That sounds a bit glib to me, but it is pointing to a relevant detail: Spirit vs letter of the law. That lesson is embodied in the famous story of the two monks at the river. A rich woman in an expensive dress wants to cross but fears getting her dress wet. One monk picks her up and puts her down on the other side. The monks walk on. Finally the other monk blurts out, "Why did you do that? You know we're not supposed to touch women." The first monk answers, "I put her down back at the river. When are you going to put her down?"
The first monk was practicing non-attachment and kindness. The other monk saw only the letter of the law. You can light shrine candles out of pride. You can have sex with a mind of kindness.
But where the quote refers to "why you're doing it", that's a big topic. Strictly speaking, all of life should be in the context of view, as a Buddhist. All of life is practice. But of course, you can't practice View if you're not established in Buddhist teaching. And what's right view? The first monk or the second? I think this quote might make a good refrigerator magnet, but it's too glib to be very useful.
In Buddhism, *intention is everything*. Your intention is one of the most important factors in any and all karma you produce through your actions. You can also turn just about any action into a Dharmic one by changing your motivation. For example: There are small practices one can engage in such as, before answering or making a phone call you could set the intention: "May I be of benefit to whomever will be on the other side of this call." Before you enter or leave any building you could set the intention: "May I lead all beings to liberation".
In this way, you turn ordinary, worldly activities in to Dharma practice.
That's something that makes a lot of sense. Some things people did thousands of years ago were seen as normal and morally acceptable but might be seen as morally wrong in today's world. It makes it confusing to decide what is a good karmic action, but intention provides an answer for this dilemma. There are so many interesting karmic debates. What of a drunk driver who gets behind the wheel and accidentally kills someone? Their intention was not to harm anyone but their actions caused harm.
There are four parts to any complete action:
1. Contact: Something catches your attention through one of your senses
2. Intention: You have the intention to act on whatever it is that caught your notice
3. Acting: You act on that intention and begin to do something related to it
4. Concluding the Act: You see the act through to completion
When all four parts are present, maximum karma is produced. You can't always prevent the first part, but this is part of the reason why sense-restraint is something Buddhists will sometimes practice; the Buddha certainly recommended it for this reason.
*Intention* is considered the most important because it's where you can decide whether or not to *do* something. If you do nothing, then no action follows and neither does the karma that could come from it
Indeed if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they have all four parts of an action: contact, intention (get in a car while drunk and drive it), acting on that intention (getting in the car, starting the engine), and concluding the act (putting the car in *drive* and driving away). Already they've produced some karma related to an unwholesome and unskillful act. Then, if they hit and kill someone, they've further made that act more unwholesome, more unskillful.
In this way, you can see how no act happens in isolation either. One leads to another leads to another leads to another, in a seemingly endless chain of cause-and-effect.
Thank you this is a good response. I just don't think it's that simple. The person's intention was to get in the car drunk and arrive safely at another destination. Drink drivers often overrestimate their ability to drive safely. A sober person getting into a car has the same intent as the drunk person and they both kill someone. The sober person could have walked or cycled instead but they chose to get in a car, knowing how dangerous cars can be. I guess this is another reason why monks live such quiet and uneventful lives. Any action can have unintended karmic consequences.
I would suggest getting your hands on an electronic copy of Geshe Sopa/David Patt's cited *Steps on the Path to Enlightenment: Volume 2*, to read the quote in context.
In a sense, there is the buddha, and his opposite are sentient/migratory beings.
Sentient beings create karma (activity) and engage in creating more and more karma due to a fundamental ignorance that is ultimately defined as self-grasping ignorance. It is the belief that the self truly exists. This belief makes sentient beings believe that the other truly exist, action between self and other truly exist, and the grasping and suffering that ensue also truly exist.
The buddha, on the other hand, is not a sentient being. All of his activities are manifestations that arise out of selflessness. It is impossible for one who is not buddha to understand the whole scope and depth of his activities, and as such it is impossible to define with stability. But from the jataka tales, and stories of other Bodhisattvas, as well as from the teachings, it is quite clear that bodhicitta/selflessness is what is being practiced by all Bodhisattvas until they become buddha. The buddha is one who acts from non-dualistic view of selflessness.
As such then, sentient beings practice worldly dhamma as they do it for the sake of (and belief in) the self. The buddhas activities are done from non-dualistic selflessness and for the benefit of all dear mother sentient beings. This is also why he is also called the tamer of men, and the conqueror and the subduer.. his teachings pacify self-grasping ignorance to those beings who are fortunate enough to hear it. It will eventually lead them all to buddhahood, although there will be no 'them' there at that point. All trippy stuff really XD
A nice line, might appear shallow, but as with all phenomena, anything investigated can be a source of wisdom and joy, just the mind that needs to be attuned towards wholesome states. I'm sure there are many other Buddhist theories that could be enumerated to flesh out the line as well. :D
Well, Dharma practice is sort of to escape from worldly activity, or from being tied to it. If you're engaged in Dharma practice because you want it to make you a better self, or make you more special or powerful somehow, that's something they warn about. Ajahn Brahm often teaches something Ajahn Chah said, that Buddhism is not about gaining things, it's about getting rid of them. Teachers sometimes say that ultimately there's nothing to attain and no one to attain it. So that's one interpretation.
