Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Has the concept of Karma been corrupted?
I know that this subject has been discussed repeatedly on the forum and that many of you are pretty tired of it.
I've tried reading some of those threads and gave up. I guess I'm not well read enough to understand many of the positions cited by those who are. I'm more interested in how it affects real life than how it is stated in scriptures.
Some people in western culture have a concept of karma that seems to serve their purposes more than the spiritual concept of karma. I was wondering if it will eventually corrupt this principle and change the way people understand it.
I'll try to explain what I mean. I hear the phrase, "What goes around, comes around" gleefully sung as people gloat about someone's troubles. If enough people react this way, the less likely they are to uphold fairness and truth. People may be celebrating acts of cruelty, destruction, and deception because they dislike the recipient or support the antagonist. I think that we can see the effects of this worldwide in a deadly double standard. Karma seems to mean revenge to many people. An incorrect concept of karma can also desensitize people to suffering. There is a danger of people using an unskilled understanding of karma to punish people. They've already corrupted other religious principles, and I see karma as the next false justification to cause harm. I understand that people's ignorance does not actually alter the karmic force. I wonder if teaching it to some people causes more harm than good. The new age movement has spread a lot of misinterpretation. Bad teachers do also.
I see it as a further deterioration of civil society. I look back on the way that the older, less "enlightened" societies behaved and compare it with today's advanced one. We've come a long way in many respects but have declined just as much, maybe more, in others. I see the corruption of spiritual principle as a means to prevent enlightenment. Enlightenment is being replaced by hubris in too many people.
The ancient Greeks had a goddess named Nemesis, who seemed to personify a form of karma. She maintained equilibrium. The Greeks also had a strong view of hubris. It had serious consequences in Greek tragedy and law. It was addressed in real time- not put off to some future lifetime as in karma. This is the real problem I have with karma. It doesn't have a time effective response to actually teach people to change negative behavior. It leaves too much to interpretation and can therefore be corrupted.
Any thoughts?
I've tried reading some of those threads and gave up. I guess I'm not well read enough to understand many of the positions cited by those who are. I'm more interested in how it affects real life than how it is stated in scriptures.
Some people in western culture have a concept of karma that seems to serve their purposes more than the spiritual concept of karma. I was wondering if it will eventually corrupt this principle and change the way people understand it.
I'll try to explain what I mean. I hear the phrase, "What goes around, comes around" gleefully sung as people gloat about someone's troubles. If enough people react this way, the less likely they are to uphold fairness and truth. People may be celebrating acts of cruelty, destruction, and deception because they dislike the recipient or support the antagonist. I think that we can see the effects of this worldwide in a deadly double standard. Karma seems to mean revenge to many people. An incorrect concept of karma can also desensitize people to suffering. There is a danger of people using an unskilled understanding of karma to punish people. They've already corrupted other religious principles, and I see karma as the next false justification to cause harm. I understand that people's ignorance does not actually alter the karmic force. I wonder if teaching it to some people causes more harm than good. The new age movement has spread a lot of misinterpretation. Bad teachers do also.
I see it as a further deterioration of civil society. I look back on the way that the older, less "enlightened" societies behaved and compare it with today's advanced one. We've come a long way in many respects but have declined just as much, maybe more, in others. I see the corruption of spiritual principle as a means to prevent enlightenment. Enlightenment is being replaced by hubris in too many people.
The ancient Greeks had a goddess named Nemesis, who seemed to personify a form of karma. She maintained equilibrium. The Greeks also had a strong view of hubris. It had serious consequences in Greek tragedy and law. It was addressed in real time- not put off to some future lifetime as in karma. This is the real problem I have with karma. It doesn't have a time effective response to actually teach people to change negative behavior. It leaves too much to interpretation and can therefore be corrupted.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
do i have any thoughts on the matter? sure, i agree with you. but what exactly do you propose instead? most things are susceptible to corruption. the media took scientific findings and turned it into "global warming" which is, of course, a slight misrepresentation... but does that mean the scientists should have kept their mouths shut?
Of course how selfish it is to scorn someone who suffers because they have the karma to suffer, This is certainly not the path.
Good for you for at least trying to research past threads. Most don't bother, and the thread topics become very repetitious as a result. And thanks for a good topic, for framing it in a way that doesn't duplicate past topics.
As you might conclude, these comments are very common on another website I frequent, one particularly created to help people in relationships.
