I’ve migrated this post from mundane babble, because it’s not.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=144881

It’s become about karma and deserves more attention.

I don’t think it’s so important where Buddhism came from. Buddhism is Buddhism. As far as I know it was Tao that was brought from China to India and then back to China in the form of Buddhism by Bodhidarma. My point is that the two religions have the same root so are the same. If we look at Christianity, we know that Jesus also spent time in India, persia etc. learning from the Masters and also teaching the Word. Tao and Word are one and the same thing.

I make reference to Jesus’ teachings because I don’t truly see a difference between what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught. I apologise if it was obscure.

There is this misconception that karma is bad. Karma is karma. Simply put it is cause and effect (you reap what you sow) There is no need to place a value judgment on the word. To get hung up on the consequence only is to miss the point. Yes there are people that have been trying to understand the so-called ‘Eastern’ concept in the West but that doesn’t mean they have had an acurate representation of it’s deeper meaning.

Karma IS NOT good or bad. Karma is karma. What appears to be good karma has every possiblity of becoming bad karma and what appears to be bad karma has every possiblity of becoming good karma. Good and bad only exists in our minds. It exists in the world of duality. In the absolute realm duality does not exist so therefore neither does good and bad. Sure, things are positive and negative but what is important is how we look at our life situations and use our karma to progress spritually.

There is a story of a farmer who had a beautiful horse. It was the most beautiful horse in the land. Everyone wanted this horse, even the king wanted this horse. One day the horse ran away and the entire villiage was devastated. They said to the farmer; " this is so bad, you should have sold the horse to the king, at least then you would have had the money". The farmer said, maybe it’s good maybe it’s bad, I don’t know.

A while later the horse returned bringing with him other beautiful wild horses. Everyone in the viliage said; “This is so good, you are lucky, your horse has come back and you have even more horses”. The farmer said, maybe it’s good, maybe it’s bad, I don’t know". The farmers son decided that he would tame the horses and so he did. One day while riding one of the wild horses, he fell off the horse and broke his back. Everyone in the villiage said; “This is very bad!”. The farmer said maybe it’s good maybe it’s bad, I don’t know.

At that time the king there was a war in the land and the king was recruiting all the young men in the villiage. Because the farmer’s son was injured he wasn’t able to become a soldier. Everyone in the villiage said; “You are so lucky, you have your son”.

The point of the story is that we don’t know what is good and bad. Things appear to our liking or our disliking that is all. There is still so much that is unseen about all of our lives. Maybe I was born wealthy, but if it is my karma to be poor I will be poor. We cannot escape the consequences of our own actions. It has nothing to do with judgment about other human beings’ lives. Spiritually speaking these things are of no consequence. Our karma ‘good or bad’ can help us if we have the acuity to use it.

There are so many layers that we will need to unfold but will only perpetuate karma (create more) if we remain asleep. There is a saying that all human beings are sleeping buddhas and all buddhas are awakened human beings.


“My point is that the two religions have the same root so are the same.”

Christians and Muslims have fought crusades and jihads from the start till now, just to spell out their differences, regardless of their common religious Jewish root. Me and my goldfish share the same root if time is traced back in evolutionary terms. Me and my rose share the same root if time is traced back in geographical terms… Hence my problem with the above statement: absolute root is non-existent, only self-defined ones, note “ones” instead of “one”, because time that is the mother of all, goes back to infinity, which implies that an infinit number of roots can be assumed. Anyway, the degree of similarity and difference is not consequentially dependent on what root is taken for granted. “Having the same root” needs more specification, while “same root so are the same” doesn’t stand, not to mention that “the same” itself is too vague a phrase.

“I make reference to Jesus’ teachings because I don’t truly see a difference between what Jesus taught and what Buddha taught.”

On what level are you trying to compare here? The tales of Christianity and Budhism are surely very different. The moral dogmas have a great deal of similarity. The religious essence that is the deceiptive purpose as examined by Nietzsche, are the same. Are you referenecing on the Nietzschean level?

