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.
I think religion (or religious structures) all too often functions to hide abuse and silence protest rather than stand for the victims. Not to mention the wars that have taken place due to religious motives. Do you think there needs to be more activism in the religions, activism based on compassion for victims of any manner of injustice, whether societal or individual? The Catholic "Liberation Theology" has helped empower marginalized peoples in Latin America, but has done nothing to examine policies (opposition to birth control comes to mind) and abuses within the church. Are you speaking for perhaps a secular moral authority that would guide people to speak out when witnessing cruelty or injustice?
The news often reports on criminal activity associated with religious organizations. There are activists who are trying to expose them. I'm not an activist myself and I'm not trying to promote such activities. That's a personal choice for people to make for themselves. A heightened sense of awareness can go a long way in any community.
I started this post to ask if any of you had noticed how the concept of karma was being presented in the west. I'm old enough to have seen eastern teachings evolve, here, over the years since the 1960s. It started out in a purer form with more noble intentions. Potential teachers, "masters", and would be gurus saw great opportunities for gathering followers seeking eastern wisdom. I was a seeker myself. I had one teacher, in particular, who used karma as a means to control his followers. I saw enough to make me question the quality of such teachings. Since I started researching on my own, I am skeptical. All such concepts are the creation of religions. I believe that the true nature of life is way beyond the limitations of religion.
Over recent years, I've noticed more and more people from other religions or no religion cite karma in a casual or vindictive manner. Since karma has been adapted by various teachers using it for their own purposes- it stands to reason that the concept has been compromised. It represents comeuppance in popular culture. It is used as an excuse to seek revenge by many. It has been given a whole new function by many people. Many people don't see it as a reason to choose right action but as something evil to wish on others. Taking pleasure from others' suffering harms one's consciousness. So, from what I see happening, karma is becoming a harmful, negative concept.
I'm not sure if this fully explains my position but there it is. Feel free to add any other questions or thoughts on the subject. Thank you all for your participation. I hope that I didn't offend anyone's position.
kayte, I fully agree with you. Though let it be noted, you're speaking from a Christianly socialized background often found in the West. Obviously Westerners who speak thus know little more than that Buddha was a god, a god of idol-worshippers. Therefore, don't let it mar your opinion of the collective, international Buddhist scene. But on to more pressing matters, in countries with a Dharmic background often found in the East I often wonder. My bestfriend grew up with two Chinese boys in his home, their father was a Chinese nationalist who abhored the West, he was a Buddhist and a terrible father who often left his two boys with my friends' parents for many months at a time to recommence his work of selling Chinese wives which was, more or less, a quasi-legal version of sex-slavery until the women acquired their citizenship and decent enough English. How could this be? I often have wondered, even long before I discovered this story, if a Buddhist who ought to have a sufficiently proper understanding of its tenets could fashion the core teachings into the very shape of his or her ego, much like many Christians will solicit God and his Jesus at bedpost until that God proselytizes the very slipshod scene of lip service sermons on compassion when they decide to be Christians each Sunday. We Westerns and Easterns probably aren't so different after all. The laity and novices give confident answers to timid questions while the masters, being a reflection of their short-comings, receive timid attention.
Joshua, I don't hold Buddhists or the Buddha's teachings responsible for the misconceptions of people in my culture. I value what I learn from Buddhism. Many people are not well studied in cultures other than their own.
Buddhism has the same problems as other religions. I was raised Catholic and we had members who were selective about which rules they would follow and those they would ignore. We called them "cafeteria catholics" because they reduced their practice to a spiritual menu selection. Many people of all faiths practice in a self stylized manner. They are usually the most critical of everyone else.
I started this post to ask if any of you had noticed how the concept of karma was being presented in the west. I'm old enough to have seen eastern teachings evolve, here, over the years since the 1960s. It started out in a purer form with more noble intentions. Potential teachers, "masters", and would be gurus saw great opportunities for gathering followers seeking eastern wisdom. I was a seeker myself. I had one teacher, in particular, who used karma as a means to control his followers. I saw enough to make me question the quality of such teachings.
I read a comment by a historian that the purpose of religion (he was speaking of Buddhism in SE Asia, but it's applicable anywhere) is to create a docile population for the governing class. The way the concept of karma is often used (by teachers as well as laypeople) I'd have to say that I suspect the historian is right; there seems to be a hidden agenda, it's not just about following a virtuous path toward Enlightenment. But more recently on this site I came across a more well-rounded explanation of karma. While it may or may not be a victim's "karma" to be victimized, the perpetrator is also accruing much negative karma. There's interplay of both people's karma involved, and possibly the karma of unseen others. It's the first time I've heard someone discuss the karma of the victimizer. But I'm concerned about the idea that everyone who experiences injustice should just grin and bear it, because they earned it due to past life actions. I'm uncomfortable with that.
Teachers are fallible human beings, and so can be on power trips, ego trips, control trips, etc. Experiencing such teachers doesn't do much for the cause of recruiting followers to the religion. Eastern religions don't seem to be any different than Christianity in that regard. Boys will be boys, humans will be human.
Some Mahayana texts are supposed to have been spoken by deities (Heart Sutra) and in the case of texts by Asanga..he was supposed to have been given them by a Buddha from the future -Maitreya - who was said to take him to the Tushita Heaven to give him them..
That's one thing I've never understood in Vajrayana; where did all those extra Buddhas come from? Buddha of the Future? Starting to sound somewhat theistic...
...because Vajrayana is a synchretic religion based on the Dharma, Bon and some Yogic and Tantric traditions.
Bodhisattvas are on the path to Buddhahood. But you knew this.
A being (sattva) [tending toward] enlightenment.
no... Bodhisattva means "a being whose essence is awakening", or "an awakened being". basically... after all the bhumis and paramitas are completed, a samyak (complete) Buddha that can chose to be reborn to teach the Dharma.
