This is a sidetrack on the topic of Kamma.
There was a guy who was interested in me, but I was not particularly keen in him. However, what happened was he totally blew his chance over a discussion on Kamma.
I could not remember what lead to the discussion about Kamma, though it lead to his declaration that everything is due to Kamma.
But that's not true, I countered, there are other Niyamas besides Kamma.
He had never heard of the Niyamas. So I started explaining the Niyamas -- based on what I understood from some of the Buddhist texts. Yet, he insisted everything is due to Kamma, and a argument ensued.
Finally, he asked me whether I meditated or not.
I said no.
There, he said, you are just an intellectual Buddhist. You have no direct experience and insight from meditation. You are just regurgitating stuff from the text books.
He blew his chances.
OK. OK. I admit. I was being egoistic and defensive. I took the accusation of being an "intellectual Buddhist" as grave insult (I did then, though now I would not. But that's another topic for another day).
So what's the significance of this?
1. It shows that many Buddhists are ignorant about the Niyamas and many believes everything is due to Kamma.
2. Meditation is important to Buddhists
3. If you want to date me, don't make the same mistake! (haha!)
But really, the past few posts are just a sharing of my understanding of Kamma. It is not insight gained from the jhannas. It may not completely correct either. However, I think there has been so much misconceptions about Kamma that it deserves a discussion from a different perspective.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Kamma and the Niyamas
The Law of Kamma is also known as the Law of Cause and Effect.
The Law of Kamma states that volition (i.e. intentional acts) are causes which has effects on our well-being (i.e. whether we suffer or are happy).
The problem with calling the Law of Kamma the Law of Cause and Effect is that it leads people into thinking everything that has causes and effects are due to Kamma.
I certainly thought that way for a long time.
It was only much later, that I learnt that it was not so. Kamma was the law that operates in the moral realm. Besides Kamma, the Buddha recognized at least 4 other laws, know as the Niyamas.
These are the Five Niyamas which the Buddha mentioned:
Utu Niyama: The laws governing the physical inorganic matter.
Biji Niyama: The laws governing the biological matter
Kamma Niyama: The laws governing the moral consequences of violition
Citta Niyama: The laws governing the working of the mind
Dhamma Niyama: The other natural laws.
Even when I later learnt about the Niyamas, I did not pay much attention to them. The concept that "everything is due to Kamma" is so ingrained that I did not appreciate the importance of the other Niyamas.
Why is it that the other four Niyamas are hardly mentioned and most Buddhists remain ignorant about them?
Apparently it was due to the idea that only Kamma Niyama is important because this is the only one which we have direct control over. The other four Niyamas are beyond our control anyway, and hence there is no need to pay them much attention.
I suspect it is also because Kamma is the primary justification Buddhists used to justify the need to lead a life of morality, and hence its emphasis.
However, I think it has lead to problems. First of all, it lead to the naive belief that everything is due to Kamma, and determined by Kamma. I have heard people attributing all sorts of things to Kamma: striking lottery, winning a lucky draw, getting a promotion, catching an illness, meeting an accident, narrowing escaping an accident, surviving a disaster etc.
Secondly, it leads to a belief in Kammic Determinism, i.e. a believe that whatever that is happening to you right now is determined by past Kamma.
Of the five Niyamas, Kamma Niyama is the only one over which we have direct control. While we do not have control over the other Niyamas, we do experience them through Kamma Niyama. What this means is that the operation of these laws are neutral and impersonal. They are not moralistic in nature and do not contain judgmental values. However, through Kamma Niyama, we experience them as good or bad, and thus we becomes happy or we suffers.
Thus, it is not Kamma that determined the physical and material outcomes of our actions. What Kamma determines is whether you are happy, sad, indifferent or abide in equanimity in response to the physical and material outcomes (the physical outcome is really due to the other Niyamas). The more you practice morality, the more you reduce three roots of evil, the more spiritually advanced you become, then the less you would suffer. Hence Kamma leads to happiness, not because of the Kamma contrived to create the physical conditions that made you happy, but because Kamma led you closer to enlightenment and hence your mind do not suffers even in face of adversity.
When I finally I understood this, I thought the significance was enormous, because it does affect attitudes.
There was a time when I too believe that everything is due to Kamma. When I can't explain it, it will be attributed to something like "kamma work in its mysterious ways". Well, didn't the Buddha say not to speculate on the workings of Kamma?
Thus, I remember, many years ago, I wrote in a forum that, if a person have casual sex and then later caught AIDS, that is Kamma.
But now I that I have clearer understanding, I realized how naive and judgmental that is. If indeed Kamma was the force that inflicted AIDS on a person in order to "punish" him for having casual sex, then it would imply that Kamma was the supernatural deterministic force that passed a judgment and manipulated the virus to inflict him. That would imply that the Kamma supercedes the other natural laws -- which is contradictory and not something I believe the Buddha taught.
