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.
Question on karma
betaboy
Veteran
Namaste,
Two questions: does karma determine everything? Must everything that happens to us be explained with karma?
Second, does karma get accumulated (which is why we take birth again and again), or is karma instant? Then what explains rebirth (assuming it's instant)?
BB
Two questions: does karma determine everything? Must everything that happens to us be explained with karma?
Second, does karma get accumulated (which is why we take birth again and again), or is karma instant? Then what explains rebirth (assuming it's instant)?
BB
0
Comments
awareness of conditioned mind = respond to situations = choice between good and bad karma = see karma as empty.
no awareness of conditioned mind = unconscious reaction = no choice on good and bad karma = karma is still empty, but since one isn't aware of this they keep creating more and more states. they get attach to states thus they are stuck in samsara. sometimes they will get out of the states by just being in the moment, thus they will have a moment of nirvana.
karma is cause and effect, but karma is empty. also when we see through the lens of our conditioned mind, we see the world how we want to see it. rather than what is. when we see reality as it is without attachment to thinking, then there is no karma or finite view of the world through attachment. when we see the world through our desires, conditioned mind, finite interpretations we have karma.
karma has no power on its own. we give it power.
just me rambling about karma. creates more karma! but karma is empty, so it's okay.
There is karma the universal law of cause and effect, or "actions have consequences" and it's a restatement of the scientific law, "every action has a reaction" only applied to our conscious decisions. You'd think it would be obvious, wouldn't it? Our actions effect the world around us, in both obvious and subtle ways, with both immediate and delayed consequences.
So does this mean everything that happens to us is the result of our actions? Only if you think in terms of good and bad karma. As Taiyaki clearly explained, good and bad karma is inherently empty. People look at events in their lives and the lives of other people as either good or bad, and ask why bad things happen to good people and why bad people end up rich and happy. They try to explain it as accumulated past karma, perhaps even from past lives, when it's just clinging to a selfish view of karma. Your actions, past or present, did not force the mugger to shoot you as punishment for some imaginary bad deeds you did in the past. Karma is not justice. It's just karma.
But here's the kicker. Nobody can control the consequences of their actions. Nor do the empty labels of good and bad actually mean anything, because that's just our selfish judgement. It's illusion, emptiness masquerading as reality. Again, Taiyaki explained it very well above. The "bad" things that happen to us in life sometimes turn out to be the best thing that happened to us, seen from the vantage point of the future, while the things we think are "good" might bring ruin.
So what does it all mean? Well, Buddha taught a freedom from all illusions, including karma. That's often overlooked in our fascination with applying it to reality to explain why we suffer.
From a metaphysical view karma is like a seed that gets planted in our stream of conciousness and ripens at a later time, either nearly instantaneously or many lives in the future. I think from this point of view most everything that happens to us is considered the ripening of some past karma. It should be said though that only a fully enlightened Buddha is supposed to be able to understand the full workings of karma. Also HHDL has said that he thinks some processes are just natural processes unrelated to karma, such as the direction a hair in someones eyebrow grows.
No, karma is not instant.
Is it instant and does it accumulate?
Umm.. if you have the wrong view of hating someone, does that hate cause you suffering? is it possible to separate hate from suffering. To me they seem instant and inseparable. Now, will that hate possibly cause you to take some negative actions? maybe not this instant, but if you feel angry that day and are not able to practice your meditation because of it and you miss out on some important realization that night?
What if you just so happen to die the next day, you may have missed out on your last chance at enlightenment and now you have to be reborn and try again.
It may be a bit of a crazy example but I hope you understand what I was trying to explain.
One view is that it is not controlled by the individual. That it is some cosmic reward and punishment system. After living in Thailand for a while, it is my impression that is how many Thais see it (for example). They are continually attempting to "earn" (and they sometimes use that very word) merit. And, Thais believe (again, for example) that a handicapped person or a rich person is born that way because of the karma accumulated in past lives. And, on one primarily Thai Buddhist forum, that's how it is usually approached (even though the people on that forum are mostly westerners who are Buddhist, but who are enchanted with Thailand.
The other view, much more predominant on this forum, is that karma is something within your own mind. For example, if you cheat someone you will suffer because of your own mental processes.