I read a comment by a historian that the purpose of religion (he was speaking of Buddhism in SE Asia, but it's applicable anywhere) is to create a docile population for the governing class. The way the concept of karma is often used (by teachers as well as laypeople) I'd have to say that I suspect the historian is right; there seems to be a hidden agenda, it's not just about following a virtuous path toward Enlightenment. But more recently on this site I came across a more well-rounded explanation of karma. While it may or may not be a victim's "karma" to be victimized, the perpetrator is also accruing much negative karma. There's interplay of both people's karma involved, and possibly the karma of unseen others. It's the first time I've heard someone discuss the karma of the victimizer. But I'm concerned about the idea that everyone who experiences injustice should just grin and bear it, because they earned it due to past life actions. I'm uncomfortable with that.
Teachers are fallible human beings, and so can be on power trips, ego trips, control trips, etc. Experiencing such teachers doesn't do much for the cause of recruiting followers to the religion. Eastern religions don't seem to be any different than Christianity in that regard. Boys will be boys, humans will be human.
cw- You make some good points. I don't want to open a can of worms and I don't want to upset practitioners on this site, but I do not believe in karma. All I see is action and reaction. People are responsible for their own actions and how they affect others. They have an opportunity to seek enlightenment. Groups of people determine the quality of their own culture. This is why the character of people is so important.
(...) But I am not concerned with the previous action. As I have said, I am concerned with our view of Reality NOW. As Humans, we view the "River" as being "water". What if we were not human?
That is all.
That is karma.
why care about what a samsaraputra (child of suffering) sees?
it is better to care what can one see with dharma cakkhu!
cw- You make some good points. I don't want to open a can of worms and I don't want to upset practitioners on this site, but I do not believe in karma. All I see is action and reaction. People are responsible for their own actions and how they affect others. They have an opportunity to seek enlightenment. Groups of people determine the quality of their own culture. This is why the character of people is so important.
I started this post to ask if any of you had noticed how the concept of karma was being presented in the west. I'm old enough to have seen eastern teachings evolve, here, over the years since the 1960s. It started out in a purer form with more noble intentions. Potential teachers, "masters", and would be gurus saw great opportunities for gathering followers seeking eastern wisdom. I was a seeker myself. I had one teacher, in particular, who used karma as a means to control his followers. I saw enough to make me question the quality of such teachings.
I read a comment by a historian that the purpose of religion (he was speaking of Buddhism in SE Asia, but it's applicable anywhere) is to create a docile population for the governing class. The way the concept of karma is often used (by teachers as well as laypeople) I'd have to say that I suspect the historian is right; there seems to be a hidden agenda, it's not just about following a virtuous path toward Enlightenment. But more recently on this site I came across a more well-rounded explanation of karma. While it may or may not be a victim's "karma" to be victimized, the perpetrator is also accruing much negative karma. There's interplay of both people's karma involved, and possibly the karma of unseen others. It's the first time I've heard someone discuss the karma of the victimizer. But I'm concerned about the idea that everyone who experiences injustice should just grin and bear it, because they earned it due to past life actions. I'm uncomfortable with that.
Teachers are fallible human beings, and so can be on power trips, ego trips, control trips, etc. Experiencing such teachers doesn't do much for the cause of recruiting followers to the religion. Eastern religions don't seem to be any different than Christianity in that regard. Boys will be boys, humans will be human.
samsaric beings have enough karma to be reborn in samsara, as samsaric beings.
that does not justify any type of karma from others... but, it is still part of samsara.
a buddha, specially a boddhisattva with all paramitas (including virya: ~energy/power) is not subject to the whims of samsaric beings.
Vincenzi- I'm not challenging anyone's belief in karma. I just don't share that belief. I don't attribute the results of human interaction to anything other than the attitudes and intentions of the people involved- whether they are negative or positive determines the outcome and duration.
Kayte, I think Vincenzi said this in response to your statement that "all I see is action and reaction". This, actually, is the simplest version of karma in a nutshell. Actions produce reactions. If you hurt someone, they'll get angry. Their anger is the karmic reaction to your action of hurting them. According to some traditions, karma doesn't extend beyond this lifetime. (Just trying to clarify. )
Kayte, I think Vincenzi said this in response to your statement that "all I see is action and reaction". This, actually, is the simplest version of karma in a nutshell. Actions produce reactions. If you hurt someone, they'll get angry. Their anger is the karmic reaction to your action of hurting them. According to some traditions, karma doesn't extend beyond this lifetime. (Just trying to clarify. )
I appreciate the clarification. I make the mistake of assuming that whenever people use the word karma- they are invoking it as the impetus for all action instead of the freewill behavior of the people involved. Glad to know that you've got my back.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
karma means action.
Vincenzi- I'm not challenging anyone's belief in karma. I just don't share that belief. I don't attribute the results of human interaction to anything other than the attitudes and intentions of the people involved- whether they are negative or positive determines the outcome and duration.
Vincenzi- I'm not challenging anyone's belief in karma. I just don't share that belief. I don't attribute the results of human interaction to anything other than the attitudes and intentions of the people involved- whether they are negative or positive determines the outcome and duration.
you said you believe in action and reaction... karma means action.
Vincenzi- I'm not challenging anyone's belief in karma. I just don't share that belief. I don't attribute the results of human interaction to anything other than the attitudes and intentions of the people involved- whether they are negative or positive determines the outcome and duration.
Er... that's what Kamma is..... :wtf:
federica- This is why I was hesitant to post on this subject. I'm not questioning anyone's religious/philosophical beliefs on the subject. I'm not a believer. I'm trying to discuss how western culture's use of this concept has changed it's original meaning. It has been morphed into a negative concept that people are using as an excuse to treat others badly. It has eroded some people's compassion.
The purpose of karma is to promote treating others well. It doesn't really matter what the belief is, only what the effects of that belief are. The simple american idea of it really is enough. Do good things, good things happen. Do bad things, bad things happen. Maybe it's more complicated than that, but for the population at large we should be concerned about action more than belief.
