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.
Thoughts on bill roaches comments about 'paedophiles victims' are caused because of PAST LIVES??
zenmyste
Veteran
Uk soap actor Bill Roache said in an interview that people who are abused etc etc bring it on themselves because of what they did in past lives etc etc...
What are your thoughts on this please?
What are your thoughts on this please?
1
Comments
From a Buddhist perspective the Buddha said plainly that it was unskillful to assume that any particular circumstance was the result of karma-vipaka. He said that there were determinants other than karma.
The Buddha said that there are five Niyama or causative principles that lead to our present circumstances. Karma-Niyama is only one of those factors. Others include biological and psychological factors that are separate from Karma-Vipaka. Remember INTENTION is a necessary prerequisite of karma-vipaka and that many biological and indeed many psychological processes, are not subject to intention.
He also said that to speculate which of the Niyamas is operative in any given situation, was unskillful and would lead to more confusion.
It's also terribly wrong. If you are molested, it's the intentional action of the molester at work, his or her karma, not the past life karma of the poor victim causing this. I've always considered this the danger of believing in past life karma and the reason we need to actively argue against that particular teaching. It is used to excuse people's actions in this life and defend injustice, all by using the excuse "well, that was caused by something you did in your past life".
Put simply the Five Causal features are;
Uti-Niyama which are the laws of the insensiate material world...
Bija -Niyama which are the laws of biology..
Kamma Niyama which is the kaw of kamma and kamma vipaka ( action and its friuts )
Dhamma Niyama which is the law of the way that things arise, including D.O. and
Citta Niyama which roughly equates to the world of psychology.
As will be seen kamma/karma is just one causative factor.
www.buddhism.about.com >...>Basic Buddhist Teachings > Existence
Or simply google Five Niyamas. Buddhism About.
In the Culakammavibhanga Sutta the Buddha says that to ascribe any particular situation to the workings of kamma/karma is to fall into the trap of speculating about the Imponderables ( Acinteyya ), He makes it plain that not all situations result from past actions. In fact the discussion that follows in that Sutta makes it clear that his Dharma is far more subtle and nuanced than that of the prevailing Vedantic and Upanishadic views.
Rather than a simple one-to one relationship of cause and effect ,he states that volition leads to tendencies, not to clear cut consequences.
If that's the case, then why do they have laws and punishments in lands where Buddhism and other religions that believe in "everything is happening because of Karma and past lives" ? It's manifest destiny.... why punish?
So we're to believe that every molestation or rape victim was a molester or rapist in another life?
Hmmm.... so what does that make the molester or rapist here with us now? A goody two shoes, or the Pope in a past life?? (Ok, pope was probably not a good example!
Why the cycle of negativity and suffering?
Suffering comes in all forms, great and small, and all these forms are caused by our own cravings, desires and attachments - and we have a way out of that all, in THIS life, don't we? So is Karma set in stone?
And what about victimized children who had no chance (yet) to right their wrongs from another life?
I've never thought karma is a very helpful way to explain one's life experiences. It encourages a kind of Cosmic League Table mentality - "you have only one leg so you must have been a war criminal etc.".
The fact is we are ALL in samsara, we ALL have suffering, so we ALL must have bad karma of some sort. But it's pointless to speculate on how that ripens day to day. Of course we all like to believe "what goes around, comes around" but in the here and now it's more important to to let go of the concepts of blame and punishment altogether.
Some people just gotta take all their charms and karmas and other trinkets and throw them away. Predator X can pounce on any prey he likes and suddenly it becomes the prey's fault for being there and being so derned appetizing? That's taking the bones of a metaphysic and putting too much [rotten] flesh on them.
I forgot who said this but I wanted to ask about it:
If you are molested, it's the intentional action of the molester at work, his or her karma, not the past life karma of the poor victim causing this.
If it is possible for the molester's karma to cause him to cause such suffering to others, why is it not possible for another individuals karma to cause suffering for themselves? I'm not saying it has to be, I'm just curious why you think it works one way but not another.
I'll never claim to understand how karma works, how it is calculated and how it is at play in anyone's lives. All we can do is live the best we can right now to bring about both immediate good karma and hopefully future good karma and merit. And maybe cleanse some bad karma in the process.