Both views are problematic for me, although I still believe in karma. Just not sure exactly how it works. And how does it work -- or doesn't it -- for people who are amoral. Hmmm...especially when most people believe karma is a universal principle.
.
The commentarial tradition of Theravada, stressing the fact that not everything we experience in life is caused by kamma, even goes so far as to list five distinct causal laws or processes (panca-niyamas) that operate in the physical and mental worlds: seasonal laws (utu-niyama), biological laws (bija-niyama), psychological laws (citta-niyama), kammic laws (kamma-niyama) and natural laws (dhamma-niyama). In a sense, both. In one sutta, for example, the Buddha states: For some of my thoughts on rebirth, see this.
Trying to decide if the lottery ticket you won/lost is because you said a nice thing to the old lady is folly.... because the more selflessly and directly we relate to our experiences, the better we are at acting skillfully. So, instead of considering all of the magic you can do with the winnings/losings, you're underpinning a stronger sense of self by "look what MY merit won ME" or "Oh, I didn't have enough karma to win that for ME today".
I think in the west especially there is the need to have some external entity hold some metaphysical scales of justice to dispense magical reward and punishment. Otherwise reality is sort of real and boring.
Karma in Buddhism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Karma (Sanskrit, also karman, Pāli: Kamma) means "action" or "doing"; whatever one does, says, or thinks is a karma. In Buddhism, the term karma is used specifically for those actions which spring from the intention (Sanskrit: cetanā, Pali: cetana) of an unenlightened being.
These bring about a fruit (Sanskrit, Pali: phala) or result (S., P.: vipāka; the two are often used together as vipākaphala), either within the present life, or in the context of a future rebirth. Other Indian religions have different views on karma. Karma is the engine which drives the wheel of the cycle of uncontrolled rebirth (S., P. saṃsāra) for each being. In the early texts it is not, however, the only causal mechanism influencing the lives of sentient beings.
As one scholar states, "the Buddhist theory of action and result (karmaphala) is fundamental to much of Buddhist doctrine, because it provides a coherent model of the functioning of the world and its beings, which in turn forms the doctrinal basis for the Buddhist explanations of the path of liberation from the world and its result, nirvāṇa."[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism
On other threads, Buddhists debate on whether the soul exists or not. They don't agree on rebirth. Some say that when you die you, the essence that is you is gone. How can this support the idea of karmic seeds coming to fruition in a future life? If the originator of the karma is dead- how can karma teach a dead person?
Somebody help me out here- isn't the workings of karma considered an "imponderdable"? (I just checked online and it is one of the Four Imponderables.)
I thought the question was about belief systems. The Wikipedia article goes through the various belief systems about karma, but no one will ever be able to prove it and we could drive ourselves crazy thinking about it, which is the definition of an imponderable.
Look at it this way- if karma were provable, then that would have been concluded a couple of thousand years ago and everybody would be Buddhist and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
>>>No one will ever be able to prove whether or not the soul is real, and no one will ever be able to prove whether rebirth is real, or at least not for a long time.
I think the Buddha proved that there are no essential-eternal things, which is enough to me to prove there is no soul. The only exception is the idea of a universal soul of which we are part, that seems compatible with annica and anatman.
>>>Somebody help me out here- isn't the workings of karma considered an "imponderdable"? (I just checked online and it is one of the Four Imponderables.)
I dont think so, It is imponderable to be able to determine the results of any action 9karmic fruit) but karma's workings are explained by interdependent causation - its the deepest part of dharma as Buddha says, but not imponderable
x
What I tried to discuss was the way some people invoked "karma" when they took negative action against another person. They invoked "karma" when they took pleasure in someone's troubles. It seemed that they were corrupting the concept to support their personal actions.
Here's a link to that thread, if you're interested:
Advanced Ideas- "Has the concept of Karma been corrupted?"
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/9009/has-the-concept-of-karma-been-corrupted/p1
If my posts on this thread are distracting, then I'll end them now. I don't wish to interfere.
To me this is a confused question. Karma is a description of action and its result. But it isn't a force of nature, rather it is an observation. So for example if a tomato spoils it is due to the effects of oxygen and bacteria. Karma is an appelation to describe that one thing lead to another.
