another.
Your point 7 is full of doubt, since it's your pov and not what everyone can observe in nature. Let's start with Chaos theory, when a butterfly flaps its wings, the difference in pressure may create a hurricane in New York sometime tommorrow at noon. Hence in reality, occurence and non-occurrence of an event cannot be viewed on the same level everytime and thus your pov is not a fact.
Hence your point 8 is again wrong in terms of reality. There is independent origination as there are changes and non-changes occuring as time passes regardless of cause and condition.
Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:
Your point 7 is full of doubt, since it's your pov and not what everyone can observe in nature. Let's start with Chaos theory, when a butterfly flaps its wings, the difference in pressure may create a hurricane in New York sometime tommorrow at noon. Hence in reality, occurence and non-occurrence of an event cannot be viewed on the same level everytime and thus your pov is not a fact.Hence your point 8 is again wrong in terms of reality. There is independent origination as there are changes and non-changes occuring as time passes regardless of cause and condition.
independent origination lol. why u like to be opposite one lol
Ts is a stupid loser. The end. End of discussion. Now our next discussion is, what shall I have for breakfast? Yong Tau Foo, Prawn Mee, porridge, or carrot cake?
Originally posted by marcteng:independent origination lol. why u like to be opposite one lol
Since I pointed out some facts of reality in physics, which is against Indra's Web.
what is the karma for foreign dogs like marcteng?
Originally posted by 8800:what is the karma for foreign dogs like marcteng?
Don't ask about other people's karma, ask about yours first.
Dear Herzog_Zwei,
There is independent origination as there are changes and non-changes occuring as time passes regardless of cause and condition.
Maybe you can elaborate more on what you mean by Independent Origination and how do changes and non-changes occur? What is non-changes?
:-) Metta_(|)_
Originally posted by Emanrohe:Dear Herzog_Zwei,
There is independent origination as there are changes and non-changes occuring as time passes regardless of cause and condition.
Maybe you can elaborate more on what you mean by Independent Origination and how do changes and non-changes occur? What is non-changes?
:-) Metta_(|)_
non-changes are opposite of changes. A change occuring is time-dependent.(i.e half-life of an isotope can only be guessed before the event horizon but then again it is between now and forever.) Thus such change break free from indra's net as it has duality characteristics and thus possess both possibilities at the same time.
First of all, the Buddhist view of Dependent Origination is not the time-bound, linear view of causality in classical science. Each manifestation is whole, complete, yet D.O-ed. Seen in this way nothing has an origin. As David Loy states:
...the hierarchy that causality constructs must collapse into an interpenetration in which each event is equally conditioned by the whole and manifests that whole as the only thing in the universe.
"...we find ourselves in a universe of sunya-events, none of which can be said to occur for the sake of any other. Each nondual event -- every leaf-flutter, wandering thought, and piece of litter -- is whole and complete in itself, because although conditioned by everything else in the universe and thus a manifestation of it, for precisely that reason it is not subordinated to anything else but becomes an unconditioned end-in-itself..."
Secondly, as Thusness said,
Chaos theory breaks determinism,
breaks boundary, yet does not deny order... a higher order that is
too complex to be determined. Initial cause does not result into a
predetermined action. From a spiritual perspective,
the rigidity of ‘I’ as a fixed pattern order must be broken down
for life to be experienced in its full dynamics as wondrous
manifestation.
That we cannot determine whether a manifestation takes place does not deny a higher order, it is dependent origination yet it breaks boundaries and rigidity of a self and a 'fixed pattern order'.
If that person doesnt feel anything then no karmic reaction.If the insult bounced back as you continue your insult....it is not only Karma but Kam lan Ar !
Originally posted by Short Ninja:If that person doesnt feel anything then no karmic reaction.If the insult bounced back as you continue your insult....it is not only Karma but Kam lan Ar !
Indeed Ninja is well-versed in insultology.