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.
New understanding of karma
Ficus_religiosa
Veteran
In another thread, I was told that my resource on karma - and hence primary understanding - reflects what was called "the old view". I used the Buddhanet.net for my karma-research a couple of years ago as it seemed to give a thorough yet basic introduction to the new Buddhist. Since I've just been sticking to that, not going further into the theory. I've yet to read suttas on kamma.. This is mostly coincidental, as I just open ATI-app on my phone and find a random sutta. I tend to skip the ones with too technical or theoretical topics hence "mostly".
So what is this "new view" of kamma that I've been missing out on?
So what is this "new view" of kamma that I've been missing out on?
0
Comments
But there are more subtle understandings of karma. To me, it sounds like genetic inheritance, my experiences, and my thoughts create my stream of karma. They dictate how I see and experience the World.
A good book I've read is called Karma and rebirth by Christmas Humphreys, who looks at karma (and rebirth) from a different number of view points and doesn't shirk the difficult questions.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Karma-Rebirth-Christmas-Humphreys/dp/0835603067/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1344347407&sr=1-1
You get raped because you raped someone in another life? C'mon.. That's both meaningless and offensive - and removes the need for any kind of criminal law, since punishment will surely come..
The example I read was something like this: "you cheat someone for 100 bucks. You get 100 bucks because you were charitable earlier (What, you are lucky in being a jerk because you were once a good guy? Anyway:), but at the same time you will get cheated later because of your current cheating".
To me a more obvious karmic effect of cheating is: Bad consciousness, no one wants to trade with you, legal issues, bad reputation - these examples, except the first one, are "branches" on the vipaka-tree, but the fruit is the bad feelings coming from those conflicts one created. It also fits the action-reaction model. When karma ripen over a long time, it's because a minor offense in the here and now may ripen into something serious in, for example, thirty years. The kid you picked on once in school suddenly sits in a position to fire you from your job if he so wishes. The - lets call it Tibetan - model says you're fired because you once fired someone, but also that you got your job because you once hired someone.
The Tibetan way seems more bad action - cosmic retaliation. I don't think that's in line with the teachings.
:-/
Therefore my question is would it be useful to view karma in a mechanical model?
Still interested in, why my view is called "old" though.. :buck:
Let me give you some examples of what Thai Buddhists -- and even several Thai monks -- have explained to me as karma:
You see a man begging on the street with an amputated leg due to a work accident. Karmic result 1 -- painful work accident; karmic result 2 -- amputation; karmic result 3 -- reduced to begging for subsistence (all the result of something he did either in this life or a past life).
You see a teenaged boy with a cleft lip and palate (birth defect) who is reduced to begging on the street. The karmic result of something done in a previous life.
My relationship with my significant other in Thailand was very unfulfilling and disintegrated, the karmic result of an earlier relationship I was in where the failure of the relationship was my fault.
On the other hand, when you read some of the descriptions of how karma works from people on this website, you are more likely to hear that karmic results are in your own mind. For example, you steal money, and your conscience bothers you.
One of the things that bothers me about karma is that if you ask 100 truly random Buddhists about karma and how it works, I'll bet you get at least 10 different versions.
The odd thing is, nevertheless, I believe in the concept of karma because of its logic. Yet, I can't put my finger on exactly what karma is or how it works.
I've never got folks interest in pining down Karma as a definitive law. Most of the time we know whats right to do and what isn't. A definition of consequence doesn't change any of that from the view of my zafu..
Those who do try to solidify the Law of Karma into something more graspable have at least 3 hurdles to clear first.
Karma gets confused by
Folks forgetting that Karma is only one of the 5 laws of the Buddhist universe. There are other contributing factors at work in addition to Karma..
People often try to explain Karma from two distinctly different stances. Scriptural (which is often faith based) and personal experiences ( which are perception based).
The fact that if we are all as ethereal, and inherently delusive as our respective practises demonstrate, just what is suffering this cause and effect?
