[tevyrefficy]

Hi soundtrack,

I have read posts here in which Element has explained well that the intention of such teachings about kamma/karma is the morality aspect, and as you identify this is similar to the Christian intent in describing God's role as the judge and dispenser of punishment ( blessings too, of course !! ) and only He knows the whys and wheres.

In both Christian and Buddhist teachings though there is other understandings - and these sit better with my experiences.

Of course. Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of unconventional kamma interpretations. Element knows his shit.

However, that doesn't change the fact that most Buddhists believe in the good ol' BS version of kamma where the law works like a pissed off bearded man in the sky. People try to get around it all the time by saying things like, "Oh, kamma is totally different, you see, it's a natural law, like gravity, it's not divine punishment!". Ridiculous. Their kamma is institutionalized morality based on what was considered right and wrong in pan-Indian civilization -- a law indeed, but an artificial one, meaning humans created it, not nature. Try telling a scientist a bucket of water will fall on his head because he stole a bicycle last week and see how he reacts.

I remember reading an essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said that individual and collective kamma was responsible for the deaths in the 2004 tsunami. Not even the pope spews BS this extreme anymore.

Personally, I love the sutta (forgot the name) where the Buddha is making fun of people who make these absurd claims of kammic retribution coming from the outside -- if I remember correctly, he finishes by saying something like, "And if you don't listen to good Dhamma talks, you will be reborn stupid!".

[Loopyjr]

I remember reading a recent essay by Thich Nhat Hanh where he said the collective kamma of the Japanese caused a tsunami to kill them

Do you have a link to that, please soundtrack ? I'd like to read it myself.

[Nafheense]

I guess that for me, soundtrack , what I consider is - does it really matter what most Buddhists think? ( whatever the title Buddhist means - which is a more relevant question to ask to my mind, and one that I am still to find a definitive answer to, which says a lot to me !)

[MarythePuppy6]

Do you have a link to that, please soundtrack ? I'd like to read it myself.

Sure: http://www.buddhistchannel.tv/index....=8,714,0,0,1,0

Some highlights:

In Buddhism we speak of Cause and Result. We say that we have to bear the consequences of our actions. Still, people ask: "How can children of three or five years old have done such evil acts that they have to lose their parents or their own lives?" How can we explain the law of karma?

Whether we are Christian or Buddhist, this disaster poses questions for us. Christian believers ask: "How can God, who loves mankind, allow things like this to happen?" Buddhists ask: "How could people who have come with the best of intentions to help others and were doing charitable work, or innocent children, have committed such a crime that they should die in this way?"

Some people say that although during this lifetime they had not committed crimes they may have done so in a past life. We try to provide answers like this. When an aircraft explodes and crashes and nearly all the passengers die but one or two survive, we ask: "Why? Why did they not all die? Why did one or two live?" This shows us that karma has both an individual and collective aspect. This is insane. And don't tell me he's talking about scientific cause and effect here, i.e., "they chose the wrong seats".

[emingeRek]

Is it insane or in the realms of " I don't know " - in any event, how much will you, soundtrack, let it matter to you what somebody else wrote in an article? Really, as I say - what you need to determine is, for you, and only you, how important is it ????

[Zaxsdcxs]

I guess that for me, soundtrack , what I consider is - does it really matter what most Buddhists think? ( whatever the title Buddhist means - which is a more relevant question to ask to my mind, and one that I am still to find a definitive answer to, which says a lot to me !)

I see what you're saying. I was just interested in pointing out that a lot of Buddhists believe in a form of moral judgement that is just as wicked as that of the Christians, Jews, whatever.

[autoloanexpert]

Is it insane or in the realms of " I don't know " - in any event, how much will you, soundtrack, let it matter to you what somebody else wrote in an article? Really, as I say - what you need to determine is, for you, and only you, how important is it ????

