Karma?

Wickedtruth · Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 12:38 pm Post subject:

"Arhat According to Hinayana Buddhism, an arhat is a person who has negated all karmic debts, escaped the wheel of rebirth (samsara), will not be reincarnated and will achieve Nirvana after his or her lifetime.

Unlike the bodhisattva, the arhat is not concerned about guiding or assisting others toward liberation."

Bet an arhat would be pretty selfish in bed.

Wickedtruth · Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject:

Err question Philosophos... arhat and buddhahood, are they two different states, or no? Is an arhat just a buddha that has no interest in helping others?

Wickedtruth · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:41 am Post subject:

Echo echo...guess I'm not getting a response on that one lol.

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject:

Sorry. I'm on my time with everyone.

In Theravada Buddhism by my understanding, a person is a buddha if and only if the person is:

-A arhat
-A teacher of the Dharma
-One who reaches nirvana either on his own OR both the former AND in a time when the Dharma is extinct (I'm still not sure exactly which it is)

So, all buddhas are arhats, but very few arhats are buddhas (again, this is only Theravada we're talking about - in Mahayana and Vajrayana it gets more complex... and a bit more supernatural, IMO, except for maybe Zen/Ch'an)

I'll expound on the third point above a bit.

In Theravada/Hinayana cosmology (as well as other sects - but this discussion'll be Theravada-specific, since we're talking Arhat ideal here), time's essentially infinite. Furthermore, there'll be long stretches of time where the Dharma isn't taught - it's essentially dead. Then, out of the blue, one guy'll achieve nirvana by himself, on his own, and start teaching it again. That guy'll be a buddha. The Theravada believe that they even know of the name of the next Buddha, after our own time of the Dharma dies away (of course, it's an Indian name...). This will happen again and again and again...

What's not perfectly clear to me is whether a person existing during the time of the Dharma (like, now - since we know what "Buddhism" is), who's personally never learned of the Dharma, and's enlightened himself on his own is technically considered a Buddha. Nothing that I've read addresses this issue, IIRC. But this is a really small technicality at the end of the day.

EDIT TWICE: Read a word I put in differently than I meant, edited it out, then put it back. Sleepy time for Philo? I'd say so...
_________________
Ass!
Hole!
Ass!
Hole!

Wickedtruth · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:57 pm Post subject:

So in a round-a-bout- way the arhat is just selfish :p

Philosophos · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject:

Wickedtruth · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:23 pm Post subject:

Nice words. I would take the path Bodhisvatta. Selfish enlightment is a no-no.

Wickedtruth · Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:36 pm Post subject:

Which path would you choose Philosophos? BODHISATVVA or Arhat? Razz

Philosophos · Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 1:43 am Post subject:

Wickedtruth · Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:29 am Post subject:

ShaSha · Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 10:45 am Post subject:

The spiritual philosophy that I embrace and best understand sees karma as everything we do or think stays with us. Like philo says, stay in a bad area long enough and the bad person is the one who will reap what he she is sowing. Same is true of the positive person. Thus when the bible says vengeance is mine, it simply means human makeup will or might punish the individual enough. Many of us , probably most, would suffer greatly if we were to harm another. That's why I see the commandments not as mandates that if broken will cast us into hell but rather guidance and suggestions of ways to avoid hell on earth.

Unlike the karmic beliefs that some carry, the bad doesn't have to happen. If somebody has a change of heart and gets into a better attitude then the bad they caused will not "catch up with them". It just ceases to be unless they decide to resurrect it.

I believe that is why we are asked to forgive others because we are the ones to suffer if we brood over a mishap. And more important, we are vulnerable to making it worse. I learned all of this personally by making those mistakes and finally doing an analysis where I literally saw all problems as mostly my own creations. That is why I embraced the thoughts are things philosophy. That is also the not so secret of "The Secret". It isn't just thoughts though and a one time thought. It is our emotions that also create and there is a time delay. That is where those who don't want to get it challenge the thought creation mentality. They think one thought should bring them a million bucks. What they aren't realizing is they neutralize that thought with another thought that they aren't noticing. That is the thought that is most frequently in their minds of why they aren't going to get that million.

To sum it up, karma to me is we do reap what we sow but the redemption possibilities are always there to keep the bad from happening. And we can have almost completely happy lives because we are in control if we want to be.

Aupmanyav · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:07 am Post subject: Re: Karma?

Wickedtruth · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:09 am Post subject:

Confused me a little Aupmanyav...so you're saying you don't believe in karma then?

Aupmanyav · Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 10:15 am Post subject:

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> Buddhism	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Page 5 of 6