My rational self says: There is no continuation of karma. Your actions die with you.
My spiritual self says: There might be something to it, but it really doesn't affect me.
What I do know as a fact is action and reaction in this very life, and that is enough karma for me to last a lifetime
The "cosmic retaliation", to me, seems unnecessarily crooked and misses the point.
next thing is 'how far we have understood the Dependant Origination'
IMO if we understand DO we will be able to understand Karma and Karma Vipaka (intention of speach, deed and thought (cause) and results of such intention (effect)
However, radio waves are ethereal in nature and are produced by wires, transistors, and other electrical equipment. The result (radio waves) is definitely unlike electrical equipment. So there are circumstances where the result is unlike the cause. Atoms and the explosions they cause when they're split also come to mind.
Can I ask you, or anyone else their thoughts about this?
So if we can see how good deeds make us happy and how unwholesome actions based on craving, ill will and delusion make us unhappy, we have come quite a long way already. Now of course the difficult part here is the delusion. It's hard to really understand what exactly makes us happy and what doesn't. But it's part of the practice to see that, not really to see how karma works exactly. However, the important bits of it can reveal themselves slowly, like that craving results in new rebirth. Again, not exactly 100% how, but it's important to see that it does.
I'm not too sure about 'old' and 'new' interpretations of karma, though. Haven't heard of it before.
Second, as I said, I believe in the basic concept of karma, so I practice based on it. Although, I'm not sure I would behave differently if karma did not exist. But I am not satisfied with a religious principle which is so misunderstood that there are so many vastly different explanations of it and how it works. In this particular case, I actually prefer the Christian principle of "do unto others as you would have they do unto you", because it just tells you how to live, and makes no promises about a result.
I don't believe in Joseph Smith's version of the Angel Moroni giving him the Golden Plates (just a couple of miles from my boyhood home). I don't swallow the "God works in mysterious ways" concept. And those who wish to believe that things are imponderable...that's fine...that's their decision. It is not mine.
That's really all we need to know. There are many examples of how acts that Buddhism considers "unskillful" cause both harmful mental trends and other negative repercussions, either in an immediate fashion or delayed. Hell we don't even need to call it "karma", this is simple common sense for anyone who's lived any amount of time.
Karma means the same as "you reap what you sow" (and applies beyond a single lifetime through rebirth), and works through the same mechanism of causality. We just need to understand what's skillful and what's unskillful, as related to suffering and the cessation of suffering (liberation). Let's not take our eyes off the ball!
Actions have consequences which may be good, not good or neither. Clearly the consequences cannot be predicted with any certainty.
But what I mean is you can't 100% see for each action the results, but you can get quite close. You can see how a tiny change in mindstate during meditation brings happiness or not. Such an action is thus wholesome or unwholesome. Well, as far as I'm concerned if someone can see things like that, that'll provide quite a good understanding of karma already. Of course this understanding will grow when we can focus better and be more still in meditation so we can see the more tiny fluctuations (intentions) in mind. That's what is important to get to know. But to want to know fully what results will come from what actions, and through which way, is something the Buddha advised against with a good reason; because it takes us away from the actual practice.
I give a poor man something to eat, I become happy because I can let go a bit of myself and help someone else. That's important, the letting go bit. Why exactly I become happy? Is it chemicals in the brain? Is it 'god'? Is it something else? Is it a combination of those? And how happy will it make me? A bit? Very much? Not that important in my eyes. As long as the action was with a good intention and thus with good karma.
But another thing I have also said is demonstrated by this thread. Has everyone described karma and its workings the same way? No, not at all. Personally, I find that problematic...as I do similar issues and concepts in other religions.
But that's me, and of course, I am an imponderable. I declare it to be so. You must accept that.