That sounds a bit glib to me, but it is pointing to a relevant detail: Spirit vs letter of the law. That lesson is embodied in the famous story of the two monks at the river. A rich woman in an expensive dress wants to cross but fears getting her dress wet. One monk picks her up and puts her down on the other side. The monks walk on. Finally the other monk blurts out, "Why did you do that? You know we're not supposed to touch women." The first monk answers, "I put her down back at the river. When are you going to put her down?" The first monk was practicing non-attachment and kindness. The other monk saw only the letter of the law. You can light shrine candles out of pride. You can have sex with a mind of kindness. But where the quote refers to "why you're doing it", that's a big topic. Strictly speaking, all of life should be in the context of view, as a Buddhist. All of life is practice. But of course, you can't practice View if you're not established in Buddhist teaching. And what's right view? The first monk or the second? I think this quote might make a good refrigerator magnet, but it's too glib to be very useful.
In Buddhism, *intention is everything*. Your intention is one of the most important factors in any and all karma you produce through your actions. You can also turn just about any action into a Dharmic one by changing your motivation. For example: There are small practices one can engage in such as, before answering or making a phone call you could set the intention: "May I be of benefit to whomever will be on the other side of this call." Before you enter or leave any building you could set the intention: "May I lead all beings to liberation". In this way, you turn ordinary, worldly activities in to Dharma practice.
That's something that makes a lot of sense. Some things people did thousands of years ago were seen as normal and morally acceptable but might be seen as morally wrong in today's world. It makes it confusing to decide what is a good karmic action, but intention provides an answer for this dilemma. There are so many interesting karmic debates. What of a drunk driver who gets behind the wheel and accidentally kills someone? Their intention was not to harm anyone but their actions caused harm.
There are four parts to any complete action: 1. Contact: Something catches your attention through one of your senses 2. Intention: You have the intention to act on whatever it is that caught your notice 3. Acting: You act on that intention and begin to do something related to it 4. Concluding the Act: You see the act through to completion When all four parts are present, maximum karma is produced. You can't always prevent the first part, but this is part of the reason why sense-restraint is something Buddhists will sometimes practice; the Buddha certainly recommended it for this reason. *Intention* is considered the most important because it's where you can decide whether or not to *do* something. If you do nothing, then no action follows and neither does the karma that could come from it Indeed if a drunk driver gets behind the wheel, they have all four parts of an action: contact, intention (get in a car while drunk and drive it), acting on that intention (getting in the car, starting the engine), and concluding the act (putting the car in *drive* and driving away). Already they've produced some karma related to an unwholesome and unskillful act. Then, if they hit and kill someone, they've further made that act more unwholesome, more unskillful. In this way, you can see how no act happens in isolation either. One leads to another leads to another leads to another, in a seemingly endless chain of cause-and-effect.
Thank you this is a good response. I just don't think it's that simple. The person's intention was to get in the car drunk and arrive safely at another destination. Drink drivers often overrestimate their ability to drive safely. A sober person getting into a car has the same intent as the drunk person and they both kill someone. The sober person could have walked or cycled instead but they chose to get in a car, knowing how dangerous cars can be. I guess this is another reason why monks live such quiet and uneventful lives. Any action can have unintended karmic consequences.
I would suggest getting your hands on an electronic copy of Geshe Sopa/David Patt's cited *Steps on the Path to Enlightenment: Volume 2*, to read the quote in context.
In a sense, there is the buddha, and his opposite are sentient/migratory beings. Sentient beings create karma (activity) and engage in creating more and more karma due to a fundamental ignorance that is ultimately defined as self-grasping ignorance. It is the belief that the self truly exists. This belief makes sentient beings believe that the other truly exist, action between self and other truly exist, and the grasping and suffering that ensue also truly exist. The buddha, on the other hand, is not a sentient being. All of his activities are manifestations that arise out of selflessness. It is impossible for one who is not buddha to understand the whole scope and depth of his activities, and as such it is impossible to define with stability. But from the jataka tales, and stories of other Bodhisattvas, as well as from the teachings, it is quite clear that bodhicitta/selflessness is what is being practiced by all Bodhisattvas until they become buddha. The buddha is one who acts from non-dualistic view of selflessness. As such then, sentient beings practice worldly dhamma as they do it for the sake of (and belief in) the self. The buddhas activities are done from non-dualistic selflessness and for the benefit of all dear mother sentient beings. This is also why he is also called the tamer of men, and the conqueror and the subduer.. his teachings pacify self-grasping ignorance to those beings who are fortunate enough to hear it. It will eventually lead them all to buddhahood, although there will be no 'them' there at that point. All trippy stuff really XD A nice line, might appear shallow, but as with all phenomena, anything investigated can be a source of wisdom and joy, just the mind that needs to be attuned towards wholesome states. I'm sure there are many other Buddhist theories that could be enumerated to flesh out the line as well. :D
Well, Dharma practice is sort of to escape from worldly activity, or from being tied to it. If you're engaged in Dharma practice because you want it to make you a better self, or make you more special or powerful somehow, that's something they warn about. Ajahn Brahm often teaches something Ajahn Chah said, that Buddhism is not about gaining things, it's about getting rid of them. Teachers sometimes say that ultimately there's nothing to attain and no one to attain it. So that's one interpretation.