“There is no need to place a value judgment on the word.”

I doubt that anyone resents karma because it involves misfortune as well as luck, many dislike the idea of fate due to the suggestion of constrained freedom, powerlessness in controling their own lives - that’s why they say: fate is in your own hands. For thinkers, there is no value judgment led conclusions invloved, but alas, what price we have to pay for being free from mere value superfaciality - the ever endless philosophical debates, the problem of determinism in this particular case, which I think is eqiuvalent to the karma being disccussed here.

(to be continued)

Hi there A

AsI understand it, secular Christendom and Buddhism are quite similar. A while back some friends of mine met the Dalai Lama and the question was asked to one of his assistants his opinion of esoteric Christianity. He responded that esoteric Christianity and esoteric Buddhism are the basically the same. The separation develops inbetween these two levels of understanding.

As you know, the Bhagavad Gita teaches Karma Yoga. We’ve been writing about how our attitudes should be in regards the works we do in life. The Gita relates to this.


The great fighter Arjuna is in a difficult predicament. The opposing armies have been organized on the Battlefield of Kuruksetra. But he respects the opposing army and to make matters worse, he is related to many of them.

He doesn’t want any part of killing his family so asks Lord Krsna what to do. Should he try to kill them or just refuse to partake in the battle? So, lost in the problem, he throws aside his weapons.

What would you advise Arjuna? What do you think Lord Krsna advises from the perspective of karma?

True. However, I’m not too concerned with the differences, only with the similarities. The differences are a matter of perception, right or wrong…not important. My point is that the essence of the teachings are the same.

My point is that the method of cultivation may be wholly different but again, the essence is One. The goal is the same. The Saints did not create the religions, their followers did. The Truth is indeed profound and no matter what perspective you choose to look at it from, the Truth is the Truth non-the-less. Cause and effect is true whether you look at it from a Chirstian perspective or a Buddhist perspective (or indeed a scientific perspective). The language is somewhat different, the understanding of the practitioners are different, the teaching appears to be different but the law is the same. Sir Isaac Newton’s law of physics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s science. There is nothing mystical or unknowable about it. What goes up must come down, for proof look at nature, at the ocean, first there is a wave and then there is a hollow wake that follows. Apply this to our spiritual lives and we begin to understand karma.

You are Chinese, it is part of your culture to intellecutally understand. There are many in our Western culture who frown upon the concept.


I am familiar with the story. This is a teaching about the eternal life of the soul. Arjuna finds himself in this (karmic) situation. What to do? This is a very complex issue but it illustrates karma beautifully. The soul is eternal and keeps coming back again and again until the cycle is broken. How to break the cycle? Arjuna intuits that sacrificing his own life would be better than to kill another life. Killing serves only to perpetuate the cycle.


"True. However, I’m not too concerned with the differences, only with the similarities. The differences are a matter of perception, right or wrong…not important. My point is that the essence of the teachings are the same. "

I’m just noting this as an aside. There are similarities between a car crash and a sculpture, but the intent behind them is totally different.

Back to our previous discussion of Karma, I noticed that you accept the existence of Karma based on what appears to be faith and I viewed it as yet another political system. What makes you believe that such a mystical system exists and is not simply another invention of humanity?

Also, you did not address the accusatory/self-congratulatory nature of Karma based on the examples that I gave. What do you think that that? Doesn’t Karma create a kind of status quo where everything is as it is because of a reason, thus no one need do anything about it?

I certainly can understand the use of the word “Karma” as a metaphor but not as an actual metaphysical mechanism.

