The nature of karma

[No essential nature]

The Buddha is thought to have died from food-poisoning.
The Dalai Lama was imprisoned by the Chinese.

According to the common view, essentially the Hindu view, for bad things to happen to good or 'Dharmic' people they must carry a kind of blame, spritual guilt akin to sin in the form of bad karma. Yet obviously the Buddha was supposed to have escaped the wheel or karma - and yet remains a causal agent?

It seems to me that karma is not in things, but in the experience of things - when the Dalai Lama was asked 'Were you ever in danger while in prison?' he said yes, but only in danger of losing compassion for his guards. Isn't this the point, not ceasing to be causal agents, nor to be unaffected by events, nor for only good things to happen. But in becoming more enlightened, to seek the good in all experiences regardless? Experience obviously includes interpreting events, and that is the basis for future action, hence the effect of how we manage the current moments experiences influences future action aswell as experience.

As I see it, only this view that karma is in experiences not events is compatable with a truly external world and with us having free will.

Reaction? Opinions?

[Snoopy]

Hi, er, No?

According to the common view, essentially the Hindu view, for bad things to happen to good or 'Dharmic' people they must carry a kind of blame, spritual guilt akin to sin in the form of bad karma. Yet obviously the Buddha was supposed to have escaped the wheel or karma - and yet remains a causal agent?

I suppose an acceptance of rebirth underlies this? Personally I find that to say “bad” things happen to a “good” person because of stuff that happened in a former life is an insult to that person. It reminds me of the Glenn Hoddle comment about disabled people.

Isn't this the point, not ceasing to be causal agents, nor to be unaffected by events, nor for only good things to happen. But in becoming more enlightened, to seek the good in all experiences regardless? Experience obviously includes interpreting events, and that is the basis for future action, hence the effect of how we manage the current moments experiences influences future action as well as experience.
As I see it, only this view that karma is in experiences not events is compatable with a truly external world and with us having free will.

Can you expand on this stuff please? Only cos I’m unsure of what you mean.

Snoopy.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste no essential nature,

thank you for the interesting OP.

Originally Posted by No essential nature

According to the common view, essentially the Hindu view, for bad things to happen to good or 'Dharmic' people they must carry a kind of blame, spritual guilt akin to sin in the form of bad karma. Yet obviously the Buddha was supposed to have escaped the wheel or karma - and yet remains a causal agent?

dark karma or negative karma is not a word which is analgous to the Abrahamic concept of sin. they are very, very different things. Buddhas, like Bodhisattvas, produce karma... all intentional thoughts, actions and words do. what they produce, however, is karma which is neither dark nor bright, neither positive or negative which is due to their understanding of Anatta or No-Self.

It seems to me that karma is not in things, but in the experience of things - when the Dalai Lama was asked 'Were you ever in danger while in prison?' he said yes, but only in danger of losing compassion for his guards. Isn't this the point, not ceasing to be causal agents, nor to be unaffected by events, nor for only good things to happen.

a technical point.. it is not karma, per se, that is what one reaps. karma is the sowing of the seed and it is the seed, when matured into the fruit, which is reaped. in Buddhist terminology this is called the Vipaka and it is this which constitutes the experience of both bright and dark karma.

But in becoming more enlightened, to seek the good in all experiences regardless?Experience obviously includes interpreting events, and that is the basis for future action, hence the effect of how we manage the current moments experiences influences future action aswell as experience.

As I see it, only this view that karma is in experiences not events is compatable with a truly external world and with us having free will.

Reaction? Opinions?

i do not believe that humans have anything resembling free will in the way in which this term is commonly understood.

metta,

~v

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Snoopy,

thank you for the post.

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi, er, No?

According to the common view, essentially the Hindu view, for bad things to happen to good or 'Dharmic' people they must carry a kind of blame, spritual guilt akin to sin in the form of bad karma. Yet obviously the Buddha was supposed to have escaped the wheel or karma - and yet remains a causal agent?

I suppose an acceptance of rebirth underlies this? Personally I find that to say “bad” things happen to a “good” person because of stuff that happened in a former life is an insult to that person. It reminds me of the Glenn Hoddle comment about disabled people.

the Suttas relate the Buddhas teaching on this in several different Suttas.. in the Shorter Exposition of Kamma, it is explained in this manner:

1. Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park.