I do think that just because you might accept that some people could be in poor circumstances due to past karma, does not mean there should be no societal consequences for it. We still hold those who are mentally ill and actually not in the known about right and wrong, responsible in some way for their crimes. There is no reason we wouldn't do it now. Even if we know 100% it was karma at work, doesn't mean consequences in this life aren't part of the karma.
Do you feel it has any validity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roache
He has apologised for being ignorant (probably caused by a previous life experience . . .)
*I know Hinduism is a British portmanteau term for lots of Indian religious sects, paths and groups but it is rather handy to use.
now i do not know - whether doing a good act which creates pleasure, balances out the pain, or not. It can happen that whatever bad was done, same amount of pain needs to be suffered and whatever good was done, same amount of pleasure needs to be received - without any balancing out happening. But may be balancing out does happen - so doing good may balance out the bad and leave net good or net bad, as the amounts of these may be.
My view - complex is the working of law of karma and i do not know all the details of it - but i believe law of karma holds. No act of goodness ever goes without being rewarded, no act of badness ever goes without being punished - but when the fruit of karma will ripen and what quantity will come in fruit, this is only decided by the law of karma. So i believe that whatever we experience in the present, those are the combined result of our past karma and our present karma.
They differ from the Buddhas teaching, But I suspect that may not be of concern to you.
Do you feel it has any validity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roache
He has apologised for being ignorant (probably caused by a previous life experience . . .)
I disagree in the sense that the opinion of soap stars are not worth listening to any more than are your opinions or my opinions. Hate to tell you Lobster, you are no better -- or worse -- than them.
And, when you talk about "wise teachers", someone above pointed out that some well-known and respected teachers do teach that view of karma.
I was also thinking...ah, the rubber hits the road. The concept of karma applied to a situation that makes us squirm.
And yes I realize most people who say that don't really have an understanding of Karma, lol. I just think most of us prefer to think of Karma as something that gets back at the bad guys. Except the concept of extending the bad guy experience to a future life makes it tricky. How could a small child who is completely helpless and dependent and innocent in this life, be held responsible for something they did in another life? It just doesn't always make sense to us. But I think if we are going to consider it a possibility in one direction, we have to consider it might work both ways, even if it makes us uncomfortable.
The difficulty with the argument -- in Buddhism or anywhere else -- is that it cites what it considers to be the reason for hard times and then lets the argument drop, as if there were no responsibility, no compassion, no humanity required. This is horseshit, and worse, it's lazy and unkind horseshit.
Suppose for a moment that 'karma' or 'destiny' or 'God' really were the cause for current punishments, pains or losses. So what? Does finding a 'reason' solve anything? Does it excuse the one who is so 'reasonable' from taking the next step ... especially if s/he considers him- or her-self to be a Buddhist or Christian or Muslim in good standing? Is a tough-titty 'reason' any excuse to let the subject drop ... what the hell, it's God's will or destiny or karma?
This approach is common enough, but that's not to say it's not nonsense or worse. And what is true when assessing the plight of others is equally true when investigating my own personal terrain. "Oh boy, I must have really bad karma to be shouldered with the problems I have!"
So .... what?! Every ounce of energy used to 'explain' and find 'reasons' is that much less energy for doing something about it.
It is a question of value. My knowledge of acting is inferior to Bills. The knowledge of karma specilialists is something most of will not find in gossip columns.
So no need to hate, we go to the appropriate authorities and give them the credence they deserve. It is not a question of innate worth, it is a question of expecting Paris Hilton to know how to party and Lobsters to know how to provide a meal . . .
A lot of deep thoughts flying around. Hard to keep up with them all.
If we look at a situation, where something has happened to someone, we would like to say that universal cause-and-effect in the form of karma demands that bad things happen to an otherwise good person because they must have done something equally bad in the past, maybe a past life, and that's the consequence catching up to them. It is often taught that way even by Buddhists. This is karma as fate.
