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.
Is an action good because of karma? Or does karma happen because the action is good?
Is an action good because of karma? Or does karma happen because the action is good?
0
Comments
Specifically in Buddhism we refer to "volitional" thoughts and actions; thoughts being mental actions that can mold the mind, and other actions including physical actions and speech that can cause change external to the mind.
Skillful karma leads to benefit; unskillful or unwholesome karma to harm. In a lot of cases your karma reaps immediate results, but in some cases the results are either not apparent or may ripen in the future in unexpected ways.
Karma is often misconstrued. Our karma, or volitional thoughts/actions, sets up conditions for either beneficial or detrimental change. This change is of course carried out through the mechanism of Dependent Origination (in a nutshell "cause and effect"), so you could simplify the true meaning of karma as "cause" in the DO-Engine.
Interesting question. You basically replaced "karma" with "God" in Socrates' Euthyphro Dilemma that says "Is it moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral."
However, the word "karma" means "action" (correct me if I'm wrong.) An action is simply an action. Depending on the nature of the action, an effect directly follows.
.
But why then do bad things happen to seemingly good people and good things happene to seemingly bad people?
And people are not always enthusiastic to reciprocate if it costs them.
Good and Bad (though subjective of course) happens to all of us regularly. What matters is the judgment we have for the person that is either good or bad, because they are neither, and those labels confuse us.
Check out Karma on Buddha net or wikipedia, it is a very complex subject. It is not a sin counter or a puishment by god/universe, nor is it simply a result of your actions. The universe does not revolve around you. Sometimes it is explained that way to give a simple answer.
Buddhism is not about intellectually grasping a concept. You will learn more from having unanswered questions than you will from asking questions:
- Unanswered questions force us to rely on our observation and experience, and this is the essence of the practice of Buddhism. The writings, teachings, and even our own intellectual activity are there as our guide, but no journey is "real" if you only look at a map ... it is the sights, sounds, smells, and dust (of observation and experience) that make the journey come alive.
- Unanswered questions help us learn to "let go", by forcing us to learn how to be comfortable with NOT having "ground under our feet". One of the strongest attachments we humans have is to the feeling of "certainty", to the assurance that we do "know what it's all about."
- Unanswered questions help us develop patience, which is very important because Buddhism takes a lifetime to understand ... some would say "several lifetimes". Patience is a good thing ... where you think you are headed is not as important as where you are right now ... and this "place" is where you will also find patience.
I'm not saying you shouldn't ask questions, particularly those questions that relate to how you should do a particular practice.
I am saying that Buddhism is not like other religions, where your answers are handed to you, pre-packaged, or that they even can be handed to you.
I'm also saying that we Westerners, with our entrenched idea of the power of intellect, tend to believe we can "think" our way into understanding Buddhism. One of the great things about Buddhism is that as your understanding grows, you find you are constantly "unlearning" all those answers your worked so hard to gather.
It's not like 1 and 1 is 2 you know. Not all things that happen to you happen because of Kamma. Kamma is just one of the five "niyama dhammas". Apparently it is unskillful to analyze it too much.
Yes.
These are very good articles I have read on fivebells recommendation sometimes back. Thanks again FB
Why? Because the world isn't a perfect place, and many of the bad things that happen are totally out of our control.
Yeah, they're interesting to say the least, especially how McLeod seems to compare karma to Aristotle's ideas regarding phusis (physics or nature in the ancient Greek sense) and kinesis (motion or growth), even going so far as to utilize the same acorn/oak analogy used to illustrate the distinction between potentiality (matter) and actuality (form) in Metaphysics.
Jarvis was given the death penalty for a crime he did not committ while the other two accused got life in prison.
Jarvis has since become a Buddhist, having taken refuge with Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche and taking up a daily meditation practice for many years now.
He's written the book, Finding Freedom. He is truly free in his mind and heart even though he continues to live out his life on death row facing possible execution.
I get lost in this viewing of Karma to help me understand can I share what I think so far. This first part of my understanding of karma is about semantics I think the conceptual frames which are formed by our precepts gradually appear like solid objects in the mind and one becomes fixed to them as if they are real. I know that these are formed by the language process and as our thoughts are powerful in the naming of things we can become intensely attached to these objects in the mind as if they were real.
