To act is to do something, is it not? An Actor, technically, is the one who does the action. This meaning is preserved in the phrase “a bad actor”, which usually means not an incompetent thespian, but rather someone who DOES something bad.
Ponder for a moment, though, how INTERESTING it is that the meaning of this word has come to preponderate. This is not an issue, as one example, in German, where “actors” are called Schauspieler–literally “appearance players”. Doing is Machen. Power is Macht–as in their name for the military Wehrmacht. The Doer is called Macher.
Does it not seem reasonable to suppose that, while actors were not that big a deal until TV and movies, that in subtle and not-so-subtle ways since the appearance of these mediums we have, as a culture, come to mistake appearance from reality, the illusion for the real thing? I think so. When we are not working, we spend a huge chunk of our money and time consuming the “action” of the “actors”.
I have in recent months had this problem, particularly watching TV, of having difficulty suspending disbelief. These people are PAID to act. That scene may have taken five tries. That “actor” could be anyone, from a saint to a serial killer, and if their talent–their groomed, practiced talent for dissimulation–were sufficient, I would never know.
We practice for some hours daily living in Make-Believe Land. Small wonder we are so easy to lie to. We are told Big Lies. Insane Lies. DAMAGING Lies, and still we take the medicine. Still, we swallow without even noticing the moment of our consent.
And then I got to thinking about Karma. Karma is more or less literally an equal to “action”. I took Sanskrit and could at one point tell you all the declensions (Sanskrit has three genders, 7 cases, and–in my experience uniquely–different words for 1, 2 and Many) off the top of my head. The root is kr-, which means to do.
So of course I got to wondering if Karma, what keeps us in Samsara, was somehow like “acting” in the actor sense. Certainly, the Hindus and Buddhists both argue we are tied here by illusion, by delusion, by Maya.
Now, it has never made sense to me that there is a Great Balance Sheet in the Sky. Life is about quality, not quantity. If you murder one person or a hundred, what still matters is WHO YOU ARE, why you act, and what you can see spiritually.
Obviously, your actions flow easily from your assumptions, so it is reasonable to connect them, if not conflate them. But your assumptions, in turn, are based on your perceptions, and those can become increasingly refined. You can see more, better.
[I nearly commented, btw, yesterday, and will today, that thought–and the language we use to build it–is a poor from of knowing. But it is the BEST means by which to transfer some form of knowing from one person to another, both across space, in terms of people you speak to, and in terms of time, in the form of words you leave behind.]
As I understand it, the main doctrinal difference between Chinese “Cha’an” Buddhism, and classical Indian Buddhism is that the latter insists that you have to “accumulate merit” over a very long time. You have to steadily improve your balance sheet through meritorious action, and if you do this long enough, eventually you will have enough credits in the Cosmic Bank, that you can exchange them for Nirvana. As you may suppose, I don’t come down on that side.
The Chinese argue (or argued: Buddhism is largely dead in China, as is nearly any other authentic living religion or spiritual practice; they seem to be wanting to make American style consumerism the State Religion, since it breeds superficially happy conformists. I will note that this is not unknown to Taoism, but Lao Tzu repeatedly, in many passages, explicitly rejects tyranny, war, and overreach) that Enlightenment is all about perception, and perception is not bought one small grain of sand at a time. It tends to come, in practice, in quantum leaps, in “aha” moments. This means, logically, that while it is unlikely any given person will become Enlightened in one lifetime, it is not inconceivable.
Here is what I want to argue: Karma, properly speaking is “doing to” life, and its opposite is non-action, which is participation in life, which is rolling with life, which is surfing on the wave of life, and adapting as it changes.
Karma is wanting the world to be a certain way. This comes from attachment, and attachment reflects desire, and desire is what keeps you locked up in this massive prison.
Yes, I think that is close to the truth. I had a large breakfast (Ottolenghi recipe: he is rather a clever fellow, I think) and a plan to smoke a cigar and then maybe take a nap or watch a movie. Get in touch with my inner cat, without the innate sense of style.
Here is one more point that occurred to me a while back that I may as well make now. Many of the Gnostic writers seem to have argued that God is an asshole, and this realm of existence is a cosmic bad joke. I think the word used is Demiurge. Here is my question: does not the notion of Samsara–that this realm of existence is a place to escape from–not perfectly consistent with that? Maybe the Demiurge is us. Hell, maybe it is me, if I want to take a spin at solipsism (ouch, that hurt, let’s not do that again).
But the question remains: if this realm is so bad, who created it and why? Is it not bad workmanship?
This video is beautiful. I think if I had to pick a single favorite movie, it would be Thin Red Line: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMaf_bpG6tI