The popular view of karma comes from a simplistic understanding of folk Hinduism, and is one of the reasons I find a lot of Buddhists spelling it "kamma" in order to distinguish it.
But to my mind, it is clear that fussing over karma/kamma is not what the dharma is about. The Buddha taught liberation from suffering, not legalistic, metaphysical analysis of exactly which action produces which sort of karma.
Spending all your time trying to work out exactly what effects your actions will have is more OCD than spirituality. Instead, focus your attention of what is really important, summarised in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
Sure, it's not easy to work your way through the moral maze of this life. If you want rigid rules and regulations, become a fundamentalist Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. Spend all your time trying to work out if the Bible allowed you to cut the lawn on Sunday, or if wearing a wig constitutes covering your hair in public. But having lived a life like that (as a fundamentalist Christian) I can assure you it does nothing to increase your peace, or decrease suffering for anyone. It simply increases it.
I don't concern myself with karma, except that I know it is the chain that binds us to samsara. But freedom is not found by worrying the chain with my teeth, it is in learning that the chain is Empty of intrinsic meaning - it has no substance. When I realise that, it will have no more power over me.
Some Mahayana texts are supposed to have been spoken by deities (Heart Sutra) and in the case of texts by Asanga..he was supposed to have been given them by a Buddha from the future -Maitreya - who was said to take him to the Tushita Heaven to give him them..
That's one thing I've never understood in Vajrayana; where did all those extra Buddhas come from? Buddha of the Future? Starting to sound somewhat theistic...
Maitreya is the Bodhisattva who resides in Tushita heaven the world from which future Buddhas are born to this earth. What did you think no one other then Shakyamuni has accomplished enlightenment ? He is the fourth Buddha of this fortunate aeon, Kashyapa, Kanakamuni and Krakuchchanda where the previous and as with our founder many accomplished enlightenment, And there where many founding Buddhas and accomplished ones aeons and such before. Maitreya shall be the 5th founding Buddha of this aeon for us once shakyamunis Dharma has completely vanished all traces gone so much as a word of representation will not be left. There are many Buddhas, enlightenment isnt exclusive to our blessed founder.
As someone mentioned above, karma simply means action. In Mahayana, the Tathagata is said to have expounded karma and similar matters only in the conventional sense, not in their ultimate sense. Karma is thus perceived or believed to exist by the people on whatever basis, but has no ultimate reality in itself. The Buddha's approach seems to me to be less about karma and the mechanics of that, than about the demonstrable law of cause and effect. Therefore Pratiityasamutpada is not the law of karma as the people popularly understand 'karma', but a teaching explaining this law of cause and effect which seems to account for things in the phenomenal world as we conventionally perceive it. In Abhidharma there is likewise a concentration on Pratiityasamutpada and its remedy, Mindfulness, in the practice of Buddhism. The only difference between the schools is on the question of ultimate self-existence of either phenomena as naively perceived, or dharmas, or pudgalas (Sarvastivadins IIRC advanced the idea of existent pudgalas). However it's Pratiityasamutpada that seems to explain the Buddhist position best, all across the board.
If karma worked the way some people believe it does, then why are 2/3rds of the world in poverty, and 1/3rd of the world go to bed hungry most nights? Do we really believe they are worse people than ourselves? Are the rich more morally upright than the poor?
This view is the "Prosperity Gospel" of certain TV preachers and it is clearly a lie.
We ought to be like the Buddha, who as a young man, before he was Enlightened, looked over the palace wall and saw poverty, disease and death and therefore endeavoured to do something about it, not just for himself, but for everyone else.
We shouldn't just look around at the inside of our gilded palace and believe that these things cannot touch us because we are rich, and well-fed and educated, and that those outside must be to blame for their poverty.
The popular view of karma comes from a simplistic understanding of folk Hinduism, and is one of the reasons I find a lot of Buddhists spelling it "kamma" in order to distinguish it.
But to my mind, it is clear that fussing over karma/kamma is not what the dharma is about. The Buddha taught liberation from suffering, not legalistic, metaphysical analysis of exactly which action produces which sort of karma.
Spending all your time trying to work out exactly what effects your actions will have is more OCD than spirituality. Instead, focus your attention of what is really important, summarised in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
Sure, it's not easy to work your way through the moral maze of this life. If you want rigid rules and regulations, become a fundamentalist Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. Spend all your time trying to work out if the Bible allowed you to cut the lawn on Sunday, or if wearing a wig constitutes covering your hair in public. But having lived a life like that (as a fundamentalist Christian) I can assure you it does nothing to increase your peace, or decrease suffering for anyone. It simply increases it.
I don't concern myself with karma, except that I know it is the chain that binds us to samsara. But freedom is not found by worrying the chain with my teeth, it is in learning that the chain is Empty of intrinsic meaning - it has no substance. When I realise that, it will have no more power over me.
Nicely said, Ada_B. I totally agree that we should avoid getting caught up in the minutia of any belief system. I was hoping to talk about how society incorporates new concepts and the changes that occur when they adapt the idea to their culture.
I guess that karma/kamma is too much of a hot button topic for a more clinical discussion. Mea culpa.
If karma worked the way some people believe it does, then why are 2/3rds of the world in poverty, and 1/3rd of the world go to bed hungry most nights? Do we really believe they are worse people than ourselves? Are the rich more morally upright than the poor?
This view is the "Prosperity Gospel" of certain TV preachers and it is clearly a lie.
We ought to be like the Buddha, who as a young man, before he was Enlightened, looked over the palace wall and saw poverty, disease and death and therefore endeavoured to do something about it, not just for himself, but for everyone else.
We shouldn't just look around at the inside of our gilded palace and believe that these things cannot touch us because we are rich, and well-fed and educated, and that those outside must be to blame for their poverty.