Perhaps you missed post #6 in this thread. I was replying to that guy. I'm not talking about what is or isn't important to believe in. I'm pointing out that mainstream Buddhism is just as brutal as mainstream Abrahamic religions.

[Pataacculakp]

I was just interested in pointing out that a lot of Buddhists believe in a form of moral judgement that is just as wicked as that of the Christians, Jews, whatever.

Yes, its the idea of punishment karma that some use to explain away tragic events. However the Buddha said:



AN 4.77 Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable


"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....077.than.html

For Mahayana practitioners, there are some short essays on karma which might be helpful. They are by Ken Mcleod, a student of the late Kalu Rinpoche who became a teacher himself.

Here's one called "Karma doesn't Explain anything" (3 small pages)


excerpt:


"Ironically, when we probe deeper into classical treatments of karma, we find that the explanation karma appears to offer isn’t much of an explanation. Traditionally, only a fully awakened being (a buddha) can see exactly how an action develops into a result.

Karma, itself, is a mystery.

I feel that karma as explanation adds very little to our lives. It lulls us into the belief that there is an order to the universe, it allows us to project a universe that we would like to exist, it can be used to justify horrific inequities and rigid moral positions and in the end only replaces one mystery with another."

http://www.unfetteredmind.org/karma-two-approaches/2

[Xodvbooj]

It is about intention - as Element, who has expressed it, online, here, in the past , far better than I suspect I will ever be able to explain, the Lord Buddha first gave such type of teachings - and as you recognise they do indeed have a moral focus.
The important factor is, that in what ever tradition of Buddhism we chose to practice, it is about our individual experiences.

In the Lonaphala Sutta - The Salt Crystal, the Buddha compared actions of an individual who commits an evil deed with their mind still undeveloped in regards to virtue and discernment to a glass of water. As there's little development in the mind of such an individual, this one act which has some bad effect will be like a salt crystal that's then dropped into that glass of water and subsequently the water becomes undrinkable.

He then compares the actions of another individual who commits the same deed with a mind that is well trained — a mind developed in ability to see virtue, discernment - as I say, that can see the big picture — it is like a river rather than a glass of water.
Due to development in the mind of this individual, that one act is like the same salt crystal being dropped into a big river, rather than the glass of water and subsequently the water doesn't become undrinkable.

The first individual , due to their acumulative actions, goes to a bad destination whereas the later person experiences the resulting pollutant for barely a moment in the here and now - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....099.than.html.

[AnriXuinriZ]

I like Ken McLeod's articles and I have used them in the past when I was working with woman who were experiencing domestic violence - to use this example there are a lot of people who express abusive behaviours out there and we need to identify them.

[cemDrymnVem]

Perhaps you missed post #6 in this thread. I was replying to that guy. I'm not talking about what is or isn't important to believe in. I'm pointing out that mainstream Buddhism is just as brutal as mainstream Abrahamic religions.

My point is to die in a plane crash/ to die young is death young/ death in a plane crash - that is what it is, what we think about it is what we think about it. To think that mainstream Buddhism is brutal is what you chose to think about it - my experience is that to be a practising Buddhist, hey I am a TB practitioner, and all !!, it need not be brutal - that is all I am offering ... go well, be my friend

[Gasfghj]

Yes, its the idea of punishment karma that some use to explain away tragic events. However the Buddha said:

Indeed. Too bad Thich Nhat Hahn apparently never read the Acintita Sutta, that would've stopped him from publicly humiliating the friends and families of the tsunami victims.

[jadabaad]

My point is to die in a plane crash/ to die young is death young/ death in a plane crash - that is what it is, what we think about it is what we think about it. To think that mainstream Buddhism is brutal is what you chose to think about it - my experience is that to be a practicing Buddhist, hey I am a TB practitioner, and all !!, it need not be brutal - that is all I am offering ... go well, be my friend

This is irrelevant to the discussion. The purpose of this thread is to is stimulate the intellect -- we're not discussing what is or isn't relevant to individual Buddhist practice here. BWB is not a meditation hall. If I were interested in certain details of World War II I'd go find a discussion forum for that and look for a thread where I could discuss those specific details of the war, not start talking about how to kill Germans as effectively as possible.

