[valiumcheapll]

I'm putting this in the Beginners' board because, as a beginner, it's actually a big problem for me.

A lot of people on this board are probably pretty familiar with the Just World Phenomenon or Just World fallacy, but here's a link just so that people definitely know where I'm coming from.

There's a whole Wikipedia article about this, but the intro paragraphs pretty much cover where my head is right now.
The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is just so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable. Every time I think about karma, I think about the "just world fallacy." I know that for some people it gives them the explanation that they need to get through their own suffering to say, "This is the result of some action of mine, and I just need to accept it and find a way to deal with it or solve it." If that works for them, I'm glad that they have it.

However, I'm extremely troubled by it. I'm not sure that believing in karma and believing in injustice are compatible. After all, if something seems like injustice, it could also be defined as the "victim" experiencing the natural consequence of some previous action or intention. It doesn't allow for people to experience hardship or suffering that they didn't cause for themselves.

This is a hard thing for me to swallow. I've tried to reconcile it a few different ways. The most notable one is that sometimes things happen to people which are better or worse than they have caused for themselves, and whoever causes that imbalance (for good or ill) has that tacked onto their own karma.

For example, if I just go out and steal somebody's property, I would say that the main reason why I accrue "bad" karma for this is that nobody deserves to have their property stolen. By the same token, if I treat someone better than their actions have earned, it's "good" karma for me because I am choosing to be compassionate rather than strictly and coldly just.

The alternative--to say that people's suffering is caused solely by themselves, and that all joy or pleasure is earned--has caused so much suffering that I find it hard to reconcile with the compassion Buddhism seems to be shooting for.

Does anybody have any thoughts?

[Tyncneiff]

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

[Gubocang]

I wasn't looking to Wikipedia for Buddhist stuff, but it's a good source for people who're wondering what I mean when I say "just world fallacy."

I guess the whole "karma" thing seemed like something that I couldn't rightly just toss away, but personally I kind of would like to. I'd like to chuck the whole karma thing because it can lead to victim-blaming, and it's the only area of Buddhist teaching where I see potential problems down the line. The teachings on suffering and compassion are rad and I find them helpful, but I wasn't sure if I could just keep those.

But I guess if the idea of karma isn't totally essential, that makes things easier on me. Thank you for your response, as it was really useful. Glad to know that there are other people who don't feel a need to pull in the supernatural elements.

Out of curiosity, is there anybody around here who does include the karma teachings who has a perspective for me on how they avoid some of the pitfalls I'm worried about?

[Laqswrnm]

I guess the whole "karma" thing seemed like something that I couldn't rightly just toss away, but personally I kind of would like to. I'd like to chuck the whole karma thing because it can lead to victim-blaming, and it's the only area of Buddhist teaching where I see potential problems down the line. The teachings on suffering and compassion are rad and I find them helpful, but I wasn't sure if I could just keep those. Only if you take kamma in the hinduistic terms of something that spans lifetimes. There can be a teaching of kamma without a reincarnation view. The links above show that the Buddhas teaching is included in this, so there is no blaming of a victim of a tragedy because "its there kamma". There are Buddhists who do this but when they make this claim they step out of the realm of the Buddhas teachings and go into their own conjecture


You cant have the Buddhas teachings without Kamma but the Buddhas teaching on Kamma does not mean the hindu concept of it, that is the view that kamma is an ontological "thing" out there somewhere and is something that leads to reincarnation/rebirth


metta

[gluckmeea]

I think that karma can apply within one lifetime and still turn into victim-blaming. There are lots and lots of people who find comfort in the notion that people, on some level, brought their suffering on themselves through their own actions.

The Buddhist doctrine that suffering is from attachment is something I can handle, because it's harder to turn that into victim-blaming. However, saying that hardship is always a result of some specific action or attitude on the part of the person (for instance, saying that what's gone around is coming around) seems to negate the very idea of injustice.

You know what I mean?

[Payodcapy542fro]

You cant have the Buddhas teachings without Kamma....

Sure you can, Craig. The 4NT/8FP do not refer to, or even mention kamma at all.

[YTmWSOA5]

from post #6

What about the "kamma that ends kamma"?



The ending of kamma is the same thing as Nibbana, in other words, is synonymous with Nibbana. From where, then, come the teachers who instruct the people that death is the end of kamma? When someone dies, people murmur, "oh well, his kamma is finished." Moreover, they often say that one dies according to ones merits and kamma, without realizing that what is happening to them now is also according to their good and bad kamma, until they really reach the end of kamma, namely, Nibbana.

