Reading Philosophy

Speaking of dharma -The Law Of Duty,it says that at various stages of your life you have to perform certain duties.

Thus a child is to be a child, seeking pleasure and sensory gratification, above all else--experiencing the world around it. The young adult is challenged to search for the meaning of his/her karma and corresponding dharma. The married adult choose to fulfill a householders role and will adopt the appropriate dharma for that.

Among indian families it is a general custom to take care of the parents when you grow up and start earning. It is supposed to be another dharma.

However, I would not want my children to grow up and take care of me and my wife. Now would that qualify as bad dharma for them. I would say not.

Hence i think it would be appropriate to say that Dharma is the code of conduct that is appropriate to each individual's set of circumstances.

Like I said, kama is taught differently in different cultures. The Buddha broke apart from the standard orthodoxies (i.e. Hindu) teachings not just because he was enlightened. But because he saw that (like those anti-Church) he saw that organized religions have a way of rotting the individual's spirit, and society by extension.

Dharma also means "path, or way." Buddha taught a much different version of dharma. Essentially, he changed his dharma to become enlightened. But then look at what's become of it. What, actually, was his dharma? To be his father's son, or the saviour of a continent?

And more to the point, the Original Mind (i.e. God, or the Ultimate Reality, or Buddha Mind) uses the principle of kharma, dharma and reincarnation to get us to the point of returning Home. So essentially, we could look at dharma as a way of serving God, but then through successive lives of karma we can return "to the light," according to the Vedas, and Gitas. But The Buddha would maintain that anyone can become enlightened IN THIS VERY LIFE--essentially jumping ahead of many lifetimes of (perhaps) bad kama (karma).

Oh, BTW Karma means action, true. So what, then, is the karma Sutra?

Think of it.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Oh, BTW Karma means action, true. So what, then, is the karma Sutra?

What you're calling karma sutra is actually kama sutra.

Kama is desire or sex practised in holy honour.

Sutra meaning short story or aphorism.

The complete title does make more sense, Kama Sutra-A Tale of Love.

Especially after they've been translated from another culture.
Actually, there's only a shade of difference between karma and kama. Where "kama" means "through the action of its own desire" (according to Guenon*), and "karma" means "Volition, volitional or intentional activity" (according to Ch'an Master Ta-Chu Hui-Hai**). "Sutra" is literally "thread; that which, like a thread runs through or connects everything; in the Buddhist context it refers to the Buddha's discourses" (Hui-Hai).

In Buddhist texts Kama and Karma are interchanged. Often, Kama is used for a specific reason (which I won't get into). The TECHNICAL definitions have them with a nieuances of difference. However, practically they're the same. Or I should say, from the Buddhist perspective they're both the same. Desire is the root of all suffering.

And I ask again, What IS the Kama-Sutra?

(*"Man and his Becoming According to the Vedanta," Rene Guenon, 1958, Noonday Press.

** ""Entering the Tao of Sudden Enlightenment," By Ch'an Master Ta-chu Hai-Hui, 1995, Sutra Translation Committee of the United States and Canada.)

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

The Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana is a religious text which describes the art of making love. ( To put it in short words)

Being an objectivist in some ways I was reminded of Francisco d' Anconia's words to Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He says this :

"No matter what corruption he's (man) is taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! "

Not possible to do it for charity, isn't it.

So now isn't the kama sutra dealing with a selfish subject. That is my interpretation

The Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana is a religious text which describes the art of making love. ( To put it in short words)

True. I'll even grant that "sutra" can mean story or collection of stories. But as such, that logically contradicts the premise of the teaching "religious" text. Essentially it minimises the spiritual nature of the text; it cheapens it. This is the problem with Western thinking imposed upon texts like the Kama Sutra, or other Sutras (Vedas included). Likewise, by simply "describing" the act itself, that act is removed FROM the religious/spiritual nature that is inherent in it, according to the texts. As such, it doesn't describe the act. It identifies the spirituality inherent in love-making as a way to achieve contact with God.

Being an objectivist in some ways I was reminded of Francisco d' Anconia's words to Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He says this :
"No matter what corruption he's (man) is taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! "
Not possible to do it for charity, is it? <edited>
So now isn't the kama sutra dealing with a selfish subject? <edited>That is my interpretation
NI

Nice quote. Very nice. Zen likes. I'd disagree though.
Your [presumed] questions are valid, and difficult. The act of making love may be one of the most selfish things that we can do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a religious or spiritual signifigance to it. In fact, I'd maintain that the object of the Kama Sutra is grand in that it tries to teach its adherents that there is a God-consciousness attached to the act of sex itself. And doing it simply for ones own pleasure without considering the pleasure of the other FIRST, is selfish and should be avoided.

But we're also told in practice like Krija and other yogas, that practice of certain forms is preferable. It's the perfect execution of these forms that lead us to a certain level of consciousness, or nearing-to-god. Likewise, following the forms presented in the Kama Sutra or direction in the Ananga Ranga, leads both individuals to a higher consciousness.