I couldn't agree with you more, AdaB, but what some traditions teach is exactly that people are born in countries of great poverty and suffering, or born in our country to families full of suffering, due to past life actions.
Its worth reading the articles on karma on Ken Mcleods site 'Unfettered mind '
"Once we accept the idea that karma ensures that the universe is a just place, the prevailing political system can use karma to "justify" the inequities that it produces. If you are born into a ruling family, you enjoy the results of the good you did in past lives. If you are born a slave, then your fate is the result of what you did in past lives. Your effort in this life is not to strive to be a ruler or king, but to work out your karma, whatever it is. Countless conquerors, kings. and warlords have, over the centuries, used karma to justify their actions. Countless others have taken the attitude "It's their karma" to avoid helping others in need.
Rigidity in moral position
The acceptance of karmic explanations easily solidifies into a belief system. In this context, "belief" is an idea that we accept without verifying it through our own experience"
We ought to be like the Buddha, who as a young man, before he was Enlightened, looked over the palace wall and saw poverty, disease and death and therefore endeavoured to do something about it, not just for himself, but for everyone else.
Great, Ada_B! I've been thinking about starting a thread along these lines.
"Once we accept the idea that karma ensures that the universe is a just place, the prevailing political system can use karma to "justify" the inequities that it produces. If you are born into a ruling family, you enjoy the results of the good you did in past lives. If you are born a slave, then your fate is the result of what you did in past lives. Your effort in this life is not to strive to be a ruler or king, but to work out your karma, whatever it is. Countless conquerors, kings. and warlords have, over the centuries, used karma to justify their actions. Countless others have taken the attitude "It's their karma" to avoid helping others in need.
So, Kayte, it would seem that the concept of karma didn't get its distortion from meeting up with Western culture, it began a very long time ago. But in the West, it's become a sort of buzz-word people misuse without making any attempt to really understand it.
What did you think no one other then Shakyamuni has accomplished enlightenment ?
um...yes, I did think that. So these other Buddhas are also historical figures? They're not just symbolic images to meditate on, like the demons? If they were historical figures, who were they, where is there history?
What did you think no one other then Shakyamuni has accomplished enlightenment ?
um...yes, I did think that. So these other Buddhas are also historical figures? They're not just symbolic images to meditate on, like the demons? If they were historical figures, who were they, where is there history?
Good topic for a separate thread. Pretty soon we're going to need a "Vajrayana Dept."
AdaB: "I don't concern myself with karma"--I think Kayte's point is that we need to concern ourselves about the concept of karma being used to bully people, the misuse and misinterpretation of karma. I think it can be useful as a general moral guide (making us aware that there are repercussions to our actions, so we should think carefully about what we say and do, which really isn't much different than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), but it has fallen into great misunderstanding and misuse, even to the point that those entrusted with teaching these spiritual concepts misconstrue them apparently deliberately, as kayte describes in her sangha, to control the students. When its misinterpretation and misuse happen, I think it's time for those who know better to speak up and set the record straight.
Equilibrium as mentioned in Greek goddess named Nemesis, is the Buddha nature of all beings. It is the loving-kindness and benevolence disposition. Although karma may be exploited by hubris, it could not sustain long and most detrimental is to the hubris themselves. One factor is that they could not move into tranquility because of the link of karmic consequences
"What goes around, comes around" is OK if used as a warning not to do something that will result in harm to the doer. In fact I used this term the other day at work to encourage my superiors from performing an action that I considered to be unethical and would result in harm in the long term. Using "after the fact" is not very helpful, though it could be used, by someone that accepts dharma, as a reason for a bad event that they have experienced. All it does is assert a cause but sometimes that helps. If I tripped over and broke my leg maybe I would be comforted to know that it was the ripening of negative karma and that negative karmic seed has now been extinguished.
LOL! OK, WK, now I know what to say when you trip and break your leg! But this reminds me of stories a Tibetologist friend has told me about Tibetans saying how wonderful all the suffering was that they were going through at a given time, because it was burning off so much negative karma. Apparently it does work as a comfort for some people.
But this reminds me of stories a Tibetologist friend has told me about Tibetans saying how wonderful all the suffering was that they were going through at a given time, because it was burning off so much negative karma. Apparently it does work as a comfort for some people.
I'm going to try to make my position clearer. I see action/reaction as just that- multiple outcomes depending on the quantum field of possibilities- nothing mythical or cosmically ordained, like karma. There is no contradiction for me. I'm sure that this is contrary to most every member's beliefs. I was trying to be non confrontational in my wording.
cw- If people believe that they have negative karma over their heads, then they can unconsciously create a negative scenario in the quantum field. They'll just feel that they had it coming.
This is why I'm concerned about how this concept is being assimilated into our culture. It adds more negative possibilities to the field. It could train people to inject more negative expectation or expression in their field of action/reaction.
But this reminds me of stories a Tibetologist friend has told me about Tibetans saying how wonderful all the suffering was that they were going through at a given time, because it was burning off so much negative karma. Apparently it does work as a comfort for some people.
I'm going to try to make my position clearer. I see action/reaction as just that- multiple outcomes depending on the quantum field of possibilities- nothing mythical or cosmically ordained, like karma. There is no contradiction for me. I'm sure that this is contrary to most every member's beliefs. I was trying to be non confrontational in my wording.
cw- If people believe that they have negative karma over their heads, then they can unconsciously create a negative scenario in the quantum field. They'll just feel that they had it coming.
This is why I'm concerned about how this concept is being assimilated into our culture. It adds more negative possibilities to the field. It could train people to inject more negative expectation or expression in their field of action/reaction.
why not see karma as a de-randomizer of quantum fields?
why not see karma as a de-randomizer of quantum fields?
Because I won't give a theological concept that power over me.
I think, you didn't put much attention. karma means action, period.
It is not theological. theology implies theos (deities) and logos (love, for). Karma is impersonal, non-theistic... and in its simpler form... means just, action.