The Buddha said everything arise through a confluence of conditions. Hence, contracting AIDS is a result of a confluence of conditions. Those conditions includes factors belong to other natural orders (e.g. Biji Niyama, which would determine how the virus spread and how our bodily defence react against it). However, these conditions also include our intentional actions as well (e.g. whether we decide to have casual and unprotected sex with someone).
Whether a person catch the AIDS might depend on many conditions, e.g. was condom used, was there exchange of bodily fluids, was the person's immune defense low, etc. And perhaps, Kamma, might in some ways be a conditioning factor -- I do not know. But I think it would be wrong to say it was DETERMINED by Kamma.
However, this does not mean having casual sex has no Kammic effect. It is after all intentional act -- and anything that involve volition would have an Kammic effect. The need to have a casual sex encounter could be due to a strong lust. The Kammic effects could be any or all of these: stagnating in the spiritual path, stronger bond to samsara, emotional dissatisfaction and anguish from the encounter, stronger sexual desires, some sensual happiness and satisfaction, etc. That is, I believe, Kamma Niyama operates in a way that affects a personal's mind and psychology, and hence his rebirth (since rebirth is conditioned by clinging and desire).
I think it is important that we, as Buddhists, correctly recognize the role of the Niyamas in our daily life, and understand Kamma's effect.
The wrong understanding has lead to a fatalistic passivity towards suffering (the attitude that it is determined by past Kamma and we just have to live it out), as well as a wrong emphasis on the physical outcomes of our actions rather than their effects on our mind.
The Law of Kamma states that volition (i.e. intentional acts) are causes which has effects on our well-being (i.e. whether we suffer or are happy).
The problem with calling the Law of Kamma the Law of Cause and Effect is that it leads people into thinking everything that has causes and effects are due to Kamma.
I certainly thought that way for a long time.
It was only much later, that I learnt that it was not so. Kamma was the law that operates in the moral realm. Besides Kamma, the Buddha recognized at least 4 other laws, know as the Niyamas.
These are the Five Niyamas which the Buddha mentioned:
Utu Niyama: The laws governing the physical inorganic matter.
Biji Niyama: The laws governing the biological matter
Kamma Niyama: The laws governing the moral consequences of violition
Citta Niyama: The laws governing the working of the mind
Dhamma Niyama: The other natural laws.
Even when I later learnt about the Niyamas, I did not pay much attention to them. The concept that "everything is due to Kamma" is so ingrained that I did not appreciate the importance of the other Niyamas.
Why is it that the other four Niyamas are hardly mentioned and most Buddhists remain ignorant about them?
Apparently it was due to the idea that only Kamma Niyama is important because this is the only one which we have direct control over. The other four Niyamas are beyond our control anyway, and hence there is no need to pay them much attention.
I suspect it is also because Kamma is the primary justification Buddhists used to justify the need to lead a life of morality, and hence its emphasis.
However, I think it has lead to problems. First of all, it lead to the naive belief that everything is due to Kamma, and determined by Kamma. I have heard people attributing all sorts of things to Kamma: striking lottery, winning a lucky draw, getting a promotion, catching an illness, meeting an accident, narrowing escaping an accident, surviving a disaster etc.
Secondly, it leads to a belief in Kammic Determinism, i.e. a believe that whatever that is happening to you right now is determined by past Kamma.
Of the five Niyamas, Kamma Niyama is the only one over which we have direct control. While we do not have control over the other Niyamas, we do experience them through Kamma Niyama. What this means is that the operation of these laws are neutral and impersonal. They are not moralistic in nature and do not contain judgmental values. However, through Kamma Niyama, we experience them as good or bad, and thus we becomes happy or we suffers.
Thus, it is not Kamma that determined the physical and material outcomes of our actions. What Kamma determines is whether you are happy, sad, indifferent or abide in equanimity in response to the physical and material outcomes (the physical outcome is really due to the other Niyamas). The more you practice morality, the more you reduce three roots of evil, the more spiritually advanced you become, then the less you would suffer. Hence Kamma leads to happiness, not because of the Kamma contrived to create the physical conditions that made you happy, but because Kamma led you closer to enlightenment and hence your mind do not suffers even in face of adversity.
When I finally I understood this, I thought the significance was enormous, because it does affect attitudes.
There was a time when I too believe that everything is due to Kamma. When I can't explain it, it will be attributed to something like "kamma work in its mysterious ways". Well, didn't the Buddha say not to speculate on the workings of Kamma?
Thus, I remember, many years ago, I wrote in a forum that, if a person have casual sex and then later caught AIDS, that is Kamma.
But now I that I have clearer understanding, I realized how naive and judgmental that is. If indeed Kamma was the force that inflicted AIDS on a person in order to "punish" him for having casual sex, then it would imply that Kamma was the supernatural deterministic force that passed a judgment and manipulated the virus to inflict him. That would imply that the Kamma supercedes the other natural laws -- which is contradictory and not something I believe the Buddha taught.
