On the concept of karma

[free]

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.

I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you where have I found it. Somewhere on the internet, but... can't tell you where, maybe some forum or something like that.

Yes, their words (the recorded words of religions establishers) are very tricky and ambiguous. So, it is all left upon the people who transmit them to change them as they like it according to their own interests and, on that road, to abuse them, too.

I am sure that there are those, as Paul says below, who are really devoted to pure religious aims, of course.

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.

As for reincarnation, I think that it is a very good thing (IF IT IS TRUE), at least from my point of view. Of course, everybody is free to have their own opinions. I respect and understand it.

[Billy the Poet]

I am very sorry, but I cannot tell you where have I found it. Somewhere on the internet, but... can't tell you where, maybe some forum or something like that.

Yes, their words (the recorded words of religions establishers) are very tricky and ambiguous. So, it is all left upon the people who transmit them to change them as they like it according to their own interests and, on that road, to abuse them, too.

I am sure that there are those, as Paul says below, who are really devoted to pure religious aims, of course.

I am afraid the main problem is that people themselves do not know whom to beware of or blame in their shortcomings. If we take religion, it is common these days to blame it for many problems. Nonetheless, the majority seems rather ignorant and irrational for they actually blame authority, institution and people within that institution, instead of religion, while still refering to religion. In other words, it is much easier to address your problems to some invisible and yet ubiquitous idea or force, instead of people themselves who are in charge.

To add, if one did indeed read the whole Bible, for instance, and took it not simply for a rleigious text, but an account, then his argument would have had a greater weight in my eyes. Unfortuantely, seldom this is the case.

[Billy the Poet]

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.

But, would you say suicide is given less contempt in Buddhism than say in Abhramic religions? I remember reading about a mediator called Godhika, who was given an approval (as I recall) by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion.

I do find it astonishing that, if reincarnation does occur to all of us, what would most famous and prominent figures that died young, often as a result of suicide, could do in their past lives to be given such an uneven fate that led them to both recognition and self-destruction. Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?

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.

But, what if compassion is present in a person and while he applied it in most circumstances, one of the driving motivation of his may be to attain enlightenment through helping others. It is like selfish selflessness. If this still would be a product of egoism, wouldn't Buddha and the rest of his followers have been likewise called selfish, since they did things for their and bystanders' benefit in order to advance in their progression toward enlightenment? In a similar way, a normal human being takes similar actions (perhaps more directed at helping society in general than, say, mediatting self's soul) in order to improve the quality fo life in general, while also intentionally paving the way to own progression. Does it make sense?

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.

And, yet, is recincarnation natural and inevitable process we all go through? Does it mean one's advancement is unattainable without having to go through suffering?

[free]

We cannot talk seriously about something that we don't know whether it is truth or not. Discussions based on 'I suppose' or 'I believe' are not very fruitful, are they?

[Billy the Poet]

Not really. What we are having here is a normal discussion of the laws of karma and questions specifically addressed to its impact on our afterlife. I sense little opinion here, but more and more insights produced by our perception of what karma represents by itself.

[Paulclem]

As for reincarnation, I think that it is a very good thing (IF IT IS TRUE), at least from my point of view. Of course, everybody is free to have their own opinions. I respect and understand it.

The Buddhist conception of reincarnation is not a comfortable idea - the aim is to escape rebirth. Reincarnation in the Buddhist sense postulates he idea that all beings are reincarnated - humans, animals, fish, insects, other beings. Only very few of these incarnations are positive. Just imagine being reborn as a fish, or a rabbit - no prospect of improving one's lot, just inevitable sickness and death if you are not eaten by something else, until the negative karma that landed you in that state runs out.

[Paulclem]

But, would you say suicide is given less contempt in Buddhism than say in Abhramic religions? I remember reading about a mediator called Godhika, who was given an approval (as I recall) by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion.

I'm not familiar with the story, and I couldn't find a reference to it on the internet, but suicide, whilst not considered a sin, is not encouraged. It merely tries to escape from suffering which will return to the sufferer due to karma. On the other hand, anyone who is, or has tried suicide would be considered with compassion.

by Buddha to commit suicide in order to relieve his body from suffering, since he had already attained enlightenment by that time. Very interesting, in my opinion

This does not read correctly. An Enlightened person would not experience the suffering of the body in the same way as an ordinary person. As I said, I couldn't find it referred to on the internet. Have you got a link?