But stop to think about an entire situation including all the people involved, not just the victim. To say the victim's karma caused their suffering is to say that the victim's karma somehow forced that other person to attack you. Can your karma force someone to rape you to even the scales because you raped someone in a past life? But doesn't that mean you were only playing out the dance of fate in your past life also, and that victim was also fated to be raped by someone. You were just the hand of fate in this case.
With karma seen as fate and especially past-life karma, if you are shot, your karma must be causing that shooter to pull the trigger. It's our inherent need to find justice in an injust universe. The innocent suffer and the guilty go free and we'd like it all to make sense.
But karma seen as immediate action in the "actions have consequences" points to the finger pulling the trigger as the controlling karma. That is the action, and the consequences are you might be shot and the shooter goes to prison. How you react to having a gun shoved in your face and maybe shot is your karma. And so it goes.
It is a question of value. My knowledge of acting is inferior to Bills. The knowledge of karma specilialists is something most of will not find in gossip columns.
So no need to hate, we go to the appropriate authorities and give them the credence they deserve. It is not a question of innate worth, it is a question of expecting Paris Hilton to know how to party and Lobsters to know how to provide a meal . . .
Lobster, you dismissed a whole group people: "The opinions of soap stars are not worth listening too...". For all you know, there are soap opera stars who may be very knowledgeable about Buddhism and very devout about their Buddhism. There are a number of actors who are quite knowledgeable about Buddhism. The fact that they are actors doesn't make them more qualified or less qualified than anyone else to state their viewpoints.
What it comes down to, is, it doesn't matter. Whether it's karma, God, fate, destiny or just a messed up immune system that went haywire for no reason at all and attacked the insulin producing cells in the pancreas, doesn't matter. It is what it is, and our only option is to deal with it. Finding a "reason" for it doesn't make it go away, doesn't make it easier to deal with and certainly doesn't make anyone feel better.
It has made us, as a family, more able to live in the moment, because his care requires it. His almost dying also, as is typical, was a wake up call for us as well. Does he have diabetes to teach us these lessons? Who the hell knows. Does it matter whether that is the case or not? Not one bit.
I think we look for reasons just so we can get out of being responsible for our reaction to any situation. God or Karma or whatever is punishing us, therefore it's hopeless to try to do anything about it other than feel sorry for ourselves. Just because something happens to us doesn't mean we have to embrace the victim role and live our lives through it.
Some people I know seem to enjoy this. They truly feel vindicated when good things happen to them, saying "I'm a good person and God is blessing me" and feel they are being punished if something bad happens. They can't even see something. I know a lady who was told something suspect was found on an MRI so they needed to operate to find out for sure what it was. She thought she had pancreatic cancer and was going to die. She went to church and the sermon was about Jesus healing people so she prayed on it all day until her operation, and when they did it, the problem was benign and not cancer at all and they resolved it that day. Instead of being able to see that her concern was unwarranted and the problem was never cancer at all, she chose to view it as "Jesus cured me of cancer because I prayed for 4 days." A few months later her son got a DUI and instead of using it as a way to teach responsibility, she said he was being punished for not believing in God. Sure, his non belief in God caused God to make him get drunk and drive and cause an accident and get arrested. Christians aren't the only people that do this of course, it was just the first example I thought of. It's just a lack of wanting to be responsible for our own choices, right now, today. We want someone, anyone, to take the blame for the bad things, and in exchange we are willing to give them/it credit for the good.
Can you explain that to me please? For some reason it just isn't 'clicking' in my head....
(I know this could be a discussion that some might not want to read so you can just bypass if you want)
Now, those who DO take a step further and go meet them for sex, would be considered a Child Molester. That they can't control their desire (per say) and want to take it to the next level....reality. And that is indeed wrong. Normally, tweens and children aren't sexual people. They just aren't. And it should be kept that way.
Like I said, you wouldn't call an Adult who's into Adults, Rapists would you? And what about those people who are rather "addicted" to sex and had it so many times a week or a day? Would you call them rapists since they're addicted to sex and might have a higher possibility to force acts upon someone? No? Well, Pedophiles aren't all out there trying to have sex with children, and believe it or not, but there are more out there than you think, and they are perfectly safe. And same with Adults into Adults. There are a lot out there who are attracted to fake rape, and they wouldn't dream of actually raping someone.