Most of where karma of concern is how your actions influence your mind. In these cases intention is very powerful. Why did you do something? The way your mind is set up is going to have huge power on what happens, but that is misleading. Again karma is not a force it is just an observation. I don't like him. So I speak shitty to him. So did my anger cause karma that made us have a fight? Thats an appearance.
After all we don't know precisely what anger is. It has only a context in a specific being and experience. We don't know how karma functions, but we (you) try to use it to make sense. Either it is deadening the situation by causing you to cease looking to understand. Or it could have a benifitial effect somehow.. can't think of an example, but karma its true can be a helpful idea.
Must everything that happens to us be explained with karma?"
Depends what your goal is in asking. Which is a little thought experiment into the notions of karma. If you want to know so that the questions are settled or so you can show your knowledge off reflect on how knowing that things are due to karma would have only limited utility during old age sickness or death. The view might be somewhat comforting, but you would still be vexed.
I think you are experiencing that the view of karma takes some of the aliveness out of life. It is somewhat deadening to think 'oh thats karma'. I think the value of karma is that it prevents us from spinning out into emotionality. We can say 'ah karma' 'ah impermanence'. Therefore I suggest not to take karma as an explanation which can be deadening but rather as a way to look at things and lighten up about disasters. Importantly a motivation to do what you can to put yourself in a position where you DO have the insight to practice with sickness and death. Death is coming and you have a chance now.
"Second, does karma get accumulated (which is why we take birth again and again), or is karma instant? Then what explains rebirth (assuming it's instant)?"
I am not sure what you mean by instant. Karma can ripen at a later time even though the 'seed' is produced instantly. Or so I have been told
Peace be with you!
Kayte you might be interested in reading what my lama, shenpen hookham, said related to actions between people relating to karma. Here is the question and answer public mailing [url=http://www.buddhism-connect.org/sanghaspace-members/teachings/?article=1823&searchtext=karma]Karma[/url]
:thumbsup:
We had a thread once, quoting a passage that said karma does NOT relate to weather patterns, random acts of violence, or other random events.
As far as: does the law of karma determine the circumstances of one's rebirth (as a cripple, or to a poor family, or to a wealthy but troubled family, or whatever)--well, that's the subject of endless debate. Not everyone agrees.
Karma is provable to a certain extent. If you hit someone, or are cruel to them, what will be their reaction? In some way, sooner or later, you'll experience a reaction. The fruit of your action will come back to you. Action (or some say: volition) and reaction. Bernie Madoff did get a reaction from his intent to cheat masses of people. Did G.W. Bush get a reaction from trashing the American economy and starting foreign wars? If not, why not? Maybe the fruit of his action is waiting to pounce on him in a future lifetime. I've noticed this, too, since coming to this forum. there are passages in the sutras that appear to be contradictory, plus so much is open to individual interpretation (like scriptures in other religions), questions of proper translation (and debates about correct translation). This is highly debatable. Don't be so sure. Yes it is, sometimes.
In terms of specific calcluations about karma, Buddha advised to avoid such musings, as it is incalculable..
But then again, karma is the law of nature.
I had a thread up once, about the Buddha's teaching that natural disasters and random violence were not subject to the workings of karma. And some people did argue that human activity now is so closely linked to nature (climate change, for example) that the teaching no longer applies. idk. Go figure. Let's all bear in mind that this is Buddhism for Beginners.
But it's a common view over the world and in spite of your particular religion. A few Japanese Buddhists are even saying the recent earthquake and ongoing tragedy is because they accumulated bad karma as a nation. A wrong view.
Karma is not imponderable. People, even otherwise wise monks, simply refuse to let go of their desire for reality to reward and punish people according to their actions.
>Must everything that happens to us be explained with karma?
No, in fact one of the imponderables is that it cant be explained by Karma. Karma in the simplest sense is the anchient law that negativity makes more negativity and positivity makes more positivity.
>Second, does karma get accumulated (which is why we take birth again and again), or is karma instant?
It is wise to be clear here, bceuase it does get accumlated in a sense of propensity; eg, more positive action will mean more positive fruit. And the ripening takes place in the future not in the moment.
But this does not mean that karma is merit, though some schools interpret it as thuis, in my opinion they have made a profound mistake. - I may be very wrong on this, of course.
Namaste