The Buddha said everything arise through a confluence of conditions. Hence, contracting AIDS is a result of a confluence of conditions. Those conditions includes factors belong to other natural orders (e.g. Biji Niyama, which would determine how the virus spread and how our bodily defence react against it). However, these conditions also include our intentional actions as well (e.g. whether we decide to have casual and unprotected sex with someone).
Whether a person catch the AIDS might depend on many conditions, e.g. was condom used, was there exchange of bodily fluids, was the person's immune defense low, etc. And perhaps, Kamma, might in some ways be a conditioning factor -- I do not know. But I think it would be wrong to say it was DETERMINED by Kamma.
However, this does not mean having casual sex has no Kammic effect. It is after all intentional act -- and anything that involve volition would have an Kammic effect. The need to have a casual sex encounter could be due to a strong lust. The Kammic effects could be any or all of these: stagnating in the spiritual path, stronger bond to samsara, emotional dissatisfaction and anguish from the encounter, stronger sexual desires, some sensual happiness and satisfaction, etc. That is, I believe, Kamma Niyama operates in a way that affects a personal's mind and psychology, and hence his rebirth (since rebirth is conditioned by clinging and desire).
I think it is important that we, as Buddhists, correctly recognize the role of the Niyamas in our daily life, and understand Kamma's effect.
The wrong understanding has lead to a fatalistic passivity towards suffering (the attitude that it is determined by past Kamma and we just have to live it out), as well as a wrong emphasis on the physical outcomes of our actions rather than their effects on our mind.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
More about Kamma
The doctrine of Kamma is an important doctrine in Buddhism. For decades, I have been trying to understand it. It was only after attending the dhamma class conducted by Ven. Dhammika that I realized I really got it wrong all these while.
Kamma is often used to explain all sorts of the things that happened to us. The good things that happens to us are due to good kamma and bad things that happen to us are due to bad kamma. We were taught we reap what we sow.
However, the "fruits" of kamma are often explained in physical and material terms. For example, if you are generous, you will be rich in your future life (and poor if you are stingy). If you look down on people, you will be born short. If you kill other people, you will in turn be killed by other people, and etc.
Let's take the last example, for this is one that has perplexed me for many years. When I was young, this was one of the examples of working Kamma that is frequently used. The epitome of this example is best represented by the story of King Ajatashatru, the king of Magadha during Buddha's time. The story goes that because Ajatashatru killed his father (King Bimbisara) to gain the throne, later he was killed by his own son Udayi-Bhadda. This retribution, as most Buddhist would explain, is kamma at work.
I could never understand why nobody objected to this story. Everyone seems to accept this as a perfectly reasonable example of kamma at work. But I had a big problem with this story.
If Ajatashatru being killed by his son was the kammic retribution for killing his own father, then it must mean that Udayi-Bhadda is the agent of kamma. He must then be doing the work of kamma to punish his father. If that is the case, does Udayi-Bhadda suffers kamma for the act of killing his father? If he does, then it is unfair isn't it? Why he is but an agent of the forces of kamma -- he did not have free will. But if he doesn't, then it doesn't make sense either -- how can he not suffer any kammic consequence for killing his father? That would be that kamma operate under some circumstances and not in others.
This was a problem that perplexed me for decades.
Finally, it was Ven Dhammika's interpretation of Kamma that help me resolved this problem.
Ven Dhammika explained that the effects of Kamma mostly are not physical and material, rather, its effects are on the person's mind. Kamma conditions rebirth and the consciousness. Our kamma conditions what realms were are born into. Our kamma conditions our habits and character, which in terms conditions our happiness and spiritual attainment.
To me, that idea was revolutionary, but it explained many things. I was finally able to solve the problem that bother me for so long.
In the example of King Ajatashatru, it was simply wrong to say that it was kammic retribution that resulted him being killed by his son. To say so would imply a lack of free will on his son's part and would imply that Kamma is deterministic.
That does not mean Ajatashatru did not suffer any kammic effect. He would. But those effects would be things like sufferings as a result of negative mental states like regret, and moving away from the spiritual attainment. In the Samannaphala Sutta (Digha Nikaya, I, 86), the Buddha did explain the kamma results Ajatashatru suffered for killing his father. The Buddha said that had Ajatashatru not killed his father, "the pure and spotless Dhamma-eye would have arisen in him". Hence the act of killing generated a strong negative mental energy that prevented Ajatashatru from attaining enlightenment. To me, that is the kammic effect.
Udayi-Bhadda did not kill his father in order to carry work kammic retribution. He did it out of his own volition, perhaps out of greed and covetousness, wanting to gain the throne for himself. And hence, he should suffer his own kammic retributions.
In the same way, many things that happens to us are not a result of kamma. Many phenomena are neutral, neither good or bad. It is our own perceptions that interpret them as good or bad -- from there, we began to interpret "good" things as a result of previous good kamma, and "bad" things as a result of previous bad kamma.
Take the example of striking lottery. Many Buddhists would interpret it as good kamma -- it is perhaps the fruits practicing generosity (whether in this life or previous life). I used to accept this way of thinking too, although there is something that disturbs me.