My point is I'm discussing the attitude of mainstream Buddhism versus that of mainstream Abrahamic religions and not whether or not what I "choose to think about" is relevant to practice.

[XIMHOTEP-X]

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.

[freddyujnf]

I could speculate endlessly about my kamma in imagined past or future lives - but its all tied up in personality belief, creating and solidifying "my" identity.



.

[QWNPdpr5]

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.

Well said.

[Qynvtlur]

I could speculate endlessly about my kamma in imagined past or future lives - but its all tied up in personality belief, creating and solidifying "my" identity.

Yes Aloka. Seems that the believe in rebirth/reincarnation and Karma as its fuel is grounded in the need of "something" to endure: from the coarse self for reincarnation to a kind of "ether" for rebirth. It is the special charm New Age spirituality has. The promise of something that endures.

The teachings of Buddha are not so appealing, maybe, because its practice is about the letting go -this sort of post modern- greed, crave and the wandering of mind -endlessly looking for more- which is stressed in a civilization governed by such mind poisons.

People still needs to have and accumulate... and in a highly technological society, believes are very appealing now.

[Blahhhshsh]

Yes Aloka. Seems that the believe in rebirth/reincarnation and Karma as its fuel is grounded in the need of "something" to endure: from the coarse self for reincarnation to a kind of "ether" for rebirth. It is the special charm New Age spirituality has. The promise of something that endures.

With respect, Kaarine, I would describe that as speculation. And generalization -- you are psychoanalyzing and making assumptions about the collective motives of countless Buddhists who you have never met!

I'd also question whether the point of rebirth is that "something endures". At least from my reading of the suttas, the point seems to be that nothing we are endures: whatever you have gained during this lifetime will slip from your hands, whatever you see as your identity is subject to change, any fortune you enjoy can turn to misfortune; even one's status as a human can change. In other words, it seems to me rebirth is to be understood within the context of impermanence, anatta and dukkha. It's not a promise of everlasting happiness or a soul that endures -- from the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is bad news...an aspect of samsara.

[finasteridonline]

In general, it is useless to speculate about the mis-deeds of your or other people' past lives.

First of all, the nidānas of a person's karma and encounters are a very complicated matter. It is not easy to say 'this' happens because of 'that'. Buddhists, of all people, should know not to judge. Plus, sometimes, bad things happen to a "good person" because "bad people" were simply stronger than the "good person." Not because the "good person" did anything in particular in his/her past lives.

Second, we are not in any position to deal with the mis-deeds of our past lives, because we cannot see our past lives. It is more important to take care of this life first.

Personally, I believe that Buddha taught us Karma for only one reason: to let us know that every action has unavoidable consequences. We better be prepared to handle the consequences of our actions, whether it is "good" or "bad."

[videolkif]

from the Buddhist perspective, rebirth is bad news...an aspect of samsara.

I remembered something from Ajahn Sumedho's book 'Don't take your life personally' and so I looked it up........

"Hardly ever are we fully appreciative or tuned in to the reality of life as we are experiencing it; and during the ending of something we usually start planning our next move so we don't fully experience ending and separating.

This is the samsaric (round of rebirth) tendency of attachment. When you become bored - and you don't observe boredom unless you are practising mindfulness - you seek something interesting or exciting, or at least something to attract your attention from the boredom of the present moment. Life is a process of searching for rebirth in this way, a continuous sense of being reborn again into some new thing, something that interests you."

AND

"The word rebirth doesn't necessarily mean physical rebirth - being born again in the next life - it can mean the mental rebirths that are so ordinary we don't even notice them. As soon as life becomes boring or unpleasant, we seek rebirth into something else."