Then there are the sentient aspects in which the internal sensations we experience in relation with the environment creates reaction to pleasant things and repulsive things and the reactions are sometimes not beneficial especially in hostile environments and so we experience insults and injuries along the way also we can inflict them too in the struggle to keep this self that faces the world intact. In these vicissitudes of life we can suffer sometimes in the extreme and one experiences isolation and alienation.
Then we have another part which is like an inner light shining outwards onto the screens in the mind and it illuminates the whole self when it has clear view and we are seeking to come back to that clear state and cleanse away the clogged up debris of attachments we hold in the mind, that which has brought both pleasure and pain. The journey to the centre is an internal one and I have found through deep meditation I have found many, many things that needed dissolution, even these conceptual frames that have created divisions within myself. Meeting with the essential nature of the self in which there is no sense of separation only the differentiation of these baser aspects.
Awareness of self and karmic debris seems to be a journey we must take entirely on our own and our guru is simply there as a guide but will offer no interference. I realize the only interference I need to change is my own ego centre which has been molded in the main by my reactions to the environment. I am my own worst enemy and that image of who I think I am, the concept of a separate me that obstructs me most. I also can see how I loose my way by imposing impressions of myself on others, perhaps I am doing that now. I just want to be truthful not mimic any ideal and i need to understand my purpose.
I do appreciate this place of discussion I do not think I am any where near the truth about myself and the words I read here are profound and humble me. I would like to express things simpler.
Namasta from janet
"Karma basically means you don't get away with anything.
And it all counts."
In other words, ALL intentional and volitional Mental, Verbal and Physical actions create Kamma.
And it all begins in your head, with what you tell yourself.
If you follow that 'story' through, with words, and then actions, you progressively create the pertinent kamma to suit those mental/verbal/physical volitional and intentional actions.
Simple.
I find it very easy to write such wisdom, for it is learned.
I find it a whole lot more difficult to put into practice, because it is not 'realised'....;)
Peace be with you and apologies for being a hot head who doesn't know squat.
The one with "I think I bloody well know it all, so there", is also quite long, but the one marked "Actually, I really do know quite a bit," is very short indeed....:D
And no
The ultimate nature of reality is clear open and sensitive..
One cultures idea of good might be anothers of bad. And they might fight a war over it.
Rereading this thread, I have to say, well spotted, Transmetaphysical.
I'd add that the Buddha’s distinction between skillful and unskillful actions (kamma) is not unlike Plato’s distinction between just and unjust in the Republic. Both seem like a middle way between, or possibly a synthesis of, Immanuel Kant’s deontological categorical imperative and Jeremy Bentham’s teleological utilitarianism.
With Plato and the Buddha, just/skillful actions aren’t simply judged to be just/skillful based upon their consequences, but also because there’s something inherently just/skillful about the actions themselves. In Buddhism, this would be due to the quality of the intentions behind the actions, and I think a similar principle applies in the Republic as well, although Plato would obviously say that it’s because they share in the Form of Justice, or even the Good.
Here's an excerpt of something I recently wrote elsewhere:
In the Suttas, the Buddha defines kamma as intentional actions of body, speech and mind (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html">AN 6.63</a>) that have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, have the potential to produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html">AN 4.235</a>). The word itself simply means 'action.'
Pragmatically speaking, actions are deemed 'unskillful' (<i>akusala</i>) if they lead to to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both. Actions that don't lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both are deemed 'skillful' (<i>kusala</i>) (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html">MN 61</a>). Therefore, the distinction between skillful and unskillful actions is based upon how their results are experienced—not only by ourselves, but by others as well. (This emphasis on the consequential aspect of actions is similar to Jeremy Bentham's teleological utilitarianism, with John Stuart Mill's idea of higher and lower happiness being similar to the Buddha's distinction between long-term and short-term welfare and happiness.)
Psychologically speaking, however, the quality of the intentions behind the actions is what ultimately determines whether they're unskillful or skillful. (This aspect is closer to Kant's deontological categorical imperative when combined with the Buddhist principle of <i>ahimsa</i> or harmlessness.) Intentional actions rooted in greed, hatred or delusion produce painful mental feelings "like those of the beings in hell," while intentional actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion produce the opposite ("like those of the Beautiful Black Devas"). Then there are acts rooted in both that bring mixed results "like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms" (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html">AN 4.235</a>). By bringing kamma to an end, however, the mind is said to become free and undisturbed.