First, I always wondered, when the lottery machine is tossing up the winning numbers, were kammic forces out there working furiously, trying to determine who among all those who bought lottery tickets should be rewarded with the prize.
Second, it seemed to be that the interpretation tends to be post-hoc, i.e. after the fact. If striking lottery leads to happiness, then people would interpret it as result of good kamma. However, if a few days later, the winner was robbed after collecting his prize money and got killed in the process, people would quickly change their mind and decide that striking lottery was bad kamma after all.
Finally I realized that lottery is simply a matter of chance. There is nothing kammic about it. If you buy a ticket, you have a chance. If you don't you have no chance. If you strike, it's yet again chance.
What's really kammic, is your attitude towards it. The desire for the lottery money could be the kammic forces that continues to bind you to the cycle of rebirths. The generosity of sharing the prize money, on the other hand, could be the virtues that brings your closer to Nirvana. It is the attitudes towards these events that generate kammic effects that conditions the mental stream (or consciousness).
The significance of this realization is two-fold.
First, I realized that we may have falsely attributed many things to Kamma were there is perhaps none or little. Many things happens due to other natural laws (the Niyamas), Kamma is but one of the 5 laws of nature. We may have falsely perceived Kamma as being deterministic of our material and physical well-being, and the Buddha had specifically declared Kammic determinism is a wrong view. (See Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Vol 1, pg 173)
Secondly, I realized that Kammic effects are mostly on the consciousness, rather than in the physical sense. By focusing on the possible physical and materialistic results, we end up missing what's important. What we should really pay attention to is how our actions affected our mental states and consciousness, and not so much the physical and material outcomes.
Kamma is often used to explain all sorts of the things that happened to us. The good things that happens to us are due to good kamma and bad things that happen to us are due to bad kamma. We were taught we reap what we sow.
However, the "fruits" of kamma are often explained in physical and material terms. For example, if you are generous, you will be rich in your future life (and poor if you are stingy). If you look down on people, you will be born short. If you kill other people, you will in turn be killed by other people, and etc.
Let's take the last example, for this is one that has perplexed me for many years. When I was young, this was one of the examples of working Kamma that is frequently used. The epitome of this example is best represented by the story of King Ajatashatru, the king of Magadha during Buddha's time. The story goes that because Ajatashatru killed his father (King Bimbisara) to gain the throne, later he was killed by his own son Udayi-Bhadda. This retribution, as most Buddhist would explain, is kamma at work.
I could never understand why nobody objected to this story. Everyone seems to accept this as a perfectly reasonable example of kamma at work. But I had a big problem with this story.
If Ajatashatru being killed by his son was the kammic retribution for killing his own father, then it must mean that Udayi-Bhadda is the agent of kamma. He must then be doing the work of kamma to punish his father. If that is the case, does Udayi-Bhadda suffers kamma for the act of killing his father? If he does, then it is unfair isn't it? Why he is but an agent of the forces of kamma -- he did not have free will. But if he doesn't, then it doesn't make sense either -- how can he not suffer any kammic consequence for killing his father? That would be that kamma operate under some circumstances and not in others.
This was a problem that perplexed me for decades.
Finally, it was Ven Dhammika's interpretation of Kamma that help me resolved this problem.
Ven Dhammika explained that the effects of Kamma mostly are not physical and material, rather, its effects are on the person's mind. Kamma conditions rebirth and the consciousness. Our kamma conditions what realms were are born into. Our kamma conditions our habits and character, which in terms conditions our happiness and spiritual attainment.
To me, that idea was revolutionary, but it explained many things. I was finally able to solve the problem that bother me for so long.
In the example of King Ajatashatru, it was simply wrong to say that it was kammic retribution that resulted him being killed by his son. To say so would imply a lack of free will on his son's part and would imply that Kamma is deterministic.
That does not mean Ajatashatru did not suffer any kammic effect. He would. But those effects would be things like sufferings as a result of negative mental states like regret, and moving away from the spiritual attainment. In the Samannaphala Sutta (Digha Nikaya, I, 86), the Buddha did explain the kamma results Ajatashatru suffered for killing his father. The Buddha said that had Ajatashatru not killed his father, "the pure and spotless Dhamma-eye would have arisen in him". Hence the act of killing generated a strong negative mental energy that prevented Ajatashatru from attaining enlightenment. To me, that is the kammic effect.
Udayi-Bhadda did not kill his father in order to carry work kammic retribution. He did it out of his own volition, perhaps out of greed and covetousness, wanting to gain the throne for himself. And hence, he should suffer his own kammic retributions.
In the same way, many things that happens to us are not a result of kamma. Many phenomena are neutral, neither good or bad. It is our own perceptions that interpret them as good or bad -- from there, we began to interpret "good" things as a result of previous good kamma, and "bad" things as a result of previous bad kamma.
Take the example of striking lottery. Many Buddhists would interpret it as good kamma -- it is perhaps the fruits practicing generosity (whether in this life or previous life). I used to accept this way of thinking too, although there is something that disturbs me.