I do find it astonishing that, if reincarnation does occur to all of us, what would most famous and prominent figures that died young, often as a result of suicide, could do in their past lives to be given such an uneven fate that led them to both recognition and self-destruction. Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?

As I said, Karma is very complex, and it is impossible to comment upon an individual. In general though, an individual has a precious human life with which to do good or bad. I don't make the connection with famous and prominent and good necessarily.

Can certain negative emotions accumulate in such a great depth over several lives that they take over the control of some souls' degrading?

It's much more complex than that. it is said that we have the accumulated good and bad karma from countless lives, and that we can't know what will ripen at any one time. We may have reborn into a positive human life, but if we are not careful, we could generate the karma to become an animal in the next. So yes - negative karma has already accumulated, and it depends upon our conduct as to what else may ripen.

Just to note that there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism. There is such a concept in Hinduism - the Atman.

But, what if compassion is present in a person and while he applied it in most circumstances, one of the driving motivation of his may be to attain enlightenment through helping others. It is like selfish selflessness. If this still would be a product of egoism, wouldn't Buddha and the rest of his followers have been likewise called selfish, since they did things for their and bystanders' benefit in order to advance in their progression toward enlightenment? In a similar way, a normal human being takes similar actions (perhaps more directed at helping society in general than, say, mediatting self's soul) in order to improve the quality fo life in general, while also intentionally paving the way to own progression. Does it make sense?

His Holiness The Dalai Lama has often given this advice. If you are going to be selfish - do it skilfully. What he means is that if you are a horrible person, then people are generally horrible, unhelpful or aggressive to you. if you are kind and helpful, then most people are generally kind and helpful back. He says this is skilful selfishness, and implies a self interest in your spiritual demeanour. At first if you try to change your behaviour it seems false and you are self conscious, but with practice this forms a positive habit which will become a second nature and much more natural. If a person acts in this, then they are in effect training themselves to be kind and helpful. You have to start somewhere.

And, yet, is recincarnation natural and inevitable process we all go through? Does it mean one's advancement is unattainable without having to go through suffering?

Yes - it is said to happen to all beings. And yes, without gaining a precious human life, advancement is virtually impossible. That means that we have to endure the suffering of the body in order to practice. Even the Buddha had to do this. In fact, without the right balance of a capacity to understand and suffering, it is said that there is no way out. That's because more comfortable realms - like the God realm - are too full of pleasure and too distracting to encourage a practitioner to practice, whilst the suffering of the lower realms are said to be too great to afford the opportunity to practice.

[Paulclem]

We cannot talk seriously about something that we don't know whether it is truth or not. Discussions based on 'I suppose' or 'I believe' are not very fruitful, are they?

There is a logic to a Buddhist's belief in that if the part of the path they are on works - the meditation produces results that are described etc - then it is logically likely that the further teachings are also correct. In the same way you can trust a sat nav that gets you from Leeds to London, to take you further to Southampton.

I'm also stating things I've studied, heard from Buddhist teachers and read about Buddhism. So yes, I think we can fruitfully talk about such concepts, and that it is useful to do so.

[free]

I am not a Buddhist, and, as I said above, the religions founders only pass over things about life that they experienced. Very personal and very much subject to vitiation, deformation, abuse...

[Billy the Poet]

I'm not familiar with the story, and I couldn't find a reference to it on the internet, but suicide, whilst not considered a sin, is not encouraged. It merely tries to escape from suffering which will return to the sufferer due to karma. On the other hand, anyone who is, or has tried suicide would be considered with compassion.

This does not read correctly. An Enlightened person would not experience the suffering of the body in the same way as an ordinary person. As I said, I couldn't find it referred to on the internet. Have you got a link?

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Did you try googling a combination of "buddhism", "suicide" and "godhika"? I do have the links below:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pal...godhika_th.htm

http://suttanta.tripod.com/khuddhaka...da/dha043.html

There is also a similar case of Chana:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Channovada_Sutta

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.

As I said, Karma is very complex, and it is impossible to comment upon an individual. In general though, an individual has a precious human life with which to do good or bad. I don't make the connection with famous and prominent and good necessarily.

