As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[wiscidea]

As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

According to one Dharma teacher, it is simply a matter of cause and effect. All of our actions -- and inaction -- have consequences, some immediate and some more distant. It is not good or bad. No one is keeping track of it. No one is going to use the information to judge you, reward you, punish you, or make sure you are reincarnated as a fly because you were naughty. Seems reasonable.

Is this how other Buddhists view it?

What about non-Buddhists?

Thank you for your thoughtful replies!

Namaste.

[Gorm_Sionnach]

I always understood it as the universe balancing itself out.

[Metis]

To me, I think it's more of an idea of what goes around comes around, but when it comes to the concepts of rebirth and reincarnation, I'm very much the skeptic, so I cannot say that I believe in karma from that perspective.   

[Flitzerbiest]

To me, I think it's more of an idea of what goes around comes around...

Indeed, except that this empirically does not seem to be the case.  Stephen Batchelor (Buddhism Without Belief) advocates doing away with the non-demonstrable aspects of Buddhism, specifically karma and reincarnation.

[Lilly]

As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

According to one Dharma teacher, it is simply a matter of cause and effect. All of our actions -- and inaction -- have consequences, some immediate and some more distant. It is not good or bad.

The consequences of your thoughts and actions may not be labeled good or bad, but certainly the original idea of karma as believed in Hinduism said your present state is an effect of your prior thoughts, decisions and actions.  That's the "what goes around comes around," or "what you sow you also reap."  The problem with that is it's clear people don't always receive in their lifetimes the effect of all the things they did, so you have to have reincarnation as a part of that understanding.

No one is keeping track of it. No one is going to use the information to judge you, reward you, punish you, or make sure you are reincarnated as a fly because you were naughty. Seems reasonable.

It also rules out any forgiveness or mercy for the things you did.  Karma is therefore a kind of impersonal force which mindlessly causes things to happen to you as a result of the things you do.  A sort of justice, but without any thought or mercy.

My objection to karma is that it leaves the person in a difficult situation no reason to expect help or mercy from others, and it leaves others no reason to render aid or mercy since his situation is of his own making; his own karma.  What about the abused child?  Is his abuse the result of prior actions and thoughts?  A Hindu friend of mine would say yes, either that or it's a result of the child's father's prior actions.  I can't accept that.

[Shirley]

As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

According to one Dharma teacher, it is simply a matter of cause and effect. All of our actions -- and inaction -- have consequences, some immediate and some more distant. It is not good or bad. No one is keeping track of it. No one is going to use the information to judge you, reward you, punish you, or make sure you are reincarnated as a fly because you were naughty. Seems reasonable.

Is this how other Buddhists view it?

What about non-Buddhists?

Thank you for your thoughtful replies!

Namaste.

I think it is what the heart puts out. It really has nothing to do with words or even actions but what is in your heart when you use words and do actions.

Shirley

[Ken]

My objection to karma is that it leaves the person in a difficult situation no reason to expect help or mercy from others, and it leaves others no reason to render aid or mercy since his situation is of his own making; his own karma.

You forget that helping that person is excellent for one's own karma.

[Lilly]

My objection to karma is that it leaves the person in a difficult situation no reason to expect help or mercy from others, and it leaves others no reason to render aid or mercy since his situation is of his own making; his own karma.

You forget that helping that person is excellent for one's own karma.

Why?  If that person receives mercy it's only because he is receiving an effect of his own prior action which isn't mercy at all since karma is strictly about cause and effect.  Karma by definition cannot render mercy.  And if you're being merciful to someone expecting to get something in return, that too is not mercy by definition, imo.

[Metis]

To me, I think it's more of an idea of what goes around comes around...

Indeed, except that this empirically does not seem to be the case.  Stephen Batchelor (Buddhism Without Belief) advocates doing away with the non-demonstrable aspects of Buddhism, specifically karma and reincarnation.

I fully agree with you and, as a matter of fact, I have recommended Batchelor's book to many people outside of Buddhist circles because I think that he hits the nail on the head in that all religions, including Buddhism, have many attachments they've added over the centuries. 

[costrel]

My objection to karma is that it leaves the person in a difficult situation no reason to expect help or mercy from others, and it leaves others no reason to render aid or mercy since his situation is of his own making; his own karma.

You forget that helping that person is excellent for one's own karma.

Why?  If that person receives mercy it's only because he is receiving an effect of his own prior action which isn't mercy at all since karma is strictly about cause and effect.  Karma by definition cannot render mercy.  And if you're being merciful to someone expecting to get something in return, that too is not mercy by definition, imo.