What I mean is, that karma is just the sanskrit word for action. No need for "theological decorations" (and in the Dharma it doesn't imply anything theistic).
I think, you didn't put much attention. karma means action, period.
It is not theological. theology implies theos (deities) and logos (love, for). Karma is impersonal, non-theistic... and in its simpler form... means just, action.
What I mean is, that karma is just the sanskrit word for action. No need for "theological decorations" (and in the Dharma it doesn't imply anything theistic).
I did read the posts. You keep repeating that karma means action. To me it's just people telling me that action is the same as this word in another language. People are telling me that this action can reward or punish and even be stored away for a future life. I'm simply not of the same opinion. Action on my part, no matter how well intentioned, cannot control another person's reaction. It's their choice in the field of possibilities.
Vincenzi, I appreciate your passion and perseverance in trying to educate people like me, but let's just agree to disagree,OK?
As said by others, karma simply means cause and effect. Every single act that you do has a cause (or reason) and it produces a reciprocative effect, and because of those effects, they become causes of your next effect, and so it becomes a cycle of cause and effect.
Let me give you an example: Hungry-->go out to buy food-->see delicious pound cake-->buy cake-->eat cake-->cake finished-->buy more cake-->eat more cake-->get fat-->diseases-->etc.
So you can say he got fat because of his karma, because of they are the effects of his actions.
Now, if you agree on this premise, then it seems to follow that we act on many many different causes every single day. So every second of our life we are acting and reacting to the causes and effects of previous actions. Sometimes the effects of your actions do not come to fruition immediately, e.g. the planting of a seed to grow into a tree, but they do come to fruition eventually. Whatever effects that do not come to fruition, for me, it stands to my logic that they might come to fruition in my next lives, because the conditions for these effects to appear may not be right. Just like planting an apple tree in Hawaii or a banana tree in Sweden. The conditions are not right for them to grow and bear fruit, and no matter how you try they will not grow. However, if you transport the seedlings to places where they can grow and thrive, they will grow and thrive.
So it is not illogical to me to say that some of the situations which are not very nice that are experiencing right now, e.g. poverty, hunger, anger, etc. are partly due to my past lives' karma. Perhaps not all of them are due to them, perhaps some of them are due to how I behave and act right now, but I cannot discredit the fact that it might be due to karma from the past, even distant past.
As said by others, karma simply means cause and effect. Every single act that you do has a cause (or reason) and it produces a reciprocative effect, and because of those effects, they become causes of your next effect, and so it becomes a cycle of cause and effect.
Let me give you an example: Hungry-->go out to buy food-->see delicious pound cake-->buy cake-->eat cake-->cake finished-->buy more cake-->eat more cake-->get fat-->diseases-->etc.
So you can say he got fat because of his karma, because of they are the effects of his actions.
Now, if you agree on this premise, then it seems to follow that we act on many many different causes every single day. So every second of our life we are acting and reacting to the causes and effects of previous actions. Sometimes the effects of your actions do not come to fruition immediately, e.g. the planting of a seed to grow into a tree, but they do come to fruition eventually. Whatever effects that do not come to fruition, for me, it stands to my logic that they might come to fruition in my next lives, because the conditions for these effects to appear may not be right. Just like planting an apple tree in Hawaii or a banana tree in Sweden. The conditions are not right for them to grow and bear fruit, and no matter how you try they will not grow. However, if you transport the seedlings to places where they can grow and thrive, they will grow and thrive.
So it is not illogical to me to say that some of the situations which are not very nice that are experiencing right now, e.g. poverty, hunger, anger, etc. are partly due to my past lives' karma. Perhaps not all of them are due to them, perhaps some of them are due to how I behave and act right now, but I cannot discredit the fact that it might be due to karma from the past, even distant past.
Hi dorji,
Thank you for your efforts to explain your beliefs. This is not a theory that I believe in. Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions and reactions. However, we have no control and cannot predict how other people will choose to react to us or how they may initiate contact with us. You went to great length to describe your believe on how karma works. I appreciate your effort. You and just about everyone else, here, has made the effort to explain it to me. Again, this is not the subject of my OP. I realize that I should have chosen a different title to avoid having this thread focus on the theory of karma. It was intended to be a discussion about how the concept of karma is being interpreted and affecting a western culture. The people that I've observed have a their own very narrow view of karma and appear to have assigned their own feelings to it's function. It's an interesting and disturbing development.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think my post on page one (Jan 21st) may be pretty close.... I see what you're getting at here.
dorje's analogy is all very well, but it would be simpler to say that the cake-eater is clinging, grasping and attached to their greed for cake. The consequences of eating the cake aren't apparent - all s/he knows is that s/he wants some more cake. getting fat isn't a result of kamma, it's a result of lack of resistance to attachment. Greed. If all it took was keeping yer yap shut, we'd all be thin.
Oh wait....maybe it IS that simple!!
Kamma is completely misunderstood by people who do not have it as a constant lesson in their lives.
(I blame Boy George myself. His 'Karma Chameleon' song did much to colour people's perceptions. he had no idea then, they have no idea now.)
I think you understand the concept of kamma, even if it's hard to pin some things down. I don't muddle my mind with the concept of the Kamma of previous lives being accountable for present disasters, misfortunes or tragedies. But I can see why people get hung up about it.
But as is often said - it really doesn't matter. NOW is what counts. Eightfold Path, Five Precepts, Dhammapada. That covers it.
I think, you didn't put much attention. karma means action, period.
It is not theological. theology implies theos (deities) and logos (love, for). Karma is impersonal, non-theistic... and in its simpler form... means just, action.
What I mean is, that karma is just the sanskrit word for action. No need for "theological decorations" (and in the Dharma it doesn't imply anything theistic).
I did read the posts. You keep repeating that karma means action. To me it's just people telling me that action is the same as this word in another language. People are telling me that this action can reward or punish and even be stored away for a future life. I'm simply not of the same opinion. Action on my part, no matter how well intentioned, cannot control another person's reaction. It's their choice in the field of possibilities.
