QUESTION
Dear Venerable,
I hope you are well.
I read that you said, “We say we believe in botany and we believe in karma but what good is that! We need to know karma.”
I would suggest that to know karma one needs to be a buddha. Until then we are, for lack of a better word, believing. Yes we may be able to grasp the concept of the four ways karma ripens or how a karma is created read from a text or heard from teachings, but is that really “knowing karma”?
The law that governs the whole universe down to the most subtlest goings on. We have to “know it” before we can incorporate it in our life? As normal everyday people? To follow the analogy, it would be the same as saying you need to know botany before going in the garden.
It seems the word belief is a bad word, yes, but a lot of the time we don’t actually know how to say, “It’s my working hypothesis,” so we say belief.
What is the difference between working hypothesis and belief?
Much love,
P
ANSWER
Dear P,
I think you misunderstand me.
We never say, “I believe in maths” and then simply leave it there. We decide to take it as our working hypothesis — sounds like grand words but it’s perfect — and then proceed to engage in it to eventually prove it to be true.
It’s like we’re saying, “Okay then, let’s look into this proposal that one plus one equals two.” You don’t know it yet: it’s just belief. But you’ve checked on the teacher, you trust that they have proved it to be true, you have confidence, so then you start the process of proving it for yourself.
That means you learn the words, and they have to be accurate, then you slowly use your intelligence and eventually prove it to be true — or not. The same approach applies to the most complicated mathematical propositions. It’s how we learn everything! And it’s one step at a time.
We say, “I believe in karma” because we assume we can’t prove it. But the approach in Buddhism is exactly the same as with maths: not a fraction of difference.
You check the teachers, you have confidence. You learn the words and first learn to understand the proposition theoretically: and that’s already pretty powerful. Then it’s one step at a time. For sure, to prove it experientially we need to have clairvoyance.
Same approach: no different.
And I think confidence in the theories is a really good step. If any body of knowledge is valid, not just a random set of beliefs, then it first has to be coherent intellectually, theoretically.
Mere belief is not enough. But belief based on wisdom, including intellectual – that’s part of the process, for sure.
Rx
QUESTION
Dear Venerable,
Thank you for your reply.
I do not think I misunderstood you, though my words do sound argumentative, which is not my intention.
I agree with what you’re saying, though there are analogies that I don’t think can be applied to the Dharma in some scenarios.
A maths sum is easy to understand, 1 + 1 = 2. There’s no reason to think otherwise. However in a lot of the Buddhist teachings there are things that must be realized through things like inference. A maths sum is not realized through inference.
There are some of us that say “believe” then don’t do anything about it. I’m not talking here about those of us that do that.
The teachings talk about belief leaning toward the fact and leaning away from the fact. It seems at this point most of the teachings we are faced with, all we can use is inference, and inference relies on belief leaning toward the fact.
There’s maths sums that can be figured out through calculations.
There’s Dharma that can be figured out through inference, which relies on belief.
I don’t know, I’m still learning but I think that we are agreeing.
Much love,
P
ANSWER
P,
Good points, for sure. I agree.
But I am not talking about levels of knowledge, or even types of knowledge. I’m talking about the approach, the method.
The approach to experiencing the truth of 1 + 1 = 2 and experiencing the truth of impermanence, karma, emptiness etc. is identical: you first posit the theory and then use logic and analysis to eventually trigger an experience of those truths.
But there’s another element altogether, one extra step in experiencing the truth of karma, impermanence, emptiness, and the rest, which makes it extra difficult. It’s like we’re not only merely ignorant of the truth that 1 + 1 = 2 (that’s ordinary ignorance), but we actually think it’s something else — and we totally cling to that nonsense! — which means we have to use logic and analysis to argue with the misconception in order to get to the truth.
If we merely didn’t know that things are impermanent, that we’re the product of our own causes, that things are empty of inherent existence — rather than totally believing that they are permanent, totally believing I’m the product of someone else, totally believing that there is an inherent self — then I think we could be enlightened in a couple of years.
The ignorance we have is pretty heavy duty!