"The quality of mercy [...] is twice bless'd;
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes [...]"
-- W. Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

[kwd111]

What I can't seem to get a handle on in reference to karma is the following:

If karma is simply the result of cause and effect... how did it first start?  Who initiated the first mercy or the first non or evil action?

And if evil comes upon you because you did evil, doesn't that necessitate that the one who did evil to you because of your past karma mean that the person who did it to you would then create a continual loop of someone doing evil to someone else because of karma which then requires that the person who... well I'm getting into the loop and hopefully you understand what I am saying.

[costrel]

What I can't seem to get a handle on in reference to karma is the following:

If karma is simply the result of cause and effect... how did it first start?  Who initiated the first mercy or the first non or evil action?

And if evil comes upon you because you did evil, doesn't that necessitate that the one who did evil to you because of your past karma mean that the person who did it to you would then create a continual loop of someone doing evil to someone else because of karma which then requires that the person who... well I'm getting into the loop and hopefully you understand what I am saying.

Well, since the Buddha, according to the Jataka, had previous lives as tree spirits, kusa grass, water spirits, and animals such as a hare and a monkey, and, according to another tradition, he also had a previous life as a god, it is clear that all life has Buddha nature. Therefore, I assume that the first karmic action began whenever the universe began (if it really had a beginning, and has not always been). And for those who accept the current ideas of evolution, water and plants and non-human animals (as well as deities) have been around much longer than human beings, so the first karmic actions would have been performed by a non-human being.

Karma is cause and effect. If I choose to eat unhealthily -- for instance, choose to eat greasy bacon -- I will get heart disease, cancer, be unhealthy, and maybe even have a premature death. If I choose to have angry thoughts, if I choose to drink alcohol, if I choose to treat others with disrespect, if I choose to smoke, if I choose to drive recklessly, if I choose to be attached to my possessions that I may one day lose, I will experiece the negative effects of these choices, of these actions. I don't see karmic actions as "good" and "evil," but as positive and negative -- that is, having results we consider as being either positive or negative. Identifying karma as "good" and "evil" seems to place karma more in the realm of a cosmic battle of righteousness vs. unrighteouness as one sees in Middle Eastern religions and which seems foreign to the conceptions of the Buddhists I knew in Japan.

[Metis]

If I can just add to costrel's response a bit in that Buddhism does not teach that there was/is a creator-god, and one of the reasons why such an entity is unlikely is that it would make this deity an uncaused cause, which seemingly defies what we experience on a day to day basis. 

So, did our universe have a beginning?  Not likely even according to most of the cosmologists.  Yes there's evidence for the big bang, and yes there was something here prior to the big bang in that our universe was roughly the size of an atom by today's standards, but no that is still not likely to be the beginning.  Instead, most cosmologists that I have read tend to think that energy/matter in one form or another probably goes back into infinity and probably will go forward into infinity as well.  And since there's no real beginning, there's no uncaused cause.

 

[Flitzerbiest]

If I can just add to costrel's response a bit in that Buddhism does not teach that there was/is a creator-god, and one of the reasons why such an entity is unlikely is that it would make this deity an uncaused cause, which seemingly defies what we experience on a day to day basis. 

So, did our universe have a beginning?  Not likely even according to most of the cosmologists.  Yes there's evidence for the big bang, and yes there was something here prior to the big bang in that our universe was roughly the size of an atom by today's standards, but no that is still not likely to be the beginning.  Instead, most cosmologists that I have read tend to think that energy/matter in one form or another probably goes back into infinity and probably will go forward into infinity as well.  And since there's no real beginning, there's no uncaused cause.

 

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

[wiscidea]

What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

Interesting point... time for a new thread... but where... yes... where?

EDIT:

Here...

http://www.beliefcorner.com/index.php/topic,2007.msg59774.html#msg59774

[Today]

• Religion gets ugly by CCC460 [Today at 02:21:47 PM]
• God No Longer Male by SteveC [Today at 11:04:09 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 06:34:27 AM]
• Jewish Understanding by kwd111 [Today at 05:37:00 AM]
• Mayans Answer Questions A... by SteveC [September 08, 2010, 03:57:03 PM]
• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [September 07, 2010, 10:31:39 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [September 07, 2010, 12:09:55 PM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87138
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 61
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 3
Guests: 20
Total: 23

CCC460
kwd111
Coachbob