So therefore, in perfect service to self, and the "other self" (i.e. your mate), you achieve service the the Greater Self, a.k.a. God.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

And doing it simply for ones own pleasure without considering the pleasure of the other FIRST, is selfish and should be avoided.

Now, if you were to derive pleasure from the fact that you were able to give pleasure to someone else is also selfish. ( Giving pleasure to get pleasure).

Heh. We could go round and round with this.

I totally agree with the fact that the art has been made to look rather cheap by, I would say, 'certain' thinkings and a more 'spiritualistic' approach might make people look at it in a different way

Now, if you were to derive pleasure from the fact that you were able to give pleasure to someone else is also selfish. ( Giving pleasure to get pleasure).

You're absolutely right. Yet something else in the arena of "religion" or "philosophy" that's a a double-edged sword. I've said from the beginning tha karma is selfish. The act of love is selfish. So we'd go around and round, but not for very long. :) More to the point, there's nothing, NOTHING truly unselfish on this planet.

Bagwan Shree Rashneesh says that today the act of making love is like a sneeze, and that's why there's so many unhappy people in the world. I can probably agree with that.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Karma...signifies action or deed. Any physical or mental action is karma. Thinking is mental karma. Karma is the sum total of our acts, both in the present life and in the preceding births.
Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action.

The problem is that not all karmas are "created equal." The subtext of karma is the re-incarnation aspect. It is, true, it is the reward/punishment that people receive after their life, and for many lives hence. With different cultures, Karma is taught as different things. Buddhist differs from Hindu, et al.
In the Buddhist (Mayahana) tradition, the siddhu (students) are taught that thinking and Not-thinking are all forms. They lead to the 5 skanda which are (if memory servs correctly): Feelings, thoughts, perceptions, desires and body--4 mind, one body. One can not escape these skandas while in the flesh, unless becoming enlightened.

The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action and cannot be divided from it. The law of karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced.

Think about something. There is nothing on this planet that isn't selfish. Nothing. Karma, if it exists, is part of that. I would agree that Karma is, essentially a selfish thing. Regardless of which comes first, the action or the intention. It is at the level of intention and desire that karma works. Saying action/consequence is putting the cart first, according to Buddhist teachings. So in the knowledge and awareness of our intentions, we weed out thoughts, perceptions, desires, feelings and body (another form of feeling) to get to our true Buddha Nature.
At that level, we're told, such things as selfishness and hurt, pain, ego, and the like no longer exist. Therefore, obviously, there is no more selfishness, as there is no more Ego.

To sum up : if we do bad, we get bad and vice versa.

So, if I may summarize, nothing in this world is NOT selfish because of our thoughts, perceptions, feelings and ego attached to them. When we THINKabout karma, or Not-Think about it the same, is is automatically selfish. However, the struggle is to "right-thinking" (a name for the crude purpose of identification), which is actually dissipating thinking. At that point, our True Nature, the Mind of the Buddha emerges, we're enlightened, and nothing, and not-nothing, becomes selfish anymore. Time, place, feelings, thinking cease, and all there is is the Divine connection with The All, or the Greater Buddha-Mind.

Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person.

Yes. Agreed. But what is the intent of PUTTING karma into mind? Simply by that act, as shown above, one would be Intending to be selfish.

The reason i say this is because you are doing good because you want good, you know you'll get good from the effect of karma.

Want is desire; one of the 5 Skandas. Desire leads to the karmic wheel. Essentially, don't desire, and it won't matter what Karma has in store for you.

Why not do good and not expect anything from it? Would'nt that be better to follow?

We're told that "good" and "bad" are sides of the same coin. Basically, more Thinking. We look for good, or bad, because it's how we condition ourselves to adapt.
Un-adapt, and then ask that question if it even matters then.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

Ok, the problem here, as i see it, is that we all seem to have this pre-conception that being selfish is bad. Wrong.

This is one of those things we cannot define, not that we haven't tried multiple times. This debate is entirely subjective. We're all sitting here arguing our own little theories, which nobody else can argue back to!

In my opinion, karma is selfish, but i still think it's a good principle. What i see to be "good" is present is this form of selfishness.

Instead of thinking of selfishness as juust a point of "badness" think of selfishness as a sliding scale. You put this form whereever you want to place it. And i'll put it where i want to.

I really do not see how one can argue that karma is not selfish. You are thinking of the self. I dont think that is debatable at all, and after reading the given arguments against it, i still stick to my belief. They seem confused, befudled by this concept of good vs. Bad. The arguments i've read have made little sense to me. They just seem to reinforce the fact that karma is indeed selfish. But that it is also good.

I f we can get our heads around the concept that being selfish is not auto matically bad or wrong we can come to some from of conclusion.

-Mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!