On the concept of karma

I assume I am not knowledgeable enough, thus it is easy for me to demonstrate ignorance o unawareness in initiating this thread, but I do struggle trying to understand in concept (no matter how abstract and generalized), how the idea of karma, commonly accepted by certain religions, disciplines and belief systems, has any ground in our world, when a deed that is done with good intentions may very well lead to an adverse effect on our bystanders? What is meant to be done for a good purpose sometimes may have an opposite outcome, either by the matter of accident or our own misperception. How can we judge whether our deeds have appropriate causes and results, if it always comes from subjective views? Thus, I ask, does the concept of karma has any truth to it in such case.

I suppose that the main point about karma is to discover it and try to get out of its design. Karma is a notion based on the belief in reincarnation. So, if one can remember his or her previous lives, he (or she) discovers the reason why has he been reincarnated. As soon as he gets to know it, he is free from further incarnations and goes to the next level of spiritual development.

Thank you for the reply.

I do understand your point about the necessity of having to come together with your past incarnations in order to maximize the information of causes that led you to the current design of your existence.

Nonetheless, it is often said that to comprehend your past lives, it is well enough for you to have to look at what you have in your current life. To quote Buddha, "If you want to know your past life, look into your present condition; if you want to know your future life, look at your present actions."

Besides, it is also implied that, even though the awareness of karma and the causes and effects that your soul has experienced throughout all the lives is a significant step, it does not guarantee one will be able to release self from the vicious circle. To do so, one has to change his views, attitude and way of living. To put it simply, bad things will continue to prevail in one's life, if he/she does not preserve self and do good regardless of any selfish interest. Only then, the karma may revamp in its treatment of the soul's possessor.

And, yet, the question I am addressing is how to know whether the act you carry for good intentions will not have an adverse effect on your bystander? Where shall that objective judgement come? And, if it doesn't, won't the entire concept of karma tremendously lose its ground in our comprehension? Although I am interested in the idea of something like karma, I believe it perhaps may lack from not putting enough emphasis on the aspect of 'intention' ion the cause-effect relationship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy the Poet

Thank you for the reply.


And, yet, the question I am addressing is how to know whether the act you carry for good intentions will not have an adverse effect on your bystander? Where shall that objective judgement come? And, if it doesn't, won't the entire concept of karma tremendously lose its ground in our comprehension? Although I am interested in the idea of something like karma, I believe it perhaps may lack from not putting enough emphasis on the aspect of 'intention' ion the cause-effect relationship.

---

From my understanding, the effect of karma on you depends upon your intention. For example that same physical act - hitting someone - will be negative if the motivation is to hurt through anger, but will be positive if your intention was to stop the person hurting someone else.

So if you do something - your intention will be what affects you. How things affect others depends upon their karma. It is very complex though, and, in Buddhism, only extreme acts of anger or compassion such as taking or saving a life will ripen in this life.

Also, there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paulclem

From my understanding, the effect of karma on you depends upon your intention. For example that same physical act - hitting someone - will be negative if the motivation is to hurt through anger, but will be positive if your intention was to stop the person hurting someone else.

So if you do something - your intention will be what affects you. How things affect others depends upon their karma. It is very complex though, and, in Buddhism, only extreme acts of anger or compassion such as taking or saving a life will ripen in this life.

Also, there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism.

---

Thank you for the insight. As I understand it, we shall be responsible for our intentions only and not the effects our actions, influenced by our intentions, may have on others? In such way, may it actually seem rather ignorant on our behalf to stress little the importance of questioning our intentions, if we believe we are doing the right thing, regardless of the adverse effect it may have on our bystanders? Won't it be ignorant?

Or, for instance, a man decides to adopt a homeless child in his three-children family in order to do good to the child's future. Nonetheless, his other children and especially his wife may bear the consequences of his decision, especially if the child happens to be sick. I am not sure if this is actually a good example. The other one would be, if I decide to save the person's life and only later find out in the news the same person robbed and murdered a relative of mine, what is there to say? Am I still responsible for the series of events? Or, if not, shouldn't I feel bad about what I did, nevertheless? Should I regret perhaps saving that person's life? Should I wish he was killed that time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy the Poet

Thank you for the insight. As I understand it, we shall be responsible for our intentions only and not the effects our actions, influenced by our intentions, may have on others? In such way, may it actually seem rather ignorant on our behalf to stress little the importance of questioning our intentions, if we believe we are doing the right thing, regardless of the adverse effect it may have on our bystanders? Won't it be ignorant?

Or, for instance, a man decides to adopt a homeless child in his three-children family in order to do good to the child's future. Nonetheless, his other children and especially his wife may bear the consequences of his decision, especially if the child happens to be sick. I am not sure if this is actually a good example. The other one would be, if I decide to save the person's life and only later find out in the news the same person robbed and murdered a relative of mine, what is there to say? Am I still responsible for the series of events? Or, if not, shouldn't I feel bad about what I did, nevertheless? Should I regret perhaps saving that person's life? Should I wish he was killed that time?