First, I always wondered, when the lottery machine is tossing up the winning numbers, were kammic forces out there working furiously, trying to determine who among all those who bought lottery tickets should be rewarded with the prize.
Second, it seemed to be that the interpretation tends to be post-hoc, i.e. after the fact. If striking lottery leads to happiness, then people would interpret it as result of good kamma. However, if a few days later, the winner was robbed after collecting his prize money and got killed in the process, people would quickly change their mind and decide that striking lottery was bad kamma after all.
Finally I realized that lottery is simply a matter of chance. There is nothing kammic about it. If you buy a ticket, you have a chance. If you don't you have no chance. If you strike, it's yet again chance.
What's really kammic, is your attitude towards it. The desire for the lottery money could be the kammic forces that continues to bind you to the cycle of rebirths. The generosity of sharing the prize money, on the other hand, could be the virtues that brings your closer to Nirvana. It is the attitudes towards these events that generate kammic effects that conditions the mental stream (or consciousness).
The significance of this realization is two-fold.
First, I realized that we may have falsely attributed many things to Kamma were there is perhaps none or little. Many things happens due to other natural laws (the Niyamas), Kamma is but one of the 5 laws of nature. We may have falsely perceived Kamma as being deterministic of our material and physical well-being, and the Buddha had specifically declared Kammic determinism is a wrong view. (See Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Vol 1, pg 173)
Secondly, I realized that Kammic effects are mostly on the consciousness, rather than in the physical sense. By focusing on the possible physical and materialistic results, we end up missing what's important. What we should really pay attention to is how our actions affected our mental states and consciousness, and not so much the physical and material outcomes.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What did you do to deserve such good looks
What did you do to deserve such good looks?
Well, I think the question is whether looks have anything you did or had done.
This question arose over a comment that was made during a film screening. A Dhamma brother said that Kamma determines our good looks. If we want good looks (in our future life), we should do good.
I disagreed with that statement. What I did not like about this is that such views very easily lead to an interpretation of the reverse: i.e. you are ugly because of bad things you did in your previous life. (No, it is not because I took personal offense, haha)
Furthermore, I felt this is another typical case of attributing everything to Kamma. In Buddhism, Kamma is only but one of the Five Niyamas (the universal laws). Kamma is the law that governs the ethic and psychological aspects and is the only one that one that is within our control. But that does not mean everything that happens is due to the law of Kamma.
Thus, I maintained that physical looks is not determined by kamma, but due to the Biji Niyama (the biological law), i.e. it is a case of genetics.
In any case, a discussion ensued. The Dhamma brother brought up 2 arguments which stumbled me.
1) Yes, physical looks is due to genetics. But what genes you inherit is due to Kamma.
2) The Buddha himself said that Kamma give you good looks.
I was not convinced by these 2 arguments. But I could not counter them. I thought over these for a long time and finally brought the question to Ven Dhammika, and he provided the answers which help me resolved this difficult question.
1) Is "good-looking" genes due to Kamma?
If Kamma, indeed, determines whether someone is good looking or not, then these two assumptions should be true:
a) Good looks is "good"
b) Good looks is objective
a) Are "good looks" good?
This seems like a rather oxymoronic question. If it wasn't good, it won't be called "good looks". I think everyone do want to look good, especially those of us which are not so good looking.
But does good physical appearances always lead to a happier and more meaningful life? I think the answers aren't that obvious. Objectively, good looks does help people in their social interactions and even some people's career. But that alone does not make people happier.
Are those beautiful models always having happier and more meaningful life? Are those who are proud of their beauty better people? Are those who are constantly obsessed with their looks feeling content and happy?
Those of us who are the ugly ones would think that good looking is good. The truth is, we do hear of the handsome and the beautiful complained that they have difficulty finding partners because people like them for how they look and not what they are.
Ultimately, I think looks by itself does not really lead to happiness. It really depends on how a person deal with his/her physical looks. Hence, it is that attitude which has a Kammic aspect, not the physical looks itself.
b) Is good looks objective?
I think the answer is no. There is a huge cultural element in what constitutes good looks. Different cultures interpret beauty differently. And beauty changes with time as well.
Plumpness was considered beautiful during Tang Dynasty. Now, thin is in, and fat is considered ugly. But even that is not absolute for there are "chub chasers" who considered chubby guys attractive.
Even something like muscularity as beauty in men is a relatively new phenomenon in the modern society (although it is also found in ancient Greek culture). Fashions and perceptions of beauty can change very quickly.
Thus, to say that Kamma determines good looks would imply that Kamma could take into account all such subjective interpretations and perceptions as well as changes across cultures and time. I do not think that is logical at all.
But that is not to rule out Kamma's role totally. I do think that Kamma conditions our rebirth. It is a strong force that conditions which realms we are born into and which human fertilized egg our consciousness merge with (if we are reborn as human), which perhaps indirectly affected how we look.
The key word, however, is conditions (as opposed to determines). There are other natural laws that affect our physical body, and in my opinion, as far as our physical body goes, Kamma is really less deterministic as most people like to think.