Funnily enough, sometimes, when somebody posts a comment in the above vein, another poster will comment, "Uh-oh! You wait until Fede sees this! she knows about Karma, being Buddhist, and she'll put you right!!"
(I've lost count of the times I have done so!!
I point out to them that perhaps they've forgotten they too have Karma - was their distress in this relationship and how it developed/ended - THEIR Karma, biting them on THEIR @ss...?
That makes them stop and think..... :rolleyes:
I explain that basically, Karma is Voluntary and wilful Action - be it mental, verbal or physical. (That is, Thought, Word and Deed) but that it is non-judgemental, not prejudicial or indiscriminate, and it certainly is not a 'payback' thing.
Karma is a process in motion.
It is a pre-determined action on 'your' part which will always have a consequence, as any active process does.
What that consequence is, or will be, may not immediately be apparent. It may not be evident or manifest immediately, and as such, speculation on what consequence or incident, event or happening, is a 'result'of which particular kammic process you enacted - is pointless and futile.
The secret is to make sure that the kamma you create, is all good.
Simple, really!
:crazy:
Don't take any notice of other people's speculations.
This is well worth reading because it is also about kamma
"Anatta and Rebirth" by Ajahn Buddhadasa
http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pages/images/stories/dokumente-englisch/Ajahn-Buddhadasa/Ajahn_Buddhadasa--Anatta_and_Rebirth.pdf
D.
The ancient Greeks went through a period of tyrannical rule and the Law of Hubris was one of Solon's reforms. Plutarch said something like: "the best managed of the cities [is] that city in which those who had not been wronged were no less ready to prosecute and punish the wrong-doers than those who had been wronged." I interpret this as society sticking up for the values that they want and standing with the victims. How many times do people remain silent and watch as someone is abused or humiliated by others? I'm not talking about armed thugs, but the exploiters and bullies of our society. Too many are afraid (because they know that too few will back them up) or are willing to blame the victim and karma is as good an excuse as any.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it but I feel that in order to protect all in society and to bring meaningful enlightenment, we need to replace vengeance as an accepted mode of punishment. People are using the term karma to reinforce a form of revenge. As time goes by, karma may become a synonym for revenge.
Aristotle defined hubris as shaming the victim, not because anything happened to you or might happen to you, but merely for your own gratification. Hubris is not the requital of past injuries—that's revenge. As for the pleasure in hubris, its cause is this: men think that by ill-treating others they make their own superiority the greater.
I'm making the observation that karma is the next principle that is being turned into an unskilled concept by western society. Maybe if we adapted the ancient Greeks' Law of Hubris, we would not have the societal and economic meltdown that we're in now. I read an article today where a woman was saying that the west is reaping the karma for exploiting the third world. I can't argue that the third world wasn't exploited shamelessly. I disagree with invoking karma. All of the nefarious activities are the work of groups of greedy people. They are now moving on to other areas because they CAN not because of karma. I'm just saying that things are the way they are because of mundane activity not because of a religious/spiritual concept.
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The precise working out of the results of kamma...
"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
Personally, I like to think of karma as the manifestation of perspective. For example, there is a RIVER.
Humans view the RIVER as being a continuance of water.
Devas view the RIVER as being a continuance of ghee.
Pretas view the RIVER as being a continuance of pus, or something disgusting.
The manifestation of the RIVER is thus dependent on the karma of the individual viewing the RIVER.
Oooookay..... :om:
IOW, everyone sees the same reality but their view of it is skewed by their karma. Its nature is determined by the nature of the mind of the being observing it.
Besides, Kamma is VOLITIONAL ACTION, so it cannot skew anything.
You mean Vipaka, which is the result, effect or consequence.