---

Statements like "I believe I am doing the right thing" in the face of a problem or criticism may be based in egotism and self regard. They may not be, and it might be the right thing. Karma is a difficult concept to lay hard and fast rules as the situations we come across are complex and none are standard. You can only act with the best intentions with an appreciation of your own inner state. Self aggrandizement or sincerity? We have to take others into account of course, and, for example, what might appear to be the right thing - regularly attending a meditation class to improve oneself - may actually be a bad thing as you leave your over stressed partner to look after the kids for another night.

Things like saving people's lives can only be a good thing. We can't tell the future, and if that person turns on the family, then that is most unfortunate, but who could blame a blameless act in retrospect?

Karma is very difficult to grasp, except for PaulClem.

Well put, Paulclem, I do agree with you here.

I still wonder, nevertheless, how does karma treat those that commit suicide in teh face of inability to bear living the life of pain. In the first place, why does karma lead those that brought so much good in this world to the dead end. Take David Foster Wallace or Sylvia Plath, both prominent figures in the modern literature, who took their lives in perhaps the most difficult struggles anyone ever faces in his/her life. And, for instance, we can say that Wallace possessed a great deal of compassion in him and did emphasize the importance of serving community. It is devastating to know that horrendous things may happen to those who would deserve it the least. Is it possible to explain this within the framework of karma?

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

---

Thanks, free. I am very curious as for Christians having accepted reincarnation at some point before changing to heaven/hell. Since I am interested in the notion of possible merging of Christian views and teachings with the Buddhist (particularly, the idea of afterlife), I would much appreciate if you could provide me with the source.

As for your earlier point, I have to say that religion is often confused, as it may represent several areas and practices. I can assume from your post that you refer to religion as an established institution, especially considering the Church, in your comment about preachers and followers. Interestingly, it is in the Bible that Jesus often talked about authority and its adverse impact on the people. He asked not to follow pharisees, as they are liars and hypocrites in his eyes. He also often talked against the necessity of establishment for the purpose of maintaining faith in society. Basically, he was implying there was no need for any authority other than God. Even though my knowledge of Buddhist texts is still lacking, from what I have read so far, especially in the biography of Buddha, it is possible to find correlation between his and Jesus's views, especially in regards to freedom and compassion.

Another question I have is, does the mere intention behind each of your 'good' deed has any impact on your good karma and consequent reincarnation, if the intention itself is to either improve your karma or be born in better existence? In other words, isn't such intention considered selfish? And, if yes, may it still count in your advancement in karma?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

Karma is very difficult to grasp, except for PaulClem.

---

:lol: I wish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy the Poet

I still wonder, nevertheless, how does karma treat those that commit suicide in teh face of inability to bear living the life of pain. In the first place, why does karma lead those that brought so much good in this world to the dead end. Take David Foster Wallace or Sylvia Plath, both prominent figures in the modern literature, who took their lives in perhaps the most difficult struggles anyone ever faces in his/her life. And, for instance, we can say that Wallace possessed a great deal of compassion in him and did emphasize the importance of serving community. It is devastating to know that horrendous things may happen to those who would deserve it the least. Is it possible to explain this within the framework of karma?

---

It is said that suicide merely removes the cause of the suffering and the person will still be reborn to it. It seems very cruel, but remember the karma was generated by them, and by us all, in past lives. I've heard it described as a field where the seeds of karma from our past lives are sown, and we then create the conditions for that karma to ripen in the next life. That coud explain why good people die young sometimes, and bad people appear to benefit from their nefariousness. What happens in the next life is what counts to them though when they die. Good person - despite dying young - has created good conditions. Bad person - despite living longer - has created bad conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free

From my point of view, karma is a concept that has been taken into the budhistic religion and adjusted to fit the religion's interest. I think that every religion is invented to make good life for those who preach it on the expence of those who follow it. Something like a company that employs workers for the purpose of exploitation. That is, the profit is taken by owners, while the workers work hard for little money - unless they become one of the bosses. Only the reincarnation process might be something that is real (I've read somewhere that even the Bible used to accept reincarnation as reality, later on it was changed into what it preaches today), all the rest is a construction of the religion's initiatiors to fit their interests.

I hope I am not insulting the believers, this is how it looks to me.

---

The Buddha gave up a life as a Prince to become a wandering teacher. Your explanation does not make sense in this context.

Monks and Nuns are not allowed - traditionally - to own property or handle money. In practice in the West, this is unrealistic, as people have to pay their way and there isn't the patronage of wealthy supporters to sustain them. I don't see a lot of profit going around. How is this used? You don't see Monks and Nuns living it up.

The Buddhist explanation of Karma is very different from Hinduism. Also reincarnation is also present in Hinduism, but it too is very different from the Hindu conception. Th reality of reincarnation is only positive in terms of allowing a being to travel along the path to enlightenment. Reincarnation per se - which has been going on since beginningless time - is not a good thing. The aim of The Buddha is to teach beings how to escape from the rounds of rebirth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Billy the Poet

Another question I have is, does the mere intention behind each of your 'good' deed has any impact on your good karma and consequent reincarnation, if the intention itself is to either improve your karma or be born in better existence? In other words, isn't such intention considered selfish? And, if yes, may it still count in your advancement in karma?

---

With that logic, seeking enlightenment itself could be considered selfish. The fact is though that to achieve enlightenment, a being has to nurture many qualities in themselves and rid themselves of negative traits. One such trait to nurture is compassion - an antidote to selfishness.