Vincenzi, I appreciate your passion and perseverance in trying to educate people like me, but let's just agree to disagree,OK?
I have just one question, do you think reality is deterministic?
I think my post on page one (Jan 21st) may be pretty close.... I see what you're getting at here.
dorje's analogy is all very well, but it would be simpler to say that the cake-eater is clinging, grasping and attached to their greed for cake. The consequences of eating the cake aren't apparent - all s/he knows is that s/he wants some more cake. getting fat isn't a result of kamma, it's a result of lack of resistance to attachment. Greed. If all it took was keeping yer yap shut, we'd all be thin.
Oh wait....maybe it IS that simple!!
Kamma is completely misunderstood by people who do not have it as a constant lesson in their lives.
(I blame Boy George myself. His 'Karma Chameleon' song did much to colour people's perceptions. he had no idea then, they have no idea now.)
I think you understand the concept of kamma, even if it's hard to pin some things down. I don't muddle my mind with the concept of the Kamma of previous lives being accountable for present disasters, misfortunes or tragedies. But I can see why people get hung up about it.
But as is often said - it really doesn't matter. NOW is what counts. Eightfold Path, Five Precepts, Dhammapada. That covers it.
Don't be too hard on poor Boy George, he's made things difficult for himself over the years. I was never a fan but I do remember the songs and wild makeup. Some of the girls would actually imitate his makeup and attire. Yikes!
I'm trying that keeping yer yap shut theory combined with thrice weekly bike rides to nowhere in hope of becoming thinner. Wish me luck.
I was struck by the way that this eastern concept has crept into American culture and I was taken aback by the way that it's been interpreted and invoked by people. I was familiar with it before it became part of common speech. I think that misuse of the term can affect how people view others and their own actions. Some people may take it to heart in a positive way. Others, may see it as an excuse to extract vengeance or withhold compassion. When a concept is taken out of context it can become a negative factor.
Thanks for adding your comments. I agree that the only sure way to live well is to pay special attention to one's thoughts, actions, and deeds. It's all in the realm of possibilities.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica, karma of previous lives is (for some) as real as karma from this life.
Yeah, but I really don't care about that, at all. It is completely and utterly irrelevant, in that I can only deal with events as they occur now. To speculate, wonder, cogitate and try to remember Past lives is a complete, total and utter waste of time. I'm here now, and that's what counts to me.
This still is not addressing the topic of kayte's OP, which, if I understand it correctly, has less to do with definitions of karma than with the fact that a bastardization of the concept has come to be used abusively.
I wonder if maybe what you're trying to address, kayte, is the fact that sometimes this "Western" (though it began in the East, not the West) misunderstanding of karma results in people demonstrating less compassion toward human suffering, rather than more. It can be used callously, as in "oh, that's just his/her karma" when something unpleasant happens to someone, and just gets shrugged off as "karma". Whatever anyone believes about karma, compassion should always be our guiding principle. No one's suffering should get dismissed or ignored as their karma.
Yeah, but I really don't care about that, at all. It is completely and utterly irrelevant, in that I can only deal with events as they occur now.
I'm here now, and that's what counts to me.
We should care if poverty or exploitation are chalked up to karma, or if bullying is chalked up to the victim's karma. This is the crux of the matter.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think I did address kayte's topic, but I'm also responding to Vincenzi....
I think we may find that what Kayte is addressing is that not only is kamma widely misunderstood by most people who do not study Buddhism (or even Hinduism, although Hinduism is very fatalistic), it's used, abused and bandied about as some force that wreaks vengeance, retribution and come-uppance. People don't demonstrate less compassion - they don't feel any is due. We are all very aware of what our attitudes towards others should be. We discuss the concepts of Kamma and Compassion on this forum (ad nauseam!) and I think more or less, we have views which are conducive to our practice. I think what Kayte finds it hard to absorb is how "ignorant" people are about kamma, and just how self-serving their comments are. It makes them feel better about seeing the suffering of others, because in many cases, they feel its deserved.
I also find many people bemoan the fact that so many people seem to get away with murder, and actually wonder whether karma actually works, because whatever these people have done - they're not getting pay-back.....
I also find many people bemoan the fact that so many people seem to get away with murder, and actually wonder whether karma actually works, because whatever these people have done - they're not getting pay-back.....
I remember kayte bringing this up on another thread. Some people seem to spend their lives profiting from others' suffering (the banking scandal comes to mind), and live prosperous lives.
This misperception of how karma works was alive and well in Tibet, it's not just something that evolved in the West.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
We should care if poverty or exploitation are chalked up to karma, or if bullying is chalked up to the victim's karma. This is the crux of the matter.
No, it isn't.
When I responded to Vincenzi, I was replying from the position of my attitude to my own Kamma, nobody else's.
I can do nothing about anybody else's Kamma. and trying to fathom out the reasons and origins, is pointless speculation. I can only offer compassion in its most Mindful way, for what is happening NOW. But what they think, say and do, is up to them.
Comments
I started this post to ask if any of you had noticed how the concept of karma was being presented in the west. I'm old enough to have seen eastern teachings evolve, here, over the years since the 1960s. It started out in a purer form with more noble intentions. Potential teachers, "masters", and would be gurus saw great opportunities for gathering followers seeking eastern wisdom. I was a seeker myself. I had one teacher, in particular, who used karma as a means to control his followers. I saw enough to make me question the quality of such teachings. Since I started researching on my own, I am skeptical. All such concepts are the creation of religions. I believe that the true nature of life is way beyond the limitations of religion.
Over recent years, I've noticed more and more people from other religions or no religion cite karma in a casual or vindictive manner. Since karma has been adapted by various teachers using it for their own purposes- it stands to reason that the concept has been compromised. It represents comeuppance in popular culture. It is used as an excuse to seek revenge by many. It has been given a whole new function by many people. Many people don't see it as a reason to choose right action but as something evil to wish on others. Taking pleasure from others' suffering harms one's consciousness. So, from what I see happening, karma is becoming a harmful, negative concept.