It's much more complex than that. it is said that we have the accumulated good and bad karma from countless lives, and that we can't know what will ripen at any one time. We may have reborn into a positive human life, but if we are not careful, we could generate the karma to become an animal in the next. So yes - negative karma has already accumulated, and it depends upon our conduct as to what else may ripen.

Just to note that there is no notion of a soul in Buddhism. There is such a concept in Hinduism - the Atman.

I do agree that the very fact that we are right now in the human form of reincarnation gives us more room for improvement and development compared to other, lower forms. Besides, among them, human is the one that gives us the most empowerment over decisions that will directly or indirectly affect the rest of beings and disposition of events.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

It can also be that one would be born in the negative circumstances, but later progress to impove his conditions. In this case, I would like to ask if there is a concept of fate or destiny or anything else related to it in Buddhism?

And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.

His Holiness The Dalai Lama has often given this advice. If you are going to be selfish - do it skilfully. What he means is that if you are a horrible person, then people are generally horrible, unhelpful or aggressive to you. if you are kind and helpful, then most people are generally kind and helpful back. He says this is skilful selfishness, and implies a self interest in your spiritual demeanour. At first if you try to change your behaviour it seems false and you are self conscious, but with practice this forms a positive habit which will become a second nature and much more natural. If a person acts in this, then they are in effect training themselves to be kind and helpful. You have to start somewhere.

So, as I understand, it is normal for one to be putting his enlightenment before all the rest in doing good to others, if he/she is only in the beggining stage of training self's behavior? And, so naturally this training may grow to become a natural attitude and likewise the person's ultimate goal will also become to serve others. Do I get it all right?

Yes - it is said to happen to all beings. And yes, without gaining a precious human life, advancement is virtually impossible. That means that we have to endure the suffering of the body in order to practice. Even the Buddha had to do this. In fact, without the right balance of a capacity to understand and suffering, it is said that there is no way out. That's because more comfortable realms - like the God realm - are too full of pleasure and too distracting to encourage a practitioner to practice, whilst the suffering of the lower realms are said to be too great to afford the opportunity to practice.

Well, we can say that, in our current and previous, lower life forms, suffering, especially in its perhaps extreme forms, not only happens to our physical bodies, but also to our inner pains and unpleasant personal experiences. According to the Buddhist teachings, do we also carry these along to the realm of enlightenment? Or, we fully abandon everything that is of this world and let ourselves be free, including from our memories of the lives we have had? Can one downgrade from the enlightenment realm back to lower life form, if he/she overindulges in these pleasures? Or, this is no more a case?

[Billy the Poet]

There is a logic to a Buddhist's belief in that if the part of the path they are on works - the meditation produces results that are described etc - then it is logically likely that the further teachings are also correct. In the same way you can trust a sat nav that gets you from Leeds to London, to take you further to Southampton.

I'm also stating things I've studied, heard from Buddhist teachers and read about Buddhism. So yes, I think we can fruitfully talk about such concepts, and that it is useful to do so.

I agree with you, Paulclem. In fact, I am very thankful to your replies and all the information you provide. Realy gets me thinking about taking a course in Buddhism eventually (when it will be finally offered).

[Paulclem]

I am not a Buddhist, and, as I said above, the religions founders only pass over things about life that they experienced. Very personal and very much subject to vitiation, deformation, abuse...

The Buddha had 45 years in which to expound his experiences after he achieved enlightenment. The uptake of the religion by different cultures seems to me to indicate tat many different people can connect with and benefit from the religion. Do you have any examples of where you think vitiation, deformation and abuse may have occurred?

[Paulclem]

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Did you try googling a combination of "buddhism", "suicide" and "godhika"? I do have the links below:

http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/suicide.html

http://www.palikanon.com/english/pal...godhika_th.htm

http://suttanta.tripod.com/khuddhaka...da/dha043.html

There is also a similar case of Chana:

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Channovada_Sutta

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.



I do agree that the very fact that we are right now in the human form of reincarnation gives us more room for improvement and development compared to other, lower forms. Besides, among them, human is the one that gives us the most empowerment over decisions that will directly or indirectly affect the rest of beings and disposition of events.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

It can also be that one would be born in the negative circumstances, but later progress to impove his conditions. In this case, I would like to ask if there is a concept of fate or destiny or anything else related to it in Buddhism?

