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.
Interesting writeup on karma.
Rowan1980
Keeper of the ZooAsheville, NC Veteran
http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/02/karma-its-not-about-what-we-do/
One of the reasons why I find myself having a complicated relationship with my understanding of karma is that it sometimes strikes me as too rooted in a Just World Hypothesis for me. Newborns dying because of harmful actions in prior rebirths, being born into poverty being the result of not being generous, etc. are things that simply feel too much like victim-blaming for me. I understand that's not the intention, but I can't shake that feeling.
This article states that, sure actions have consequences, but karma is better understood as intention more than anything. This conceptually makes more sense to me than straight up the standard "you reap what you sow."
Thoughts?
One of the reasons why I find myself having a complicated relationship with my understanding of karma is that it sometimes strikes me as too rooted in a Just World Hypothesis for me. Newborns dying because of harmful actions in prior rebirths, being born into poverty being the result of not being generous, etc. are things that simply feel too much like victim-blaming for me. I understand that's not the intention, but I can't shake that feeling.
This article states that, sure actions have consequences, but karma is better understood as intention more than anything. This conceptually makes more sense to me than straight up the standard "you reap what you sow."
Thoughts?
4
Comments
The general "old world" view of karma versus the general "new world" view of karma are world's apart and irreconcilable.
So many people fall into the trap of believing that Karma is one-dimensional and linear.... I liked the article....
I had a discussion about this very topic ages ago on this very forum. Perhaps this will be helpful:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/5821/karma-and-blaming-the-victim#latest
I think one of the reasons why I wrestle with it is because I hear the term used in the context of "Oh, wow, so-and-so is sick/has cognitive impairments/whatever! I wonder what their karma was from previous lives?" and "You were attacked because you attacked someone in a prior rebirth " a lot from some Buddhists. I think that's where my concern that it has that Just World Hypothesis flavor stems from. Then I get confused and deeply frustrated because it feels superstitious at that point.
Well, that makes sense...if that's your mindset. It wouldn't make for the typical Thai Buddhist.
To give you a good example, I once had a Thai friend, although it was here in the States. He had a pretty bad heart condition...to the point that if you were sitting next to him you could literally hear his heart. It was scary.
One evening he came over and we were chatting. Suddenly he said, "I'm going to die within the next week." I told him that was silly and asked why he thought that. He replied: "Karma. When I was cleaning my house I knocked my Buddha onto the floor."
Ridiculous. Of course.
He died 3 days later.
I view it as 'consequence is inherent in bad action'. Selfishness is lonely and hatefulness is hated. There is no need for punishment for a last life because bad action in itself is punishing through consequence in mind heart and life.
I keep in mind that the elements of the world, which cause us pain, are faceless entiities that we falsely attribute meaning to.
I like the article too. Especially the line "Buddhist karma is not about what happens to you, but who it happens to."
@vinlyn
Maybe ridiculous...maybe not!
knocking over the Buddha, waking one up to how transient everything is.
or
unable to accept his approaching death, a Buddha showed him how it's done
or
an enlarged heart made him clumsy enough knock over what was sacred to him.
Old view/new view. What ever as long as it teaches that all intent has consequences.
Most of the confusion that I've seen around this teaching stems from folks not also understanding that while all intent has consequences, not all consequences are the result of intent.
Considering probably thousands of Buddha statues get knocked over and broken every year around the world and we don't have people dropping over like flies after, you really can't put any significance into a man with a bad heart condition actually having a heart attack.
And karma as a belief woven into Buddhist practice that is a linear "universe punishes and rewards you for your actions this life and across lifetimes" is unfortunately exactly what we have to deal with. Funny thing is, belief one way or another really is irrelevant to being a Buddhist. But we do like to go on about it, don't we?
I agree it was a good article - I don't think it hit the nail on the head though.