Then Subha the student (brahman), Todeyya's son, went to the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him, and when the courteous and amiable talk was finished, he sat down at one side. When he had done so, Subha the student said to the Blessed One:

2. "Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the condition, why inferiority and superiority are met with among human beings, among mankind? For one meets with short-lived and long-lived people, sick and healthy people, ugly and beautiful people, insignificant and influential people, poor and rich people, low-born and high-born people, stupid and wise people. What is the reason, what is the condition, why superiority and inferiority are met with among human beings, among mankind?"

3. "Student, beings are owners of kammas, heirs of kammas, they have kammas as their progenitor, kammas as their kin, kammas as their homing-place. It is kammas that differentiate beings according to inferiority and superiority."

4. "I do not understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning. It would be good if Master Gotama taught me the Dhamma so that I might understand the detailed meaning of Master Gotama's utterance spoken in brief without expounding the detailed meaning."

at which the Shorter Exposition begins.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a...8.html#shorter

for example:

6. "But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the dissolution of the body, after death, instead of his reappearing in a happy destination, in the heavenly world, he comes to the human state, he is long-lived wherever he is reborn. This is the way that leads to long life, that is to say, to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to lay aside the rod and lay aside the knife, to be considerate and merciful, and to dwell compassionate for the welfare of all living beings."

metta,

~v

[Snoopy]

Hi,

Yes I know of this teaching. It appears to concur with what I said previously so I guess the Buddha and I will have to agree to disagree on this one cos it looks like an insulting line to take IMO.

[moseslmpg]

Vajradhara, what is a kamma? And also, what is the explanation for bad things happening to good people like the Dalai Lama and the Buddha. If the Buddha was outside of karma does that mean he purposefully allowed himself to die?

Snoopy, what's so insulting about karma in past lives affecting this one?

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi,

Yes I know of this teaching. It appears to concur with what I said previously so I guess the Buddha and I will have to agree to disagree on this one cos it looks like an insulting line to take IMO.

That brings to mind the line in the Acintita Sutta about conjecturing about the precise working out of the results of kamma leading to madness and vexation...

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

That brings to mind the line in the Acintita Sutta about conjecturing about the precise working out of the results of kamma leading to madness and vexation...

Who's vexed? Me? Or the person to whom this thinking might be applied? Or are you just trying to stir me up?!

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by moseslmpg

Snoopy, what's so insulting about karma in past lives affecting this one?

Hi,

Imagine I was a wheelchair user (I am not). If someone told me it was because I had been a "bad" being in former live/s, I would be insulted at their ignorance and patronising stupidity. I suspect I would be in a wheelchair because of a debilitating illness or accident. Slightly less ignorant and stupid, I think?

For those that don't know, Glenn Hoddle was the England football coach but was sacked (by the FA) for publicly saying such stuff. Mencap, the UK's largest disability charity, said it "wholeheartedly" supported the FA's decision and branded Hoddle's comments as "dreadful". Sarah Talbot-Williams, Mencap's head of communications, said: "Glenn Hoddle's exit is a victory for fair play in football and among people with learning disabilities. It is only right that the English coach pays a just penalty for comments which caused great offence and fuelled more bigotry to those who already face prejudice."

I can only say I wholeheartedly agree.

Snoopy.

[No essential nature]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi, er, No?

You can call me Nen, though of course, that is not essential.. Ola Snoopy.


I wholeheartedly agree with you about what Glen Hoddle said - and in fact I think it makes no sense, logically aswell as morally. In what sense is someone born braindead, or even without a brain say in the case of some siamese twins, analogous to a developed human? They cannot be said to experience suffering, or indeed anything. If any core essence were reborn into these situations, it would be nothing like what we consider to be a self, soul psyche or essence. There cannot be a linear chain of distinct metaphysical component/s between some eternal past self and a future one (NB the outlook is often given that 'souls' or subjects of rebirth are not created, they have always been - surely there would be an ever decreasing number as they get 'picked off' by enlightenment?). I think the key here is to understand that the self is not an illusion in the sense it doesn't exist, it does - the illusion is about not realising that it is a composite, not a hidden essence.

