New answers tagged

1

Let me add some qualification to that: It's ok from the perspective of the Five Precepts and Right Livelihood for lay people, to grow, harvest and consume vegetables and fruits (without the use of pesticides), because plants are not sentient. The word for sentient being is satta. From SN 5.10: When the parts are assembled we use the word ‘chariot’. So too, ...


0

There isn't any punishment or reward there is just cause and effect. There is no society and there is no pandemic in a karmic sense. Reality doesn't admit of those things at a moment by moment experiential level where karma works. Remember, this moment by moment experiential reality stuff is really important.


0

Art is not evil or sinful. Art is not good or virtuous. Art is just art. Art is just an expression of ideas and thoughts. It, in itself, has no ability to be anything in its own right. The only thing that is either good or bad about art, and about anything else in the world, is your intention. A knife is not evil. But it can kill. It can also cut vegetables, ...


0

There is no comparison you kill the poor insect, than you kill your own soul. The soul is guide, own light, immortal. When you forget soul, you are in pain. Its not a wonder that one's body dies, but a great wonder that they think soul dies. Their soul is already dead. Shruti proclaim, 'Soul is immortal, my dear', its your guide, inner master, guide and ...


0

Try to grab a snake by its mouth. It will bite you. Your wrong grasping of Dhamma can land you in many moral dilemmas and can create existential crisis. The precepts are meant for those who have seriously committed to the 8 fold path. Being a householder you have to take care of yourself , your family , your society etc. You can’t just sit worrying about ...


0

I haven't seen the video yet, but I'd say that no scientic theory would be able to tell us how are we supposed to live or what is valuable to follow and what to abandon. Science shows what is the world and what is the relation between its parts; philosophy, ethics, spirituality and religion try to give us a "why" should we follow one way of life or ...


1

To deny beauty in the world is to deny the very essence of dharma. Art isn't a lie. Art is an expression and a magnification of what it is to live. Many artists focus on things that might be considered problematic from a Buddhist perspective, sure: their self-infatuations, their desires, their contempt for society, their raw emotions, their personal needs ...


2

"The freedom of my swinging arms ends at your nose." This video promotes the value of developing consciousness beyond personal concerns into a consciousness that embraces the world around us. In the suttas, one reads the equivalent: AN9.33:6.2: If someone should say, ‘I do not know or see where the perception of the dimension of infinite space ...


0

We can illuminate the question of art from a completely independent perspective; the conclusions you might draw are equally independent, a state we have found necessary to our study in order to find truth. The existence of art arises from the nature of our experiential reality, which in turn arises in everyone as an illusion reflecting the underlying truth. ...


0

Theory of Evolution is not a theory at all. Just listen to what it essentially says, it says that things are the way they are because other ways died out(Natural Selection). That is not any logic at all.Although things change based on past karma, we can't say that the modern theory of evolution is correct. The discussion on youtube link is very basic and ...


0

Of course. Buddhism isn't beholden to evolutionary theory! What makes evolution the standard bearer for what constitutes right livelihood?


0

The “whole” is neither the sum of parts, nor a unity. From the perspective of relative knowledge it would more correctly be stated to be multiplicity found in unity, but as soon as you start conceiving a thing called “unity” you are lost. This is philosophical. From the perspective of absolute truth, there is nothing that can be accurately said—language is ...


1

Some answers have already indicated what seems to be the point of view of EBT teachings: sense stimuli and sense doors are aflame; craving is an arrow; the phenomena connected with the aggregates are to be seen as a disease, as stressful, as a cancer. Craving and attachments for any form or idea of yourself is a still craving for the senses or craving for ...


1

If good householder finds stenght in effort to let go of what binds back and seeks for what is of long term use and help for oneself and all others, such isn't compareable with what ever worldily art and skill to go after. If starting to try to justify reasons to do not go for it, the highest, meaning doubt, meaning lack of Saddha, then right there the path ...


4

In DN1, the Buddha explains in detail what he refrains from. Since you're an artist, you'll understand that art can be used to highlight beauty. Such art would foster clinging and prolong suffering by that attachment: DN1:1.16.1: ‘There are some ascetics and brahmins who, while enjoying food given in faith, still engage in beautifying and adorning ...


3

Nobody is going to punish you for your art. Art is not a crime. But in Buddha’s world the priorities are different. The number one priority is to end suffering. And for that purpose art is a distraction for those follow the Noble Eightfold Path. Most people do not understand the urgency of the matter. If you follow Buddha’s Dhamma then avoid painting and ...


12

Art can be a continuation of samsaric inertia, or it can be an expression of the enlightened mind. What message are you sending with your art? What impulse does it carry forward into the future?


1

Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context). This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis ...


1

We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is. We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.


0

The kāyasaṅkhāra, vacīsaṅkhāra and cittasaṅkhāra of MN 44 are processes: kāyasaṅkhāra are physical processes such as breathing vacīsaṅkhāra are mental processes where the mind is able to express itself through physical, verbal and mental actions or effects - these are mental output processes cittasaṅkhāra are mental processes where the mind perceives and ...


1

Why are these called old kamma (purāṇakammā)? Is it because of rebirth? No. It appears to be the very opposite. The sutta appears to be dismissing the ordinary common view about 'rebirth', similar to AN 3.61, which dismisses the common view that happiness and suffering are due former kamma (pubbekata). The suttas SN 35.136 & SN 12.37 literally say this ...


0

Suppose I have a bullet mark on my shoulder, what would we call it ? A result of old kamma. Something which happened in the past but has now ceased happening. The wound has healed. In the past the bullet injury was the source of my suffering but it no more can be called a source of suffering. Similarly when looking at eye we say it is due to an old kamma. In ...


0

I think I've found one possible answer, so I will answer my own question, but I will not accept it. The sutta quoted in the question states that the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind are old kamma, but it doesn't say WHOSE old kamma it is. The sutta below answers that question. So, the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind definitely arise due to old ...


Top 50 recent answers are included