2) What did the Buddha say about Kamma and looks?
In the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta, (Majjima Nikaya, Vol. III, Pg 202), Subha, a brahma, asked the Buddha, "What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"
The Buddha then explained that it is Kamma which differentiates beings. Here, the Buddha explained that Kamma does affect how a person looks. Here's what he said:
Thus, we should bear in mind that Kamma is a conditioning factor, not a deterministic factor. We must not neglect that there are other forces and natural laws that conditions us too.
So what's the big deal?
Now, you may ask, what's wrong with thinking that doing good with lead to desirable results like having good looks? Wouldn't that lead people to be more virtuous?
Well, from what I can see, that does not necessary seems to the outcome. Instead, it leads to a few problems.
1) Kammic Determinism is not the Buddha's teaching. We should not hold on to the wrong view.
2) People are quick to draw conclusions of the opposite: your misfortunes are due to your previous bad Kamma, i.e. you deserve it. That, in some ways, explains why in traditional countries, people can turn a blind to the misfortunes and sufferings around them. To them, those who suffers are just living out the effects of their bad kamma. What is more important is to for them to accumulate their own merits.
3) People tends to see Kamma as determining physical outcomes, entirely failing to understand that Kamma is more in the mind and psychological. Thus people think that having a pretty face, striking lottery, etc, are the effects of kamma, when what's more important (from the perspective of the Doctrine of Kamma) should the person's attitude towards his physical looks, towards the money gained from lottery, etc. That is, given the physical circumstances, whether he is happy, contented, generous, kind, wise, or whether he becomes jealous, proud, greedy etc -- these mental states are the kammic forces that conditions his spiritual progress. The physical events or outcomes are really neutral in themselves -- it is our own perceptions which colours them as "good" or "bad". Sadly, most people fail to see that, and end up focusing on accumulating merits so as to attain better physical and material prospects for the future (or future life).
Conclusion
So I really don't think physical looks is determined by kamma, though I could accept that kamma could be a conditioning factor.
But I would still like to ask this guy, what did you do to deserve such good looks (and a hot body)! Haha!
Well, I think the question is whether looks have anything you did or had done.
This question arose over a comment that was made during a film screening. A Dhamma brother said that Kamma determines our good looks. If we want good looks (in our future life), we should do good.
I disagreed with that statement. What I did not like about this is that such views very easily lead to an interpretation of the reverse: i.e. you are ugly because of bad things you did in your previous life. (No, it is not because I took personal offense, haha)
Furthermore, I felt this is another typical case of attributing everything to Kamma. In Buddhism, Kamma is only but one of the Five Niyamas (the universal laws). Kamma is the law that governs the ethic and psychological aspects and is the only one that one that is within our control. But that does not mean everything that happens is due to the law of Kamma.
Thus, I maintained that physical looks is not determined by kamma, but due to the Biji Niyama (the biological law), i.e. it is a case of genetics.
In any case, a discussion ensued. The Dhamma brother brought up 2 arguments which stumbled me.
1) Yes, physical looks is due to genetics. But what genes you inherit is due to Kamma.
2) The Buddha himself said that Kamma give you good looks.
I was not convinced by these 2 arguments. But I could not counter them. I thought over these for a long time and finally brought the question to Ven Dhammika, and he provided the answers which help me resolved this difficult question.
1) Is "good-looking" genes due to Kamma?
If Kamma, indeed, determines whether someone is good looking or not, then these two assumptions should be true:
a) Good looks is "good"
b) Good looks is objective
a) Are "good looks" good?
This seems like a rather oxymoronic question. If it wasn't good, it won't be called "good looks". I think everyone do want to look good, especially those of us which are not so good looking.
But does good physical appearances always lead to a happier and more meaningful life? I think the answers aren't that obvious. Objectively, good looks does help people in their social interactions and even some people's career. But that alone does not make people happier.
Are those beautiful models always having happier and more meaningful life? Are those who are proud of their beauty better people? Are those who are constantly obsessed with their looks feeling content and happy?
Those of us who are the ugly ones would think that good looking is good. The truth is, we do hear of the handsome and the beautiful complained that they have difficulty finding partners because people like them for how they look and not what they are.
Ultimately, I think looks by itself does not really lead to happiness. It really depends on how a person deal with his/her physical looks. Hence, it is that attitude which has a Kammic aspect, not the physical looks itself.
b) Is good looks objective?
I think the answer is no. There is a huge cultural element in what constitutes good looks. Different cultures interpret beauty differently. And beauty changes with time as well.
Plumpness was considered beautiful during Tang Dynasty. Now, thin is in, and fat is considered ugly. But even that is not absolute for there are "chub chasers" who considered chubby guys attractive.
Even something like muscularity as beauty in men is a relatively new phenomenon in the modern society (although it is also found in ancient Greek culture). Fashions and perceptions of beauty can change very quickly.