"The series stars Jason Lee, Ethan Suplee, Jaime Pressly, Eddie Steeples and Nadine Velazquez. Earl J. Hickey (Lee) is a petty criminal whose winning $100,000 lottery ticket is lost when he is hit by a car. Lying in a hospital bed, under the influence of morphine, he develops a belief in the concept of karmic retribution when he hears about karma during an episode of Last Call with Carson Daly. To turn his life around, he makes a list of every bad thing he's ever done in an attempt to correct them, as he believes that this is the only way he can gain positive karma. After doing his first good deed, he finds the $100,000 lottery ticket he had previously lost. He sees this as a sign of karma rewarding him and, with his newfound wealth, he begins doing good deeds according to his list."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_name_is_earl
What I refer to: These various ways of seeing are based on the Vijñânavâda teaching known as "the four views of water": gods see water as jewels; humans see it as water; hungry ghosts, as blood; and fish, as a dwelling. (note)
As for the speculation, that criticism affects your argument as much as it does mine. (In fact, it's a "cop out" and reliance upon textual authority rather than reason.) The fact that you are a human is a result (vipaka) of your karma. The fact that you are a human affects the way you currently view Reality (I.e. a human feels pain because of their nervous system, can imagine things, can only see a narrow spectrum of light, etc.) If you were other than a human, e.g. a deva, then you would not feel physical pain. If you were a preta, food would not suffice for you as it would for a human. This is all a result (vipaka) of karma.
"As for the speculation, that criticism affects your argument as much as it does mine. (In fact, it's a "cop out" and reliance upon textual authority rather than reason.)"
No, I reason that the workings of Kamma are not to be conjectured about. It's liable to drive people nutty. Having seen many threads trying to discuss the workings of kamma tie themselves up in knots and go round and round in circles, I'm inclined to agree. Experience tells me that the textual Authority has reason.
And, no, you have not invoked reason. You have repeated, like a parrot, the sutta of the unconjecturables. You have "reasoned" that one sutta out of hundreds is correct in saying karma is unfathomable, the whole while ignoring all the sutras that describe (in detail, I might add) the specific workings of karma.
If the details of karma can not be fathomed how do you account for the Buddha describing the results of the 5 (the number does not matter) acts: drawing the blood of a tathagata, etc.?
Can you quote a Pali Canon sutta where the Buddha said that, please?
"If you were other than a human, e.g. a deva, then you would not feel physical pain"
Source ?
.
Textual fundamentalism? Do you think that Buddha was the last enlightened being? Did the Buddha write in Pali?
I gave a source.
Can you explain how a being in the formless realm could possibly feel the pain of a being with a (formed) nervous system? I doubt it.
As far as I'm concerned, "Buddhism" is about the teachings of the Buddha - and if that makes me a fundamentalist in your eyes, ok !
Oh and I was an offline Vajrayana practitioner for many years - so I'm not speaking about something I know nothing about.
It just don't float mine.
Thanks for your nothing, then? What did you expect...like I said, TEXTUAL FUNDAMENTALISM.
Do you think it is possible that someone (anyone!) has reached enlightenment since the Buddha?
Do you think that they (unlike the Buddha I might add) wrote down their thoughts on a matter?
If you don't think that someone could have been enlightened after the Buddha (and thus written their thoughts down, unlike the Buddha, who couldn't apparently write,) why do you think so?
Why do you even practice Buddhism if you think that later writings do not reflect the Truth?
If and when you are enlightened, should we discard your writings?
Again, what kind of contribution to the discussion does this response add?
Besides relying completely on the sutta of the unconjecturable, how do you come to your understanding of karma and vipaka? I mean, you have obviously "conjectured" about it, as you have formed the words "karma" and "vipaka" and determined (in your own view, I might add) what their limits are.
Furthermore, you have not explained why it is that you choose to ignore all the suttas that describe karmic "retribution" in detail in favor of the unconjecturable sutta.
This brings me to a question I've had for awhile, after reading conflicting quotes on karma and rebirth. If the texts contradict each other, then what?
Anyone?
No, I would appreciate any discussion on the matter. What I don't appreciate is relativistic DISMISSAL. Especially when it is apparently SOLELY based on one sutta in disregard of other suttas that describe in detail the results of certain actions.
When Buddha says that a fratricide will result in being born in a hell realm, would you say that it was unconjecturable?
I linked to a quote regarding the RIVER. In my quoting of it.
But, mostly, it is drawn from logic. We can take as an assumption that karma affects certain results, e.g. being born a human is a result of previous karma. (This is uncontroversial IMO.)
Being born a human entails certain experiences: i.e. we all see a definite range of light as visible. We all are born from a womb (or the combination of egg and sperm), live for a time, and die. This is not so, necessarily, for other beings.
Devas are not born of a womb. Is that experience not a result of their karma, just as being a deva is a result of previous karma?
Thinking on it is a distraction to my practice.
I focus on things that both uphold and support my practice.
I've got more than enough practising being Mindful and Compassionate.
That's enough work for anyone, in any lifetime.