And, if there is no notion of soul in Buddhism, what is it that we describe our own selves that undergo numerous live forms in the quest for ultimate enlightenment?

Lastly, I do remember reading, although that was a while ago, that in Hinduism there are three states of mind that, in the context of karma, may predominate in one's life. Upon these three states, it can be judged whether a person may experience the results of his actions (karma) immediately and within short period of time, or later after years, or even only in the subsequent lives. The first would enjoy the most of karma, as it will quickly teach and direct him/her to understanding the consequences of his actions and learn to improve upon recognizing the patterns of good and bag behavior-experience. The other two are less desirable, but more common, when a person does wrong, but bears consequences only later in his/her life or not even until the next life. Does a similar idea exist within the framework of Buddhism? And, if not, does it mean that karma that happens to one immediately has no difference from the karma that takes place only in next life form? I believe all this matters, because, in the end, it is time that teaches one and the shorter it takes for bad karma to realize itself, the faster will one begin questioning self and start learning from his mistakes. This is rather analogous to any lab experiment that tests one's behavior and defines what procedures in what time frame are necessary to invoke the desired response in the subject.



So, as I understand, it is normal for one to be putting his enlightenment before all the rest in doing good to others, if he/she is only in the beggining stage of training self's behavior? And, so naturally this training may grow to become a natural attitude and likewise the person's ultimate goal will also become to serve others. Do I get it all right?



Well, we can say that, in our current and previous, lower life forms, suffering, especially in its perhaps extreme forms, not only happens to our physical bodies, but also to our inner pains and unpleasant personal experiences. According to the Buddhist teachings, do we also carry these along to the realm of enlightenment? Or, we fully abandon everything that is of this world and let ourselves be free, including from our memories of the lives we have had? Can one downgrade from the enlightenment realm back to lower life form, if he/she overindulges in these pleasures? Or, this is no more a case?

As you say, suicide, although not encouraged, is still not a sin or viewed negatively to the degree at which it is in other religions, particularly the Abhramic ones. However, it is still possible, under certain circumstances, for one to suffer and yet experience enlightenment.

Godhika is prominent for he was a very devoted monk of 'advanced level' and came close to achieving enlightenment, but his body was deteriorating much faster and thus pain did not let him proceed with his mediation. After Godhikka murdered himself, Siddhartha Buddha arrived at the scene and proclaimed he had attained Nibbana, nevertheless. No subsequent incarnations of Godhikka took place, according to sources.

Thanks for the link. I hadn't used those terms.

So, this may put one in doubt how true is enlightenment and all the practices that lead to it. On the other hand, it may only validate otherwise that, in one's quest for enlightenment, body really weights nothing, which again strengthens all the initial points in Buddhism.

The human life and body are regarded as precious as they are the vehicle to enlightenment, and though the aim is to leave reincarnation behind, the body must be carefully nurtured and protected. It is an opportunity and a tool for advancement, and so from that perspective is precious.

And, then again, it is very rarely when one is reborn in a fully positive human life and the other - in the fully negative. More than often the case is of mixed nature. And, as may be experienced by most of us at least once in a while, good things don't happen without bad ones. A day may encompass so much positive and negative together that it could serve as a synecdoche to entire lifetime.

I wouldn't say rarely. Consider those unfortunates who are born into wartime, famine, natural disasters or poverty. None of these things are conducive to spiritual practice, though the experience may serve the person well if they are able to improve their conditions.

I'll write more when I have time. Busy, busy!

[Billy the Poet]

I am certainly looking forward to it. Will wait to sum up all points

[Billy the Poet]

I do have another question. From your knowledge and experience, what would you say is the way for one to change certain patterns in his life that are signified by karma from past lives? In other words, what to do to improve (aside from meditation; something more active)? For instance, what if one has a problem of having continuously encountered really undesired and unpleasant company in his life due to perhaps karma carried on from the past lives. Thus, he/she doesn't really like the circle of friends/relatives/acquaintances he has to cope with and cannot change anything, because once he/she is out of circle and joins another, the same group of qualities this circle will possess. What would the person have to do in order to change his/her circle or surrounding, if he/she neither can escape it nor stay within it?