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.
Has the concept of Karma been corrupted?
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.