Some Mahayana texts are supposed to have been spoken by deities (e.g.the Heart Sutra is said to have been spoken by Avalokiteshvara ) and in the case of texts by Asanga..he was supposed to have been given them by a Buddha from the future -Maitreya - who was said to take him to the Tushita Heaven to give them to him.(e.g. the Mahayana Uttara Tantra Shastra)
.
What I refer to: These various ways of seeing are based on the Vijñânavâda teaching known as "the four views of water": gods see water as jewels; humans see it as water; hungry ghosts, as blood; and fish, as a dwelling. (note)
Why are you practicing Buddhism? It is to become a Buddha, no?
If you think that Buddhahood ended with Sakyamuni, then why do you practice?
Is that who all those extra Buddhas are--people like us who became enlightened? It's never been explained to me, it's just been presented as something to take on faith. But always viewed Buddhism as faith-free, based on logic.
A being (sattva) [tending toward] enlightenment.
Since the others just dismiss me out of hand, I will ask you the question:
What is the basis for this belief that the intricate workings of karma are unconjecturable? If it is because of one sutta (the Unconjecturable), then I direct you to another sutta: the Kalama.
It is easy, no?, to say that our currently being Human is a result of our karma, no? (And notice, please, that I am not conjecturing as to the causes for out current predicament, like some seem to assume.) Now, since we can agree that it is in accord with scripture that our currently being Human is a result of past actions, why do you say that the result is inscrutable? Just because of the word "karma"?
Surely, they (the actions resulting in a Human birth) are inscrutable in fine detail, but in rough approximation our mode of being is quite obvious. Our previous actions, whatever they were, resulted in this being Human.
But I am not concerned with the previous action. As I have said, I am concerned with our view of Reality NOW. As Humans, we view the "River" as being "water". What if we were not human?
That is all.
That is karma.
No, they claim it outright, not based on anything but one single contradictory sutta.
The reasons for your physical body being here are extremely hard to understand, as each "particle" has a specific history. But the mental element is not so hard: you CLUNG to something; therefore you were reborn thus!
I simply chose to not get involved in a discussion I really have no inclination to continue. I understand the points you make, but they come from a perspective of a Tradition I do not follow.
And I am not sufficiently well-versed in Pali texts, scriptures and teachings to be able to give you an adequately and reasonably "well-matched" counter-discussion.
I just know that what i have encountered, I've stripped to itty-bitty-little pieces, over some considerable period of time, before deciding they made perfect sense to me, or not.
So please don't presume to tell me what I have done, not have done, reasoned or not reasoned and repeated or not repeated.
The conclusions I have come to, satisfy my own practice. And for my part, I'm fine with that. if you aren't, that's not my problem.
Secondly, it was 01.00. in the UK. Now I'm not entirely sure where you are, but
I have to sleep sometime.... just as it's highly likely you happen to be asleep now.
OK?
BTW, I'm also following the Theravada tradition because I'm confident that it is the earliest available recorded discourses attributed to the Buddha and also because of its kinda "no frills" approach. This tradition suits me but I am mindful that it may not be the choice of other practitioners. Therefore, I don't go questioning the validity of the teachings of their traditions or the behaviour of their lamas or gurus. Just discuss what's before you, in this case, the quote of Lama Yeshe that I posted.
What is before us is a discussion about the principle of karma being corrupted, or misused or misinterpreted, as well as broader philosophical questions. The Yeshe quote is a perfect example of how the principle of karma can be oversimplified and abused, or used, even, to hide or defend abuse. This is an extremely important issue. It's the only the OP's role to decide what postings are and are not to the point, and to redirect the discussion, if so warranted.
P.S. Sorry for the duplicate post above, folks--still having problems with the post function on the new format. :-/
I think religion (or religious structures) all too often functions to hide abuse and silence protest rather than stand for the victims. Not to mention the wars that have taken place due to religious motives. Do you think there needs to be more activism in the religions, activism based on compassion for victims of any manner of injustice, whether societal or individual? The Catholic "Liberation Theology" has helped empower marginalized peoples in Latin America, but has done nothing to examine policies (opposition to birth control comes to mind) and abuses within the church. Are you speaking for perhaps a secular moral authority that would guide people to speak out when witnessing cruelty or injustice?
..
As for this dead dialectic above, maybe this will help:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/242342/the_law_of_hubris_greeks_and_pride.html?cat=37