Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why do you call it a western view? I've always thought about karma as something born more from an eastern origin. As most descriptions or definitions of karma typically confirm. Like this from Wikipedia for example...
"Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/, from Sanskrit: कर्म, IPA: [ˈkɐɾmɐ] (listen); Pali: kamma) is a concept of action, work or deed, and its effect or consequences. In Indian religions, the term more specifically refers to a principle of cause and effect, often descriptively called the principle of karma, wherein intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect): Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths. As per some scripture, there is no link of rebirths with karma. Karma is often misunderstood as fate, destiny, or predetermination.
The concept of karma is closely associated with the idea of rebirth in many schools of Indian religions (particularly in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism), as well as Taoism. In these schools, karma in the present affects one's future in the current life, as well as the nature and quality of future lives—one's saṃsāra. This concept has also been adopted in Western popular culture, in which the events that happen after a person's actions may be considered natural consequences of those actions.
Some authors state that the samsara (transmigration) and karma doctrine may be non-Vedic, and the ideas may have developed in the "shramana" traditions that preceded Buddhism and Jainism. Others state that some of the complex ideas of the ancient emerging theory of karma flowed from Vedic thinkers to Buddhist and Jain thinkers. The mutual influences between the traditions is unclear, and likely co-developed.
Many philosophical debates surrounding the concept are shared by the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions, and the early developments in each tradition incorporated different novel ideas. For example, Buddhists allowed karma transfer from one person to another and sraddha rites, but had difficulty defending the rationale. In contrast, Hindu schools and Jainism would not allow the possibility of karma transfer.
All I will say is, I started this thread to discuss my own personal views of karma. I don't give a flying fig about a religion that has all sorts of fantastical gods (Hinduism) and how such minds interpret karma. And even within Buddhism, I don't believe much of what is Buddhist thought. And just for example, Thai Buddhists tend to believe that if you see a man with no legs and leprosy, laying on a wooden board with wheels rolling around the sidewalks of Bangkok begging for food and water that that must be karma due to something bad he did in this life or seven lifetimes ago; sorry, no, I don't believe that. But again, that's why I made it clear in the OP that I was discussing my thoughts on karma.
All I will say is, I started this thread to discuss my own personal views of karma. I don't give a flying fig about a religion that has all sorts of fantastical gods (Hinduism) and how such minds interpret karma. And even within Buddhism, I don't believe much of what is Buddhist thought. And just for example, Thai Buddhists tend to believe that if you see a man with no legs and leprosy, laying on a wooden board with wheels rolling around the sidewalks of Bangkok begging for food and water that that must be karma due to something bad he did in this life or seven lifetimes ago; sorry, no, I don't believe that. But again, that's why I made it clear in the OP that I was discussing my thoughts on karma.
I always find it interesting when people decide to define certain words or concepts in their own way, and when that's done as you attest, at least you make clear where you are coming from. Regardless what might be more commonly understood and accepted definitions. You certainly have that prerogative in any case. What you also further explain is why I respect much in the way of Buddhist teachings but cannot claim to be a Buddhist. To my way of thinking, you can't claim to be a follower of any religion if you reject some of it's most fundamental canons. Though I know many people tend to "pick and choose" from their religion as if at a religious smorgasbord. I get that too, but I'd rather just say I respect Buddhism. I just can't claim to be a Buddhist. Not a good or "pure" one anyway.
Or maybe to be more clear about such a thing, I should claim to be a Buddhist lite. Which is more than I am inclined to claim far as me and any other religion is concerned...
I always find it interesting when people decide to define certain words or concepts in their own way, and when that's done as you attest, at least you make clear where you are coming from. Regardless what might be more commonly understood and accepted definitions. You certainly have that prerogative in any case. What you also further explain is why I respect much in the way of Buddhist teachings but cannot claim to be a Buddhist. To my way of thinking, you can't claim to be a follower of any religion if you reject some of it's most fundamental canons. Though I know many people tend to "pick and choose" from their religion as if at a religious smorgasbord. I get that too, but I'd rather just say I respect Buddhism. I just can't claim to be a Buddhist. Not a good or "pure" one anyway.
Or maybe to be more clear about such a thing, I should claim to be a Buddhist lite. Which is more than I am inclined to claim far as me and any other religion is concerned...
One of the differences between Buddhism and, let's say christianity, is that in Buddhism there is nothing that you MUST believe or else. Buddha set out principles that made only one promise to people -- if you do these things, if you live by these principles, you will reduce or eliminate your suffering. Humans -- as they always do -- later added a lot to that. Buddhism allows, in fact even encourages, indpendent thinking. Buddha supposedly said something along the lines of: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
That is so much different than going into many christian churches where in each service you are expected to recite a creed...such as..."We believe in god, the father almighty. Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen...". You won't find that kind of thinking in real Buddhist thought.
One of the differences between Buddhism and, let's say christianity, is that in Buddhism there is nothing that you MUST believe or else. Buddha set out principles that made only one promise to people -- if you do these things, if you live by these principles, you will reduce or eliminate your suffering. Humans -- as they always do -- later added a lot to that. Buddhism allows, in fact even encourages, indpendent thinking. Buddha supposedly said something along the lines of: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
That is so much different than going into many christian churches where in each service you are expected to recite a creed...such as..."We believe in god, the father almighty. Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen...". You won't find that kind of thinking in real Buddhist thought.
Such wise words, and sane. Common sense. People should not have to be told these things.
You're not kidding, those are fightin' words for christians.
One of the differences between Buddhism and, let's say christianity, is that in Buddhism there is nothing that you MUST believe or else. Buddha set out principles that made only one promise to people -- if you do these things, if you live by these principles, you will reduce or eliminate your suffering. Humans -- as they always do -- later added a lot to that. Buddhism allows, in fact even encourages, indpendent thinking. Buddha supposedly said something along the lines of: “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
That is so much different than going into many christian churches where in each service you are expected to recite a creed...such as..."We believe in god, the father almighty. Maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is seen and unseen...". You won't find that kind of thinking in real Buddhist thought.
Reminds me a bit of this quote I often post in this forum...
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"Humans -- as they always do -- later added a lot to that." Is any of this other than human?
Quite frankly, you do a lot of comparing to Christianity. Doing so seems like using a pretty low bar when considering the differences with Buddhism. Most certainly with respect to independent thinking for example. Again in part the reason that if I were to follow a religion, it would be Buddhism LONG before any of the others. The others are really not in the same league.
Reminds me a bit of this quote I often post in this forum...
"I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions, I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times."
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
--Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.
"Humans -- as they always do -- later added a lot to that." Is any of this other than human?
Quite frankly, you do a lot of comparing to Christianity. Doing so seems like using a pretty low bar when considering the differences with Buddhism. Most certainly with respect to independent thinking for example. Again in part the reason that if I were to follow a religion, it would be Buddhism LONG before any of the others. The others are really not in the same league.
Thanks for the Jefferson quote. Despite his racial imperfections, he's one of my "heroes" (for wont of a better term).
While I've always enjoyed the concept of free thought within Buddhism, it never really occured to me before that perhaps that's what I found most attractive to Buddhism -- a 'home' or an 'environment' where free thought is actually encourage...a base from which to think freely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