I'm not sure if this fully explains my position but there it is. Feel free to add any other questions or thoughts on the subject. Thank you all for your participation. I hope that I didn't offend anyone's position.
Buddhism has the same problems as other religions. I was raised Catholic and we had members who were selective about which rules they would follow and those they would ignore. We called them "cafeteria catholics" because they reduced their practice to a spiritual menu selection. Many people of all faiths practice in a self stylized manner. They are usually the most critical of everyone else.
Teachers are fallible human beings, and so can be on power trips, ego trips, control trips, etc. Experiencing such teachers doesn't do much for the cause of recruiting followers to the religion. Eastern religions don't seem to be any different than Christianity in that regard. Boys will be boys, humans will be human.
it is better to care what can one see with dharma cakkhu!
that does not justify any type of karma from others... but, it is still part of samsara.
a buddha, specially a boddhisattva with all paramitas (including virya: ~energy/power) is not subject to the whims of samsaric beings.
In a perfect world, they wouldn't be. But this is samsara.
But to my mind, it is clear that fussing over karma/kamma is not what the dharma is about. The Buddha taught liberation from suffering, not legalistic, metaphysical analysis of exactly which action produces which sort of karma.
Spending all your time trying to work out exactly what effects your actions will have is more OCD than spirituality. Instead, focus your attention of what is really important, summarised in the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path.
Sure, it's not easy to work your way through the moral maze of this life. If you want rigid rules and regulations, become a fundamentalist Muslim, or Christian, or Jew. Spend all your time trying to work out if the Bible allowed you to cut the lawn on Sunday, or if wearing a wig constitutes covering your hair in public. But having lived a life like that (as a fundamentalist Christian) I can assure you it does nothing to increase your peace, or decrease suffering for anyone. It simply increases it.
I don't concern myself with karma, except that I know it is the chain that binds us to samsara. But freedom is not found by worrying the chain with my teeth, it is in learning that the chain is Empty of intrinsic meaning - it has no substance. When I realise that, it will have no more power over me.
Maitreya is the Bodhisattva who resides in Tushita heaven the world from which future Buddhas are born to this earth. What did you think no one other then Shakyamuni has accomplished enlightenment ? He is the fourth Buddha of this fortunate aeon, Kashyapa, Kanakamuni and Krakuchchanda where the previous and as with our founder many accomplished enlightenment, And there where many founding Buddhas and accomplished ones aeons and such before. Maitreya shall be the 5th founding Buddha of this aeon for us once shakyamunis Dharma has completely vanished all traces gone so much as a word of representation will not be left.
There are many Buddhas, enlightenment isnt exclusive to our blessed founder.
This view is the "Prosperity Gospel" of certain TV preachers and it is clearly a lie.
We ought to be like the Buddha, who as a young man, before he was Enlightened, looked over the palace wall and saw poverty, disease and death and therefore endeavoured to do something about it, not just for himself, but for everyone else.
We shouldn't just look around at the inside of our gilded palace and believe that these things cannot touch us because we are rich, and well-fed and educated, and that those outside must be to blame for their poverty.
I guess that karma/kamma is too much of a hot button topic for a more clinical discussion. Mea culpa.
Its worth reading the articles on karma on Ken Mcleods site 'Unfettered mind '
"Once we accept the idea that karma ensures that the universe is a just place, the prevailing political system can use karma to "justify" the inequities that it
produces. If you are born into a ruling family, you enjoy the results of the good you did in past lives. If you are born a slave, then your fate is the result of what you did in past lives. Your effort in this life is not to strive to be a ruler or king, but to work out your karma, whatever it is. Countless conquerors, kings. and warlords have, over the centuries, used karma to justify their actions. Countless others have taken the attitude "It's their karma" to avoid helping others in need.
Rigidity in moral position
The acceptance of karmic explanations easily solidifies into a belief system. In this context, "belief" is an idea that we accept without verifying it through our own experience"
continued:
http://www.unfetteredmind.org/articles/explain.php
AdaB: "I don't concern myself with karma"--I think Kayte's point is that we need to concern ourselves about the concept of karma being used to bully people, the misuse and misinterpretation of karma. I think it can be useful as a general moral guide (making us aware that there are repercussions to our actions, so we should think carefully about what we say and do, which really isn't much different than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), but it has fallen into great misunderstanding and misuse, even to the point that those entrusted with teaching these spiritual concepts misconstrue them apparently deliberately, as kayte describes in her sangha, to control the students. When its misinterpretation and misuse happen, I think it's time for those who know better to speak up and set the record straight.
"What goes around, comes around" is OK if used as a warning not to do something that will result in harm to the doer. In fact I used this term the other day at work to encourage my superiors from performing an action that I considered to be unethical and would result in harm in the long term. Using "after the fact" is not very helpful, though it could be used, by someone that accepts dharma, as a reason for a bad event that they have experienced. All it does is assert a cause but sometimes that helps. If I tripped over and broke my leg maybe I would be comforted to know that it was the ripening of negative karma and that negative karmic seed has now been extinguished.
Cheers, WK
But this reminds me of stories a Tibetologist friend has told me about Tibetans saying how wonderful all the suffering was that they were going through at a given time, because it was burning off so much negative karma. Apparently it does work as a comfort for some people.
cw- If people believe that they have negative karma over their heads, then they can unconsciously create a negative scenario in the quantum field. They'll just feel that they had it coming.
This is why I'm concerned about how this concept is being assimilated into our culture. It adds more negative possibilities to the field. It could train people to inject more negative expectation or expression in their field of action/reaction.
It is not theological. theology implies theos (deities) and logos (love, for). Karma is impersonal, non-theistic... and in its simpler form... means just, action.