Another horrible misuse of the concept of karma was in discussion of the Boxing Day Tsunami. the blunt approach is to say they all had it coming, they all did something in a past life or this which meant they should die or suffer loss in the way they did. This position is not tenable imho, except by callous and wrong-thinking people.

As far as I am concerned the Tsunami just happened. It was a precondition of life emerging as we know it on Earth that there be a molten Iron-rich core that defends us from harsh solar and cosmic radiation. Coastlines lines are good places to live. I see the confluence of these as being the result of no individuals past action. We cannot did not and are not responsible for control of the fruit of them any more than we can control the time of our own death - which is to say, we can have an impact. That lies in seeking to take responsibility for what we are responsible for, and wisdom about what we can know. the Tsunami was unexpected, I do not see it as blameworthy that we hadn't prepared more. But we can be ready for the next one.

[Snoopy]

I agree, Nen.

It's as sensible as saying the harvest has failed because we are being punished by God. Or in my case, the bread van's broken down.

Snoopy.

[No essential nature]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Hi, er, No?

You can call me Nen, although of course, that is not essential. Hi Snoopy.

I just wrote a big post about Glen hoddles views, and the way the Boxing Day Tsunami was discussed as resulting from the dead and sufferers past action. But I keep getting logged out and my posts wiped after I try to send them and log back in - now that I am aware though I can act differently..

I think it is morally and logically unsound to hold this outlook. What about people born braindead or without a brain at all as in some siamese twins? was there a link to some specific being? What about embyo's which also never suffer or appear to desire or act with volition? Are there some fixed number of souls forever moving between realms - if so surely they are being 'picked off' by reaching enlightenment (or union with Brahman as Hindu's who actually hold this outlook, as I understand it).

The solution to these it seems to me is to recognise that things like the Tsunami just happen - we needed an iron-rich molten core for life to emerge as we know, and hence the planet is seismically active. Coasts are good places to live and for tourists. The confluence of these is nobodys fault, nor the result of anyones past actions.

[Snoopy]

I agree, Nen.

It's as sensible as saying the harvest has failed because we are being punished by God. Or in my case, the bread van's broken down.

Snoopy.

PS I think we're trapped in a sort of groundhog day loop from which we can only escape when we say EXACTLY the right thing.

Your turn.

[No essential nature]

I forgot to add - echoing the words of the Buddha, surely the key is to seek to accept responsibility for what we are responsible for, and wisdom about what we can know? ("Thus O Brahman, I am awake" - Sutta Nipata)

Originally Posted by Snoopy

Isn't this the point, not ceasing to be causal agents, nor to be unaffected by events, nor for only good things to happen. But in becoming more enlightened, to seek the good in all experiences regardless? Experience obviously includes interpreting events, and that is the basis for future action, hence the effect of how we manage the current moments experiences influences future action as well as experience.

As I see it, only this view that karma is in experiences not events is compatable with a truly external world and with us having free will.

Can you expand on this stuff please? Only cos I’m unsure of what you mean.

Ok, the external world bit. it is common in Buddhism to deny that the world really exists - and to support this reference is made to it having no essential nature/s. However, this just renames a convincing appearance of the world as a part of your/our/the consciousness without explaining anything (with reference to Occams razor, this is multiplying entities). We can ascertain that many things we think about the world are wrong, and contain bias or ignorance, but on the basis of patterns alone we can say many things (arguably this is the essence of what science is), principally that its not arbitrary. To believe that every act is the cause and result of karma removes any free agent, and also any non-karmic thing - there is only mind which is not free or responsible. Not a useful or sound outlook imo, nor substantiated by (much, it is adiverse body) Buddhist doctrine.

Free-will depends to my mind on much the same argument. Yes we can look at many apects of constraint on us and our lives. Yet, there is a part of us which cannot be coerced, even by tourture or any physical act. Much that we think and understand about our selves may be -or is being- coerced. Yet only a fraction need remain and we have free-will. It cannot be settled by any observation except ones own, for oneself, so the question that should be asked is, what purpose does the idea of free-will serve, and what the idea that we do not?

[No essential nature]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

i do not believe that humans have anything resembling free will in the way in which this term is commonly understood.

Then please, by all means define your terms.