Nibbana is freedom from kamma and its results. Further, Nibbana is freedom from the vicious samsara (cyclic existence) that keeps spinning according to kamma. Nibbana, therefore, is lovely and loveable, not frightening in the least. Even so, people prefer being trapped within the vicious cycles of birth and death according to their kamma, particularly the kamma they desire as a result of their defilements, although they never really get what they wish. Those who have big egos will normally hate and fear the end of kamma because ego-self desires kamma-results that appear lovely according to its viewpoint.

Kamma is attachment (upadhi) or burden. When one performs kamma, life happens according to kamma, that is, one is bound by kamma no matter whether it is good or evil kamma. Good kamma makes one laugh and bad kamma makes one cry, but both weary us almost to death. Even so, people still like to laugh, since they misunderstand that good kamma is great virtue. When kamma does not bind our lives, it is as if there are no chains on our legs, whether iron chains or diamond-studded golden chains. Life becomes a burden when it is weighed down by kamma and we have to carry and support it. The end of kamma makes our lives light and free, but only a few people appreciate this as it is obscured by the veils of atta (self).

In conclusion, as Buddhists let's try to do only the kamma that is the end of kamma. When we see that kamma has occupied and ruled our lives, we will strive to practice, improve ourselves, and fight in every possible way to triumph over both good and evil kamma, so that none of them will oppress our minds. Let's develop minds that are clean, clear, and calm because no kamma and no results disturb it. Nowadays, most people understand kamma as something bad and undesirable. This is correct because both good and evil kamma are despicable in that they cause the vicious cycles of birth and death to go on without cessation.

Kamma in Buddhism is that kamma (action) which leads to the end of all kamma so that life is above and beyond kamma. Far from despicable, it is something to be understood and fully integrated into our lives. "Living beyond kamma" is something to be realized and attained. http://www.suanmokkh.org/archive/art...age/kamma1.htm

[ButKnillinoi]

What about the "kamma that ends kamma"?

Discernment. The Buddha's use of the word "kamma" as "intention" is a bridge pointing toward his own Noble teachings, which do not concern themselves concerned with the notion of "kamma" at all.


Tan Ajarn's discussion that you cite is designed also to introduce karma-believers to a different way of thinking, to gently shake them loose from their preconceptions and superstitions and point them toward the Buddha's Noble teachings.

[arindiruppyr]

clw_uk #7:
What about the "kamma that ends kamma"?

Discernment. The Buddha's use of the word "kamma" as "intention" is a bridge pointing toward his own Noble teachings, which do not concern themselves concerned with the notion of "kamma" at all.

Thanks for the explanation

[regfortruegoo]

Dear Cobalt

'Victim blaming' is very common in Buddhism. It is a belief that has developed over the centuries.

However, the Buddha himself did not teach this way. The Buddha taught bad things happen because the perpetrators of harmful actions have minds affected by greed, hatred & delusion.

For example, the Buddha said:

Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; sexual misconduct is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.

"And what is the root of the unwholesome?

Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.

Sammaditthi Sutta: Right View The Buddha also advised happiness & suffering are not due to what has occurred in the past:

"There are priests & contemplatives who hold this teaching, hold this view: 'Whatever a person experiences — pleasant, painful or neither pleasant nor painful — that is all caused by what was done in the past.'

"Having approached those priests & contemplatives,' I said to them:

'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past.

A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.'

When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.'

When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected.

This was my first righteous refutation of those priests & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.

Tittha Sutta: Sectarians Kind regards

[JulietOreira]

Also, the Buddha certainly held people can be innocent victims.

The Dhammapada states:

137. He who inflicts violence on those who are unarmed and offends those who are inoffensive, will soon come upon one of these ten states:

138-140 Sharp pain or disaster, bodily injury, serious illness or derangement of mind, trouble from the government or grave charges, loss of relatives or loss of wealth or houses destroyed by ravaging fire; upon dissolution of the body that ignorant man is born in hell.

Dandavagga: Violence So here, the Buddha has said violence is born from ignorance in the mind of the doer of violent actions.

Here, the Buddha did not blame the victim.

