Lama Ole Nydahl - Karma

Lama Ole talks about karma. How it works. How to work with it.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Buddhism
• Buddhist
• Nydahl
• Karma
• Dharma
• Vajrayana

[ironpirites]

I enjoyed the lecture. I think that Lama Ole Nydahl does a very good job explaining karma, but to really understand one's own karma and by extension, to better understand the karma of others, one must meditate. To simply go from shamata to vipassana is a great achievement in any life.

[freeflymike]

@ironpirites

amen to that!

regarding the understanding of karma I've always thought that its not necessary to completely understand it. I think a useful view is to have some confidence that karma functions, then try and do our best in the situations life presents.

[Saffron333]

Thanks for posting this. I could watch a hundred of this guy.

[theuntamedbuffalo]

This guy looks like Sting. He's sending out an s.o.s on the laws of Karma. Good stuff

[logotrix]

Is karma inter-generational - as in "the sins of the father are visited on the son..."?

[tecciztucatl]

@Luc88Cole Really mate there's no need to talk to people like that unless they're being nasty. I thought the question he asked you was quite lucid. If you look at his/her page you'll see he's from Germany, and I bet his English is a lot better than your German.

I think it's quite valid to ask what is it that constitutes 'me'. Am I my thoughts, am I the sense of self that is aware of my thoughts, or is it both or neither or... who knows for sure?

[tecciztucatl]

@Luc88Cole I googled Husserl but he died 150 years before neuroscience even started. You say you've provided an explanation of experience but I didn't get that - as I said, how is it even possible to empirically demonstrate that a person or animal actually IS conscious? The comprehensive understanding of consciousness that you said we already have would need to explain how these huge networks of individual cells give rise to an experience - otherwise it can't be called comprehensive.

[Luc88Cole]

@ballaststoffel2

Please, continue to reply with incoherent ramblings.

In your benefit, I am going to assume that English is not your first language.

With that said, good job for what you have said thus far! If you wish to continue this conversation, then let's find a proper translator.

[ballaststoffel2]

@tecciztucatl But if the consciousness is not aware, then it identifies with everything it THINKS to be. So you can think: I am a very kind person. I have studied physics. I own a house and I have a lot of money. I am a hero, I am a looser, I am a thinker, dreamer, sportsman, good lover, bad lover. I am a collection of atoms, I am strong, I am the husband of my wife, etc... etc..

But that is not what you are, that is what you (and others) think you are, and that can change when brain is damaged.

[ballaststoffel2]

@tecciztucatl I agree, but the question for consciousness cannot be answered by personality. Personality is changeable, and I assume mostly founded on habits, remembering and knowledge, beside what the environment gives us to deal with. You can call any kind of reaction personal. But, what is conscious no matter HOW you react, no matter what you think, no matter what you've learned. There IS consciousness, which you can be aware of. No need to be able to do anything.

[ballaststoffel2]

@tecciztucatl Yes, I thought a while about it, and I think you are right. But the question is:

Can you, even if you do not know anymore how to speak, even if you do not remember who is who, or what is what, if you forgot all you learned, can you still be conscious?

And I say: YES, absolutely.

[ballaststoffel2]

@Luc88Cole So, you say because you are aware of your thinking, you have to be, because else, there could be no thought. OK, so far correct. Then here comes the next step:

Who is thinking? Are you your thought, the content of your thought, or the energy of your thought, or none of that all?

[Luc88Cole]

@tecciztucatl

What we need to get down to here is, what do we mean when we ask, "What is consciousness?" Are we looking for a definition? Simple: awareness/perception. Are we looking for an explanation all the way down to the most precise neuro-chemical level? I concede, this remains shrouded in mystery. Our emotions? Neuro-chem 101. The aspects of experience? This is left to a combination of neuro-psych and phenomenology, and this is the kind of explanation I have provided. I recommend Husserl!

[tecciztucatl]

@Luc88Cole ... actually have terribly poor resolution when we consider the complexity of what they're looking at. We can see that there's more activity in certain parts of the brain under various conditions but the reason I don't think our understanding is solid is that our predictive power for what a given consciousness will do is very poor. Sam Harris reckons it's not even possible to empirically verify that a being IS conscious from looking at brains; we have to assume it, if with good reason