DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Karma discussion

**XIMHOTEP-X** · 11-13-2011, 08:08 PM

Hi Soundtrack.

I had a similar reaction when I first encountered the notion of karma/kamma. And I'm not here to dispute your assessment of it -- but just to add that it's probably best understood within the context of other Indian religions, and also within the context of a belief in rebirth.

Karma is contrasted with two alternate points of view -- one, that what happens to us is the product of random accident; and two, that it reflects some act of willpower on the part of a deity. The "given" here is that beings are reborn again and again, cycling through samsara. But what drives that process? The traditional Buddhist perspective is that we do, through our volitional actions. So yes, whatever we experience represents the ripening of some karmic seed or another. But the flip side of this view is that we have a degree of control over our future destiny.

When we argue that karma is a brutal philosophy that blames innocent people for their suffering, there is an implicit rejection of rebirth. Because if rebirth is true, there is no such thing as "innocence" -- we don't come into the world with a blank slate. But there is also no such thing as a "guilty" person, in the sense of some permanent identity. All beings are heirs to their karma. Those who enjoy fortunate circumstances now may be rapidly exhausting the results of prior good kamma. Those who are suffering now may enjoy fortunate circumstances in the future. Devas (heavenly beings) inevitably fall from the celestial realms sooner or later; those stuck in hells (metaphorical or literal) can find a way out.

I agree that if you take rebirth and the samsaric cycle out of the picture, karma as a moral law makes very little sense -- though it might still function as a kind of general principle ("what goes round comes around"). I'd also agree that using karma to explain away specific instances of suffering is tacky and hurtful, and not consistent with the Buddha's words in the Acintita Sutta.

One last thing -- my understanding is that karma-vipaka refers more to our experience of events as opposed to the events themselves. The latter provide an occasion for karma to ripen, but it is the experiential/mental aspect which counts.

11-13-2011, 08:08 PM	#14
XIMHOTEP-X Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 395 Senior Member	Hi Soundtrack. I had a similar reaction when I first encountered the notion of karma/kamma. And I'm not here to dispute your assessment of it -- but just to add that it's probably best understood within the context of other Indian religions, and also within the context of a belief in rebirth. Karma is contrasted with two alternate points of view -- one, that what happens to us is the product of random accident; and two, that it reflects some act of willpower on the part of a deity. The "given" here is that beings are reborn again and again, cycling through samsara. But what drives that process? The traditional Buddhist perspective is that we do, through our volitional actions. So yes, whatever we experience represents the ripening of some karmic seed or another. But the flip side of this view is that we have a degree of control over our future destiny. When we argue that karma is a brutal philosophy that blames innocent people for their suffering, there is an implicit rejection of rebirth. Because if rebirth is true, there is no such thing as "innocence" -- we don't come into the world with a blank slate. But there is also no such thing as a "guilty" person, in the sense of some permanent identity. All beings are heirs to their karma. Those who enjoy fortunate circumstances now may be rapidly exhausting the results of prior good kamma. Those who are suffering now may enjoy fortunate circumstances in the future. Devas (heavenly beings) inevitably fall from the celestial realms sooner or later; those stuck in hells (metaphorical or literal) can find a way out. I agree that if you take rebirth and the samsaric cycle out of the picture, karma as a moral law makes very little sense -- though it might still function as a kind of general principle ("what goes round comes around"). I'd also agree that using karma to explain away specific instances of suffering is tacky and hurtful, and not consistent with the Buddha's words in the Acintita Sutta. One last thing -- my understanding is that karma-vipaka refers more to our experience of events as opposed to the events themselves. The latter provide an occasion for karma to ripen, but it is the experiential/mental aspect which counts.
	Quote