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

**Tyncneiff** · 06-07-2010, 02:08 PM

HI, Cobalt,

"Karma" as you describe it is a speculative view that preceded the Buddha. The Buddha clearly pointed out that it was just speculative view (there is a long and involved Discourse called the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta in which he demonstrates just how speculative karma-beliefs are), and in his own teachings, as with many other ideas that preceded him, he co-opted and changed the meaning of "karma" to "intention", a cause of action. The Buddha's own teachings were based in cause-and-effect and what we can see for ourselves -- the "Golden Rule", and that our intentions drive our actions, which have consequences.

The Buddha defined "suffering" as the misery one feels in response to clinging to experience and to self-view. One clings to experience, pleasant and unpleasant, and one suffers in various ways through that clinging.

Forget the metaphysical crap. There were some metaphysical speculations and superstitions that the Buddha refused to either refute or fully concede, because he felt that belief in them might lead one in the direction of moral behavior, but his own teachings were not based in, or dependent upon, such superstitions and speculations. I am primarily speaking of the theories of reincarnation and hindu-style karma, and the cosmologies and narratives that go hand-in-hand with them.

The Buddha's own teachings are based in "Golden Rule" ethics and mental training designed to rid one of self-view, and thus of selfishness. They are completely secular and not based in superstition or speculative world-views. The only thing is, most of the "Buddhist" world simply has not caught on to that fact yet.

Relevant reading materials:

http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm

http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa2.htm

Oh, and BTW, WIKIpedia is a lousy source to get information about the teachings of the Buddha. The articles are written by folks who have a vested interest in keeping alive the "additions" of later "schools" that have taken great liberties with the Buddha's teachings and turned them into something else that, as you can see for yourself, largely resembles the Hinduism that it is not.

Welcome to the group, BTW

06-07-2010, 02:08 PM	#2
Tyncneiff Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 484 Senior Member	HI, Cobalt, "Karma" as you describe it is a speculative view that preceded the Buddha. The Buddha clearly pointed out that it was just speculative view (there is a long and involved Discourse called the Maha Kammavibhanga Sutta in which he demonstrates just how speculative karma-beliefs are), and in his own teachings, as with many other ideas that preceded him, he co-opted and changed the meaning of "karma" to "intention", a cause of action. The Buddha's own teachings were based in cause-and-effect and what we can see for ourselves -- the "Golden Rule", and that our intentions drive our actions, which have consequences. The Buddha defined "suffering" as the misery one feels in response to clinging to experience and to self-view. One clings to experience, pleasant and unpleasant, and one suffers in various ways through that clinging. Forget the metaphysical crap. There were some metaphysical speculations and superstitions that the Buddha refused to either refute or fully concede, because he felt that belief in them might lead one in the direction of moral behavior, but his own teachings were not based in, or dependent upon, such superstitions and speculations. I am primarily speaking of the theories of reincarnation and hindu-style karma, and the cosmologies and narratives that go hand-in-hand with them. The Buddha's own teachings are based in "Golden Rule" ethics and mental training designed to rid one of self-view, and thus of selfishness. They are completely secular and not based in superstition or speculative world-views. The only thing is, most of the "Buddhist" world simply has not caught on to that fact yet. Relevant reading materials: http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma1.htm http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa2.htm Oh, and BTW, WIKIpedia is a lousy source to get information about the teachings of the Buddha. The articles are written by folks who have a vested interest in keeping alive the "additions" of later "schools" that have taken great liberties with the Buddha's teachings and turned them into something else that, as you can see for yourself, largely resembles the Hinduism that it is not. Welcome to the group, BTW
	Quote