Understanding Dependent Origination is more deeper than this and you need to calm your mind with any tranqulity method of meditation (samatha bavana) and look through that mind about what you have learned as DO (insight meditation/vipassana bavana)
i talked about such insight (wisdom) which we can gain through vipassana meditation and such understanding would help us in understanding re-birth etc. i have my own theories about the above
but i can not prove it to others YET
other thing is:
as Buddha many times have said (according to suttas) what we have to do is looking inside rather than outside if we need to get rid of suffering
i myself have the experience if i go looking for outside, most of the time it takes me to a labrynth and makes me tired when i come out of it
if i start to looking for inside it always brings me new Wonderful Insight and i don't feel tired after i come out where i have been looking
so it is advisable to look inside with the help of Buddha's Wonderful Teaching:
Four Noble Truth
Noble Eightfold Path
Seven Enlightenment Factors etc.
Emptiness or Dependent Origination is a core Buddhist doctrine. Its purpose is to provide direct insight into the nature of existence. Once this insight is developed intuitively coupled with compassionate activity enlightenment or freedom from suffering is then obtained. The doctrine also is used as the basis to refute or negate from a Buddhist perspective the notion of a "Creator God".
The most significant Mahayana Buddhist sutra regarding Emptiness is called in Sanskrit "Bhagavata Prajna Paramita Hridaya" which is translates to English as "The Blessed Mother, the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom". It has formed the basis of many discourses and treatises on the subject in the Mahayana Buddhist cannon.
The highest interpretive tradition of this doctrine comes from the Madhyamaka-Prasangika or “Middle Way” school. According to the teachings of this school the Middle Way lies between the extremes of both existentialist absolutism and nihilism. From a literal interpretation it is often misunderstood to solely mean to live a life in moderation.
At its most basic level it reveals that all phenomena, events, and things are empty of intrinsic or independent existence. This is mistakenly believed to assert that nothing really exists, but this is not the case. Emptiness does not imply non-existence, but as previously stated only empty of intrinsic or independent existence, and this rather implies dependent origination. It shows that dependence and interdependence is the nature of all things as they come into being only as a result of a multiplicity of interconnected causes and conditions, and are not self powered. According to Buddhism, Emptiness is what makes the law of cause and effect, and ultimately change possible.
The doctrine expounds two truths in that conventionally things truly exist, but ultimately they are empty of intrinsic existence. These two truths, conventional and ultimate, are unified as a single whole as shown in the following verse from the Heart Sutra that states "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form; emptiness is not other than form, so too form is not other than emptiness". Form is not to be negated, but is rather seen as evidence of, or as an expression of emptiness.
In addition, Mahayana Buddhism teaches that "Buddha" , and not in reference to the historical Buddha, is the luminous, ineffable, eternal, unchanging, without defining characteristics, beyond the realm of terms, clear light, etc... nature of the primordial essence of the mind's emptiness that is without beginning or end.
There is a general misconception among non-Buddhists in believing that the doctrine of Emptiness promotes nihilism, and a misapplication of it among Buddhists, from an Orthodox Christian perspective, who mistakenly apply the doctrine to God's Essence, because the distinction between God's Essence and His Energies is not clearly understood by the applier.
Eastern Orthodox Christian Ascetic St. Macarius in homily 6 of his great 50 states " Some people claim that the thrones and crowns are creatures and not of the Spirit. How are we to understand these? The throne of the Godhead is our mind and again the throne of our mind is the Godhead and the Spirit..."
Again from an Orthodox Christian perspective, if then the primordial essence of the mind would be seen to have no beginning or end we can infer that it has not or ever will be under the influence of cause and effect. Phenomena, things, and events are subject to change therefore they must be under the influence of cause and effect, and this implies that there must be a beginning and an end.
On Karma
A rather brief commentary regarding Karma. I will expand upon it when time permits. Basically, Karma is believed to be an aspect of the natural physical law of cause and effect where intention and volitional actions of body, speech, and mind involving an agent, the person, are considered. What this doctrine shows is that man's intention or will at some point influences the nature of existence.
Forgive me