Thus, to say that Kamma determines good looks would imply that Kamma could take into account all such subjective interpretations and perceptions as well as changes across cultures and time. I do not think that is logical at all.
But that is not to rule out Kamma's role totally. I do think that Kamma conditions our rebirth. It is a strong force that conditions which realms we are born into and which human fertilized egg our consciousness merge with (if we are reborn as human), which perhaps indirectly affected how we look.
The key word, however, is conditions (as opposed to determines). There are other natural laws that affect our physical body, and in my opinion, as far as our physical body goes, Kamma is really less deterministic as most people like to think.
2) What did the Buddha say about Kamma and looks?
In the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta, (Majjima Nikaya, Vol. III, Pg 202), Subha, a brahma, asked the Buddha, "What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"
The Buddha then explained that it is Kamma which differentiates beings. Here, the Buddha explained that Kamma does affect how a person looks. Here's what he said:
9. "Here, student, some woman or man is angry, much given to rage; even when little is said, he is furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, he shows ill-temper, hate and surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation... If instead he comes to the human state, he is ugly wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to ugliness, that is to say, to be furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, and to show ill-temper, hate and surliness.10. "But here some woman or man is not angry or much given to rage; even when much is said, he is not furious, angry, ill-disposed, resentful, nor does he show ill-temper, hate or surliness. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination... If instead he comes to the human state, he is beautiful wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to beauty, that is to say, not to be angry or given to much rage; even when much is said, not to be furious, angry, ill-disposed or resentful, or to show ill-temper, hate or surliness.
When I read this, what I thought was that the Buddha did not say good kamma lead to physical beauty. It is clear that the Buddha refers to beauty and ugliness, not in terms of physical appearance, but in terms of a person's character.
He said that the person who is angry and hateful is ugly. That is consistent with our experience. No matter how physically good looking a person is, if he is always angry and scowling, we will be come to think of him as a ugly person. On the other hand, we frequently hear of kind and compassionate people being described as "beautiful people", even though in terms of physical appearance, we do not necessarily think of them as handsome or pretty.
I think that for an enlightened being such as the Buddha, his concept of beauty would be different from us. It would not be surprising if the Buddha talks about beauty more in terms of the state of the mind and the character, rather than physical appearance.
The effect of Kamma
However, having said all these, it does not mean that I think Kamma has nil effect on looks.
I think that Kamma can affect looks in several ways:
a) The mind can affect our physical condition. Our state of mind can affect our health and physical well-being. Happy and kind people may look more radiant, making them look more attractive. In such ways, Kamma can be thought of having an effect on looks.
b) We are attracted to virtuous people or people with whom we have a strong relationship. Hence, that attraction can make us perceive people more favourably. For example, even if we parents aren't good-looking, we do not think of them as ugly.
If we cultivate virtues (another way of saying generating good kamma), we have an attractive character which influences how people perceive us physically.
c) Kamma affects our rebirth. If, say, we are reborn as devas, and devas are perceived as good looking, then kamma would have said to have an effect on looks.
Thus, in some ways, I do think Kamma can affect looks. However, I would disagree, if we think of Kamma as some force that would judge your past actions and determine if you would have drop dead gorgeous face or not.
Conditions vs Determines
The truth is, of course, I don't know for sure how Kamma works. What I expressed here are what I reasoned from my limited understanding of the Dhamma. I did not perceived any of these from meditative insights or jhanas states.
From the Doctrine of Interdependent Origination, we know that all things arises from more than dependent conditions. These conditions are interdependent and it would difficult to say with certainty one outcome is due solely to any one condition.
In the same way, Kamma Niyama would intertwine with all the other Niyamas in influencing our lives.
In the Acintita Sutta (Anguttara Nikaya, Vol2, pg 80), the Buddha warned against speculating on the working of Kamma, saying that it leads to "madness and vexation".
Yet, I find it strange that so many people seemed to be so sure of themselves, proclaimed with certainty how a person's fortunes must to due to previous Kamma.
In fact, the Buddha specifically mentioned it is wrong to hold the view that "'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by what was done in the past." (See Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Vol 1, pg 173), i.e. Kammic Determinism is considered a wrong view too.Thus, we should bear in mind that Kamma is a conditioning factor, not a deterministic factor. We must not neglect that there are other forces and natural laws that conditions us too.
So what's the big deal?
Now, you may ask, what's wrong with thinking that doing good with lead to desirable results like having good looks? Wouldn't that lead people to be more virtuous?
Well, from what I can see, that does not necessary seems to the outcome. Instead, it leads to a few problems.
1) Kammic Determinism is not the Buddha's teaching. We should not hold on to the wrong view.
2) People are quick to draw conclusions of the opposite: your misfortunes are due to your previous bad Kamma, i.e. you deserve it. That, in some ways, explains why in traditional countries, people can turn a blind to the misfortunes and sufferings around them. To them, those who suffers are just living out the effects of their bad kamma. What is more important is to for them to accumulate their own merits.