[scoundtrack]

The just-world phenomenon, also called the just-world theory, just-world fallacy, just-world effect, or just-world hypothesis, refers to the tendency for people to want to believe that the world is just so strongly that when they witness an otherwise inexplicable injustice they will rationalize it by searching for things that the victim might have done to deserve it. This deflects their anxiety, and lets them continue to believe the world is a just place, but often at the expense of blaming victims for things that were not, objectively, their fault.

Another theory entails the need to protect one's own sense of invulnerability. This inspires people to believe that rape, for example, only happens to those who deserve or provoke the assault. This is a way of feeling safer. If the potential victim avoids the behaviors of the past victims then they themselves will remain safe and feel less vulnerable.

For me, the above is certainly well articulated.

I recall a lady I knew who visited a well known Buddhist monastery.

At the time of her visit, some well-to-do wealthy people visited the monastery (of course with a nice donation) and were telling the monks how they knew of a girl who was being sexual abused but they decided not to tell the police because it was the girl's karma from past life.

Of course my friend was outraged and spoke her mind.

Then she was asked to leave the monastery.

Very common in Buddhism.

[Honealals]

For me, the above is certainly well articulated.

I recall a lady I knew who visited a well known Buddhist monastery.

At the time of her visit, some well-to-do wealthy people visited the monastery (of course with a nice donation) and were telling the monks how they knew of a girl who was being sexual abused but they decided not to tell the police because it was the girl's karma from past life.

Of course my friend was outraged and spoke her mind.

Then she was asked to leave the monastery.

Very common in Buddhism. Some peoples delusion can be so strong. Truly delusion leads to much dukkha

[fujitsusi]

Thank you all for your honest and helpful answers. I'm going to continue chewing on this, but it seems to me that Buddhism can be very self-correcting. If something nasty is going on, it's okay to say, "Hey. We're probably victim-blaming too much. Let's maybe not."

I'm still chewing on this, and may give a more involved answer when I've digested it (Man, even my metaphors are hungry. Clearly I need more pasta before I talk to people online any further...)

[buIf6yoW]

The above said, the Buddha did not encourage people to be careless or heedless. This is because the Buddha understood there is violence in nature and people who possess violent tendencies.

For example, the Buddha said by wandering around late at night or by allowing oneself to be intoxicated, one leaves oneself unprotected:

(a) "There are, young householder, these six dangers in indulging in intoxicants which cause infatuation and heedlessness:

(i) loss of wealth,
(ii) increase of quarrels,
(iii) susceptibility to disease,
(iv) earning an evil reputation,
(v) shameless exposure of body,
(vi) weakening of intellect.

(b) "There are, young householder, these six dangers in sauntering in streets at unseemly hours:

(i) he himself is unprotected and unguarded,
(ii) his wife and children are unprotected and unguarded,
(iii) his property is unprotected and unguarded,
(iv) he is suspected of evil deeds,
(v) he is subject to false rumours,
(vi) he meets with many troubles.

Sigalovada Sutta

[sttrqiss]

Well, yes. I reckon it's one of those "pray to God, but steer away from the rocks" clauses that most religious teachers include to keep people from shutting off their brains entirely.

As long as it doesn't extend to, "Well, she was wearing kind of a short skirt" logic, that's fine.

[RichardFG435]

Then she was asked to leave the monastery

Sad to hear. This could make one think that Buddhism has the same (what I call) "groupy" phenomenon so common in human relations - to belong to a group (as a "groupy") you have to do what the group expects of you - kind of like joining a club which has unwritten rules. This is especially true of the Christian religious groups to which I've been exposed - if you don't do what they expect you to they don't quite throw you out, they just pretend you're not there.

I hope (very much) that this sort of thing is the exception and not common.

[bribiaLaubysdggf]

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.

That's it...

I wonder why this simple fact is so hard to understand and realize when it just speaks at the core of what Buddha taught.

[Yartonbler]

from post #18

Well said Kaarine dear.

[Noxassope]

So what I'm getting is that not only is it okay to just skip the whole "it is a law of the universe that what goes around comes around, and every experience is caused by the person experiencing it" karma dealie, but that it's actually really common to do.

I'm glad that I'm not necessarily expected to be comfortable with the idea of karma, since I've heard self-identified Buddhists talking about it all the time and wasn't really willing to sign on with it myself.

Does anybody else have any insight on this particular topic? This thread's been really awesome, and it obviously isn't necessarily done just because I have a good idea of what's going on now.