Sounds interesting, but what makes you so sure that your answers are the absolute truth?
I'm not sure of course. But this is the Buddhist forum, and i hope we all share common goal. My enlightenment of course
. Just kidding, I see this forum as a platform for exchanging the views. So although you somehow got impression that I'm sure in my answers, they are more than open for debate. Problem is possibly that I'm not native English speaking person, so I'm used to write absolute minimum for presenting my thought.
To be honest, the toned used for your replies imply that you seem to know exactly what is going on, which might be good or bad but what can be done to help/counteract against the concerns?
This is a tough one. My answers are based on my limited understanding of karma, emptiness and dependent arising. They are just logical, but there are some instances of Buddhist literature which seems to confirm both of our opposite views concerning possibility to help anyone.
So, for example, when lord Buddha was a Bodhisattva in one of his previous lives, he was in a ferry with some 499 merchants. Having being high Bodhisattva, he could read other peoples thoughts, and then he realize that one of the passengers had intention to kill all the peoples on board, by sinking the ferry. So, out of concern for that being not to commit such a heavy karma of killing 499 beings including an Arhant, Bodhisattva killed him instead, being fully aware of karmic consequences for himself.
If I'm right, that Bodhisattva could never help those 498 merchants and himself, if they had karma to die there and then. In this view, there was absolutely no need to kill anyone, because although potential killer could serve as condition, without causes simultaneously present in other 499 minds he could not do anything to anyone. That would suggest that you are right in your views, and I'm not.
If i remember correctly talking about the truth out of context also breaks the vow pertaining to speech especially if it does not help or alleviate the situation and is just said for the sake of saying.
I'm not sure. There is such a vows against talking to someone unprepared about some higher meanings of emptiness, and about idle talks. However, mine was neither. I was basically talking about connection between laws of karma and dependent origination, and certainly not being idle talking. In situation like these it is best viewed how great of disadvantage is a lack of the lama on forum.
I do like your analysis of the situation, but is there a solution to some of them or at least, some suggestions on how to lessen it? That would be very helpful indeed.
Well, as I understand it does not matter whose view is correct, you still must help other beings. If my view is right, then it is absolutely necessary to help other beings because
YOU are suffering, and refusal to help someone - anyone, will only have a karmic consequence of seeing yourself not being helped when in need, which is not pleasant result.
On the other hand if your view is right, then it is absolutely necessary to help other beings because
THEY are suffering, and refusal to help someone - anyone, will only have a karmic consequence of seeing yourself not being helped when in need, which is not pleasant result.
So basically, concerning need for doing something, the result is exactly the same - you must do it. The only difference between these views is in regarding objects as having some kind of inherent nature which I think is implied in a way you are looking at things/persons, and in nature of motivation for action.