3) People tends to see Kamma as determining physical outcomes, entirely failing to understand that Kamma is more in the mind and psychological. Thus people think that having a pretty face, striking lottery, etc, are the effects of kamma, when what's more important (from the perspective of the Doctrine of Kamma) should the person's attitude towards his physical looks, towards the money gained from lottery, etc. That is, given the physical circumstances, whether he is happy, contented, generous, kind, wise, or whether he becomes jealous, proud, greedy etc -- these mental states are the kammic forces that conditions his spiritual progress. The physical events or outcomes are really neutral in themselves -- it is our own perceptions which colours them as "good" or "bad". Sadly, most people fail to see that, and end up focusing on accumulating merits so as to attain better physical and material prospects for the future (or future life).
Conclusion
So I really don't think physical looks is determined by kamma, though I could accept that kamma could be a conditioning factor.
But I would still like to ask this guy, what did you do to deserve such good looks (and a hot body)! Haha!
Friday, November 6, 2009
Taiwan's Pride Parade 31 Oct 09
The main reason I made a trip to Taipei last weekend was to take a look at the Pride Parade.
This is not the first Pride Parade I've seen. When I was in Oregon, I went to Portland's Pride Parade as well as Vancouver's (Washington State, not the one in Cananda) Picnic in the Park (instead of a march, they have carnival style event in a park).
But this Pride Parade is different in various aspects. Firstly, I found a stronger sense of affinity and identity, because this is Asian and, in particular,Chinese. I was more of a curious by-stander in the American's parades. But I felt I am more of a participant in Taipei's parade -- part of the struggle for greater acceptance. Secondly, there is a greater sense of reality, in the way this looks like something that perhaps would be possible in Singapore one day. Finally, I think over the years, my own sexual identity has evolved.
Some of my gay friends derided Taipei's parade pride as mindless mimic of Western cultures, of being "in your face" by marching in near nudity. Well, what I found was that's not really the case. There are people marching in swim wear and underwear, but they are really the minority. But they do get the most attention on the news and media and create the impression that everyone is marching in near nudity. (OK, I have to admit, I have lots of photos of the guys in swim wear too.)
This year was Taipei's 7th Pride March. I had not realize it had been so many years. I just found out that Hong Kong just had their second one over the same weekend.
Here's some photo's from the parade.
Love Out Loud 同志爱很大
  This is me at the starting/ending point. The theme of this year's march is Love Out Loud (同志爱很大). |
 |  |
 |  |
But they do get a lot of flak for marching in their trunks too. Apparently, there were a lot of criticism on the internet. Personally, I didn't think it was a big deal. In fact, they weren't behaving outrageously at all. They only stripped down to their trunks just before the march start (which was why I couldn't find them at first. haha!) and after the march, they put on their shorts quickly.
They have just opened their membership to women as well. I would be curious as too how many women would join them.
The Christian Reaction
  |
Apparently, the greatest opposition the gay community face is from the Christians as well. Even though the Christian community is not as strong as in Singapore, they are just as loud if not louder.
I spotted a Christian contingents hold placards like "God loves Everyone", "God loves Gay people", "Gay people are God's children too". During the march, there were constant messages countering the Christian's opposition. I heard that the weekend just before the Pride march, there was a Anti-Gay March organized by the Christians. During the stage performance time, it was mentioned that there were pastors and priests who claimed that the typhoons disaster that happened in southern Taiwan was God's punishment because of the gay people.
The school community
There is a big representation from the various schools and varsity.I spotted National University of Taiwan (台大) and a few universities I could not name.
There is also a teachers' union.
What is heartening is that most of them are not gay. These are supporters of the GLBT community. During the concert time, there was a group of secondary school (straight) students who went on stage to support their gay teacher.
Others
 | There were many GLBT support groups. This is the Pink Ribbon Foundation, which is a HIV awareness support group. They were giving out free condoms along the way. |
 | Here's someone joining the march in wheelchair |
 | There were a few political groups in the march. Here's Amnesty International. The "greenies" (Taiwan's pro-independence group) had a contingent as well. |
 | This guy who the words "Love Gay" on his back is a secondary school student with his classmates. As far as I can tell, he is straight. |
The turnout at the march was huge. The organizers expected 20000, it was estimated that 25000 turned out. There were people from all over Taiwan and other countries. There were many people from Hong Kong, Japan and Singapore. I spotted a number of familiar faces from Singapore (well, half the flight to Taipei was filled by gay people）and ran into a few friends as well.
I walked along side with the march, taking pictures along the way. My friend was all into it. He got rainbow stickers on his face, joined in the Water Boys contingents and marched with them and even take off his shirt. He thought I was being uptight for not marching together.
There was a concert after the march, which I found to be pretty boring. We left before the guest celebrity (梁静茹) came.
What I thought was missing from the whole event was a lack of community interaction. For example, if organizers could provide booths for the various groups to introduce themselves and let other people find out how to join. That could make things more interactive. The whole event was kind of like a gather and then disperse kind of activity.
In any case, I found it to be a very interesting experience.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)