Hi A

That’s what I initially thought but consider Krsna’s response:

Now the intricacies of all this is a discussion itself and a very difficult one but as you can see, it is not conventional PC thought. On this site, pressing index reveals the text and the phrase next to it reveals comments by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Relating to chapter two and Krsna’s reply he writes:


I read two levels. There is the level of life on earth and the level of the life and nature of the soul. This is what Jesus stressed which is so hard for so many to consider. When all the attention and laments are placed on concerns for earthly concerns,“outward dress”, and the higher nature forgotten one diminishes to the level of “sudra”. This is my concern with the growing secularization of religion since these lamentations and their resultant ego gratifications have become one of its major attractions. I’m hoping that in the future, enough will remain for the young to discover that will reveal these levels for those able to open to this balance and not just sink into the continuum of secular disputes or imaginary escapism.

The balance between these two levels of concern is real spirituality IMO and the concern of the Gita as expressed in karma yoga. I can see how little it is really considered in the west where appearance justified through lamentations has become priority. Is it any wonder then why Christianity can only be accepted in public in the degenerated state of Christendom.

You can call it faith Monsieur. However, I did say;

I see everything as being part of the universe. All things are one. If I jump off a cliff I’m sure to hurt myself if not kill myself. There are consequences to all our actions. If we are all one then surely whatever I do to others has consequences for myself. I think Jesus was warning us, do unto others as you would have todone you.

I do not understand how you see karma as a political system. For me it is not even spiritual. It is simply a law that exists within the universe. I harm you, I get harmed. Simple as that.

I am not responsible for anyone’s perceptions. People are egotistical. We all come to our own understanding in our own time. We are the products of our environment Monsieur, that is the challenge: To find our own way out of the darkness, with no companions or guides. The challenge is to break through society’s repressions and demands and to find our own voice. For me, the knowing of karma might be faith, but my faith comes out of my introspection.




Yes, it’s a difficult one. I don’t think that it’s much different from what I have said.

Our body is finite while our soul is infinite. The battlefield is a metaphor for our lives. We have a choice, do whatever you wish, know there are consequences however.


I largely agree with you. And you have what seems like a good attitude towards religion. Only part I disagree with really is the bit about christ travelling to India.

You are right, there is no real difference between what buddha taught and what Jesus taught. But people must understand that this is because there is no real difference between Ancient hebrew and buddhism.

So you see , christ never had to travel to learn the esoteric secrets. They were passed onto him by his rabbi schooled in the same thing. After all he was a Jew .

To imagine that christ had to go to India to learn about God is to imagine that ancient hebrew philosophy is not as good as buddhism or hinduism.

I read your reply liquidangel, you wrote about the Truth, which I still trying to figure out what exactly it is, so do you mind me asking: what is it? I wish I could write more about my thoughts on your posts, but don’t want to make a fool out of myself, so firstly could you give me a brief sumation of your entire belief system? It seems really confusing for me as it involves almost everything from Christianity to Tao, obviously also Karma, but where does it fit into your system? You know, questions like these.

Liquid tends to use double-talk when speaking about belief systems. I’m not sure if this has a purpose or is just an accident, but I would not expect clear answers anythime soon.

When superior people hear of the Way,
they travel it diligently.
When mediocre people hear of the way,
they seem aware,
yet are as if oblivious.
When lesser people hear of the Way,
they laugh at it out loud.
What they don’t laugh at couldn’t be the Way.

If a person was practicing the “way” they would have no need to post on message boards.

Huh? And how do we know this? Its not in the gospels and those are the only biographical works on Jesus we have,

Of course they are biased and were written decades after Jesus (supposed) death but that is beside the point.

M Z,

Practice of way-making is simply acting out of that which is appropriate. The need or lack thereof is not knowable, except for yourself. Re-consider your statement.


I have read the tao up the ying yang and recall that a retreat from public life is what is called for, so perhaps Zenith knows more than you think.

A retreat from public life? Perhaps. A retreat from meddling in the world’s affairs? Definitely. And that was my point. Way-making is personal. Deciding what is and what isn’t for others isn’t way-making.
My observation stands.

There is the way of words and there is our personal way-making. One must be careful to know the difference and not cofuse one for the other.


I hear you, but could Elvis have claimed to be a way maker? There must be limits.