The point of a nail and what it is trying to penetrate needs to be investigated at the same time the head of a hammer hits it on the head along with the intention of the person wielding the hammer, and what is supporting the thing being penetrated along with the circumstances that arose to cause the person to use the hammer in the first place. Now it's becoming a bigger picture and actually that person who threw the litter on the ground and the dog that barked and the bird chirping at the same time all come together
My understanding of karma has grown in the light of my practice and view. And basing it in the common sense notion of 'right' and 'wrong' is unhelpful, and leads one to erroneous views based on ideas. Basing it in the light of what 'I' "do" and "cannot do" reveals the non-existence of I, because the separate ego doesn't exist!
If someone is suffering who is a good person you can rejoice because the good they do will lead to feeling better in the future.
If someone is enjoying fortune who is a bad person you can be sad for them that they will be suffering in the future.
Can we add, 'Love is loved'
Yes, karma does put forth a theory of causality, but to pull out the justice-reward-punishment card, is oversimplifying the notion of karma.
Yet, it's a mistake borrowed from Hinduism that people reared in Eastern cultures tend to do, or newbies to Buddhism in general, especially those who were fed on the "you reap what you sow" porridge, and immediately spot similarities with karma's cause-effect underpinning.
Karma means "action."
We are pure becoming, and as Nyanatiloka Thero put it, "this becoming, in its inner essence, is action."
Actions spring from a mindset and repeated actions springing from a given mindset nourish certain seeds in us which reinforce the quality of both the agent and the effects of future actions.
There is a self-improvement side to the law of karma which the article highlights too well: skillful deeds produce more skillful deeds, evil deeds produce more evil deeds, and our mind is permeated by the quality of the deeds we choose to indulge in more often.
We become better, happier people as a result of choosing a skillful conduct, stemmed from a positive intention.
It reminds me of the Dhammapada's first chapter: "If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, suffering follows him; if a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him."
The ethical quality of our minds determines the quality of our actions, and in consequence, the quality of our lives.
I find that the nutshell of the article is in the following paragraphs:
Very good article, indeed, Rowan.
We'd like to believe the universe works that way, wouldn't we? It's the eternal "Why do bad things happen to good people" and the correlation "Why do some people get away with murder (or theft, or causing others to suffer)?"
Because things, both good and bad, happen to people, both good and bad. Actions do have consequences, but neither punishment nor reward are guaranteed. And something inside us yearns for justice in an unjust universe so we end up believing this justice will come in the next life, since there's precious little of it here sometimes.
@Cinorjer there isn't any 'universe' that hands something out. There is only the sentient beings. And beings who are doing positive things such as generosity and patience and all of the good things will get good results. Even if they have some conditions of suffering. That is human to have some suffering and some peace/love etc. So there is no universe that is good or bad. There is a sentient being and if they have some suffering but are also doing good things then they will have fruits. Even if they also have some condition of suffering. Take my case. I have made a lot of effort to be a good person.. I have touched many lives. And I have enjoyed good fruits of my actions. That doesn't take away the mental suffering I have from my schizoaffective disorder. So everyone can rejoice that I had good actions and am enjoying the fruits. Likewise if I am doing foolish things like getting drunk even though I am fortunate with wealth to buy a computer etc it is likely I will end up in folly and misfortune if I continue to drink. Or if I am scheming and hostile to co-workers that creates conditions of misfortune in ways I don't even know.
So there is no universe that hands out good fortune. There are only sentient beings. Trungpa said there is no bottom to hell and went on to explain that just because you have a lot of suffering does not mean that you cannot come to even further because of your actions or even without your control. Since we can always come to worse and worse conditions we should work hard to make a good path and understanding while we have the leisure to do so. And while we are not so overcome by suffering we should practice the dharma.
One thing that has struck me as a flaw in this argument is that of the psychopath. If karma is only the mental effect certain actions have on our psyche, psychopaths seem to be immune to karma.
Do you mean sociopath? A psychopath is someone who sees and hears a different reality but a sociopath is someone without morality, empathy, or conscience.
They still suffer, anger, hate, pain etc... they are only immune from having a more depleted moral system than they already have.