No one chooses to be into Children. It's not like they wake up and say to themselves, hey, I'm going to be into kids and have to hide it the rest of my life and be judged by everyone. It could be a mental thing that when they were younger and attracted to people of their age, that when they got older, that they just kept on to those good memories/instances and it stuck with them for the rest of their life. No one really understands why they do it.
I was actually studying to become a therapist because I seem to have that want to help others get past certain issues. It's a very sensitive topic and even though I don't think it's necessarily a 'healthy' fetish or attraction, I still wouldn't call every pedophile a child molester when there are many of them who haven't come close to even touching a child. I do apologize for anyone who might have gone through something and this discussion hurt them, but I did warn. Ignorance isn't something I take lightly. Calling pedophiles a child molester is like calling all Muslims terrorists, or all germans Nazis, or all Chinese communists, etc etc. It's not right and it needs to stop. The more educated people become on how the mind work
So are you saying as long as a pedophile doesn't ACT on their fantasies or sexual desires for children- they're really not pedophiles... just plain ol' folks with sexual fantasies like anyone else?
Ummm.... No. It is a deviant thought process (sexualizing children for self-gratification) and falls under pedophilia.
Are you saying not all pedophiles are child molesters; and not all child molesters are pedophiles? OK, if they have never acted on their deviant sexual desires for children- then true- they are not technically a child molester. Until they touch a child, they aren't. Fair enough.
But unless a child is being sexually molested by another "child", they are being molested by a pedophile. Period.
They aren't hitting them, or shoving them around or doing other sorts of physical abuse- they are sexually molesting - It doesn't matter why. They are preying on children, sexually. And if that child is pre-pubescent, (undeveloped sexually) it's pedophilia.
So, I have to pretty much disagree with most of what you said (or at least your clarification of it).
According to the dictionary, ** and common, current, American usage ** a pedophile is an adult who finds children or young teens (pre-puberty) sexual/ly arousing.
An adult who sexually molests a child IS a pedophile. They are doing it for some sort of sexual gratification/control (of their own). Let's not split hairs on that.
But someone who finds great joy in being around children, and has no inkling nor the slightest HINT of sexual interest or fantasies about those children is simply called a person who likes kids.... Not a "pedophile".
I may not have a license hanging on my wall, but I have a pretty good educational background in psychology and counseling and never -ever- have I heard the word pedophile used to mean just a regular person with a non-sexual, but more than average interest in being around kids. Never.
If that was the common usage we'd be calling every teacher, scout leader, pediatrician, etc, "pedophiles".
"Oh yes, Dr Jones was a wonderful pedophile- he just couldn't do enough for the children in our community clinic program". .Seriously? Come on.....
As far as "Like I said, you wouldn't call an Adult who's into Adults, Rapists would you? "
No, Of Course Not.... because they would be TWO ADULTS in a consensual sexual situation. To compare this and to say it's the same as a 40 yr old man having sexual desires for a 6 yr old... but he's never acted on it.... is wrong; it's not the same thing. A man who's just 'into kids' as sexual objects is a pedophile... acting on it or not.
The whole point of not having sex with or molesting children is because our society has decided it is wrong to do so with a child who is too young (i.e; powerless) to make those decisions or say NO to an adult and/or authority figure.
Wow. I'm stunned by your comments.
So I'm speaking specifically about children who are prepubescent physically.
In creepy terms, I am almost 9 years older than my husband, which means when I was 18, he was 9, LOL. We try not to think about it
My husband is nearly 10 yrs older than I am... we met when I was still 16 and he was 25.
Was he a "child molester" or "pedophile"? No. I was completely developed physically, could look 3-4 yrs older than I was (when I wanted to look older, anyway), and I was not a virgin when we met. And I pretty much 'chased' him... but that's another story! LOL
I was trying to clarify the 'pedophile' discussion to the true definitions of pedophile- a sexual interest/fantasy/desire for children; not merely physically mature " very young people " - but children.
Edited to add: http://www.webistry.net/jan/consent.html
AOC is as low as 14 in a couple of states, and 15 in a few.