Rx
QUESTION
I know that you are not talking about levels of knowledge etc., but by saying you never say “believe,” you say I prefer to say “working hypothesis,” by talking about that, you are talking about levels of knowledge. That’s exactly what the above is referring to.
ANSWER
No, dear P.
The first time you hear that one plus one is two, you MUST first take it as a hypothesis before you then go and prove it. You’ve got to be thinking, okay, let’s act as if one plus one
equals two: you posit that possibility, you’re open to it – not just swallowing it whole, merely believing it – and are eager to go off and prove it to yourself.
Whereas when we normally say “I believe in karma” we just leave it at that and don’t try to prove it.
All knowledge is like that.
Don’t you agree?
Rxx
QUESTION
Not agreeing yet.
Like all mental states, belief depends on certain causes and conditions. The idea that belief can be left alone is erroneous. Belief is not stagnant but requires maintenance. Why would someone believe in something when met with evidence that counters that which they believe in?
If there was this so-called belief that can be left alone that requires no effort, no causes and conditions, I’d love to know how to get it.
Instead I have to work every day to reaffirm findings in karma.
ANSWER
I don’t understand your point, P.
QUESTION
I’m not trying to make a point, I’m trying to have a conversation about the word belief. With the intention of understanding it more.
Your teachings aren’t something I’m trying to negate, rather it’s more of a catalyst to try and unpack things further.
I’m going to think more and get back to you.
Much love,
P
ANSWER
And we’re having a GOOD conversation, P!
That’s why I want you to continue it by explaining your most recent point.
The way I approach it is something like this: having heard about Buddha, having heard about his reputation and having listened to practitioners of his views and liking what I hear and then, wanting to understand the knowledge he teaches, I will, with confidence, start seriously looking into his observations about, let’s say, how I’m not the handiwork of a creator, nor am I the handiwork of my parents, but that I came into this life totally programmed from my own past.
Now, that will be a shock, because I totally believe the opposite!
So what to do? Having decided to take this view on as a hypothesis, which means acting as if karma is fact, I will study it thoroughly and then, the main thing — because without this it all just stays in the head — try to apply it in my daily life. And this grows and grows and grows every day if I’m serious about it.
And then what to do when I struggle with it? Resist it? I think this is where the problem arises: we resist karma, we’re not happy to really open ourselves to it as a real possibility.
It seems to me one of the main reasons this happens is because we hear it as blame. We only think about the bad things and it’s too much for our instinctive sense of an innocent victim — because, indeed, if we are the handiwork of a creator or our parents, we really are an innocent victim.
So one approach is to remember all the good things: I’m responsible for those too. Wow! That’s delicious!
The other thing I notice is with no view of karma, that is, with the dualistic view of being someone else’s handiwork, we’re strongly into “deserve.” If we look at attachment, the main voice of ego-grasping/marigpa/ignorance, it’s saying, “I only deserve the good things.” And when we look at anger, it’s saying, “How dare that happen to me, I don’t deserve it.”
“Deserve” implies someone or something out there should give me the good things and dares to give me the bad things.
That’s why we’re mad at our parents! Because our self-pity me is outraged that they dare to do anything wrong, especially to me, because I only deserve the good things and do not deserve the bad.
We all feel this!
Arguing with this mistaken view is a big one! The view of karma instantly counteracts that if we think it through and apply it.
Slowly, slowly, as our knowledge of the workings of karma go deeper, as our putting it into practice goes deeper, then we’ll develop real confidence, which brings faith — not blind faith, but faith based on experience.
One day, when we get clairvoyance, we will have a direct experience of the truth of it! Or not! As His Holiness says, if we eventually come to prove that what Buddha says is wrong, then we must reject him.
So far so good! One step at a time.
What do you think, P?
Rxx
QUESTION
Yes, I agree with what you’ve said. It’s very clear. Very helpful.
I’m going to give it more thought and keep listening.
Thank you.
ANSWER
Yes, P, that’s it: just keep moving, keep studying, keep digging deep into our mind. This is all we can do.
Already even being at a point where we have “belief leaning towards the fact” is a pretty good place to be!
Rxx