What I mean is, that karma is just the sanskrit word for action. No need for "theological decorations" (and in the Dharma it doesn't imply anything theistic).
Vincenzi, I appreciate your passion and perseverance in trying to educate people like me, but let's just agree to disagree,OK?
As said by others, karma simply means cause and effect. Every single act that you do has a cause (or reason) and it produces a reciprocative effect, and because of those effects, they become causes of your next effect, and so it becomes a cycle of cause and effect.
Let me give you an example:
Hungry-->go out to buy food-->see delicious pound cake-->buy cake-->eat cake-->cake finished-->buy more cake-->eat more cake-->get fat-->diseases-->etc.
So you can say he got fat because of his karma, because of they are the effects of his actions.
Now, if you agree on this premise, then it seems to follow that we act on many many different causes every single day. So every second of our life we are acting and reacting to the causes and effects of previous actions. Sometimes the effects of your actions do not come to fruition immediately, e.g. the planting of a seed to grow into a tree, but they do come to fruition eventually. Whatever effects that do not come to fruition, for me, it stands to my logic that they might come to fruition in my next lives, because the conditions for these effects to appear may not be right. Just like planting an apple tree in Hawaii or a banana tree in Sweden. The conditions are not right for them to grow and bear fruit, and no matter how you try they will not grow. However, if you transport the seedlings to places where they can grow and thrive, they will grow and thrive.
So it is not illogical to me to say that some of the situations which are not very nice that are experiencing right now, e.g. poverty, hunger, anger, etc. are partly due to my past lives' karma. Perhaps not all of them are due to them, perhaps some of them are due to how I behave and act right now, but I cannot discredit the fact that it might be due to karma from the past, even distant past.
Thank you for your efforts to explain your beliefs. This is not a theory that I believe in. Yes, we are all responsible for our own actions and reactions. However, we have no control and cannot predict how other people will choose to react to us or how they may initiate contact with us. You went to great length to describe your believe on how karma works. I appreciate your effort. You and just about everyone else, here, has made the effort to explain it to me. Again, this is not the subject of my OP. I realize that I should have chosen a different title to avoid having this thread focus on the theory of karma. It was intended to be a discussion about how the concept of karma is being interpreted and affecting a western culture. The people that I've observed have a their own very narrow view of karma and appear to have assigned their own feelings to it's function. It's an interesting and disturbing development.
dorje's analogy is all very well, but it would be simpler to say that the cake-eater is clinging, grasping and attached to their greed for cake. The consequences of eating the cake aren't apparent - all s/he knows is that s/he wants some more cake. getting fat isn't a result of kamma, it's a result of lack of resistance to attachment. Greed.
If all it took was keeping yer yap shut, we'd all be thin.
Oh wait....maybe it IS that simple!!
Kamma is completely misunderstood by people who do not have it as a constant lesson in their lives.
(I blame Boy George myself. His 'Karma Chameleon' song did much to colour people's perceptions. he had no idea then, they have no idea now.)
I think you understand the concept of kamma, even if it's hard to pin some things down. I don't muddle my mind with the concept of the Kamma of previous lives being accountable for present disasters, misfortunes or tragedies. But I can see why people get hung up about it.
But as is often said - it really doesn't matter. NOW is what counts. Eightfold Path, Five Precepts, Dhammapada.
That covers it.
I'm trying that keeping yer yap shut theory combined with thrice weekly bike rides to nowhere in hope of becoming thinner. Wish me luck.
I was struck by the way that this eastern concept has crept into American culture and I was taken aback by the way that it's been interpreted and invoked by people. I was familiar with it before it became part of common speech. I think that misuse of the term can affect how people view others and their own actions. Some people may take it to heart in a positive way. Others, may see it as an excuse to extract vengeance or withhold compassion. When a concept is taken out of context it can become a negative factor.
Thanks for adding your comments. I agree that the only sure way to live well is to pay special attention to one's thoughts, actions, and deeds. It's all in the realm of possibilities.
It is completely and utterly irrelevant, in that I can only deal with events as they occur now.
To speculate, wonder, cogitate and try to remember Past lives is a complete, total and utter waste of time.
I'm here now, and that's what counts to me.
I wonder if maybe what you're trying to address, kayte, is the fact that sometimes this "Western" (though it began in the East, not the West) misunderstanding of karma results in people demonstrating less compassion toward human suffering, rather than more. It can be used callously, as in "oh, that's just his/her karma" when something unpleasant happens to someone, and just gets shrugged off as "karma". Whatever anyone believes about karma, compassion should always be our guiding principle. No one's suffering should get dismissed or ignored as their karma. We should care if poverty or exploitation are chalked up to karma, or if bullying is chalked up to the victim's karma. This is the crux of the matter.
I think we may find that what Kayte is addressing is that not only is kamma widely misunderstood by most people who do not study Buddhism (or even Hinduism, although Hinduism is very fatalistic), it's used, abused and bandied about as some force that wreaks vengeance, retribution and come-uppance.
People don't demonstrate less compassion - they don't feel any is due.
We are all very aware of what our attitudes towards others should be.
We discuss the concepts of Kamma and Compassion on this forum (ad nauseam!) and I think more or less, we have views which are conducive to our practice.
I think what Kayte finds it hard to absorb is how "ignorant" people are about kamma, and just how self-serving their comments are. It makes them feel better about seeing the suffering of others, because in many cases, they feel its deserved.
I also find many people bemoan the fact that so many people seem to get away with murder, and actually wonder whether karma actually works, because whatever these people have done - they're not getting pay-back.....
This misperception of how karma works was alive and well in Tibet, it's not just something that evolved in the West.
When I responded to Vincenzi, I was replying from the position of my attitude to my own Kamma, nobody else's.
I can do nothing about anybody else's Kamma. and trying to fathom out the reasons and origins, is pointless speculation.
I can only offer compassion in its most Mindful way, for what is happening NOW. But what they think, say and do, is up to them.