On the age thing, it's kind of funny because I had no qualms about chasing my now-husband. I was about to turn 30 and he had just turned 21. But I was nervous about possibly dating a guy who was 34 because he seemed too old, LOL.
Ok first off, a Pedophile is someone who has an attraction towards children. A Child Molester is someone who has acted upon having sex with a child. Is that Child Molester STILL a pedophile? Yes, of course. It's just now that man or woman has another title of Child Molester added onto Pedophile. I never stated that someone isn't a Pedophile when they molest a child. I'm trying to state that a Pedophile is NOT ALWAYS a Child Molester.
[quote]So are you saying as long as a pedophile doesn't ACT on their fantasies or sexual desires for children- they're really not pedophiles[/quote]
Whoa whoa whoa where did I say this? I clearly stated that, that IS a Pedophile. I mean, the first paragraph should have shown that clearly.
[quote]So, I have to pretty much disagree with most of what you said (or at least your clarification of it). [/quote]
lol everything you just stated about this comment in your paragraph, I stated in mine, so I'm going to guess you somehow didn't understand what I said.
[quote]But someone who finds great joy in being around children, and has no inkling nor the slightest HINT of sexual interest or fantasies about those children is simply called a person who likes kids.... Not a "pedophile".[/quote]
I know I didn't make this clear because I didn't think anyone would know anything about this, so I tried to make it short, so I really want to apologize on this. What I was stating is that there are different kinds of Pedophiles. There are those who DO have sexual fantasies about children, and there are those who don't. There are those who have an attraction towards them not in a sexual manner, but in an attraction towards them for the way they look or whatever is going through their mind.
I would have to go way more into detail about this because like I said, there are a LOT of different kinds of pedophiles out there, not just the sexual aroused ones. And I actually didn't mean to sound that I'm labeling people who like to be with kids, pedophiles. Because god, probably 80%+ of the world would be considered one.
And about the two adults comment. I'm talking about people who call Pedophiles, Child Molesters; even though they've never touched a child, they're considered a Child Molester by a lot of people in today's society. So if someone hasn't done someone to be titled a child molester by the literal definition, wouldn't that be the same for adults being with adults, as rapists, or some other title? That's what I'm getting at. They haven't touched a child, so what would they be considered a Child Molester? That's the whole argument that I'm having with this discussion.
I think that instead of calling Child Molesters, Pedophiles, how about calling Child Molesters, Child Molesters? Because I think that yes, while they still are Pedophiles, it will confuse those who have no knowledge whatsoever on this subject, into thinking that all Pedophiles are Child Molesters.
P.S. If you want to know more about the different kinds of pedophiles, you can look at Psych Forums, because there are a whole lot of different kinds with different thought processes and different kinds of attractions towards the prepubescent. But the psych forums has more than just that. Has forums for ALL kinds of psychologically disturbed or hurt people who go there to vent and ask for help. I dunno, I'm really interested in the human mind and what goes through other people's heads.
OK, thanks for clearing it up further. Appreciate the time you took. We're cool.
Please note that I did agree with you about the whole not every pedophile is a child molester thing- if they never molest a child they are not child molesters. Not a problem for me, there.
But it did sort of sound like you were also implying that until they acted out their sexual desires towards children, they shouldn't be called pedophiles. That I wouldn't agree with... but you also clarified that further as well.
As for psychology forums.... oh good gawds, no thanks. I'll have to pass on that.
I spent quite a number of years in college classes (psychology major) and about a hundred years as a counselor/life-coach adviser and though my interest in these areas is as strong as ever, I would never really trust an online forum as a reliable source. Not saying they are never reliable... but I'll stick to my text books, peer-reviewed articles and real-life authors.
Besides, for me, (and my long winded ways) it would involve waaaaaay too much typing! Plus I'm a compulsive re-reader... OMG, I'd be on those forums day and night. (much like here! ) .LOL
Excellent
haha yea I'm kinda like that too lol I'd spend a couple hours going through the different forums I visit trying to reply to as many people as I can :P
Good to know we're cool lol
Hope you being a Buddhist and I being a Hindu - should not be the factor which decides whether my understanding of karma is in line with Buddha's teachings or not.