On the concept of karma

[cafolini]

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?

It can be done, but it's very tough.
That's why:

Watch your thoughts, for they become words.
Watch your words, for they become actions.
Watch your actions, for they become habits.
Watch your habits, for they become character.
Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny."


-Unknown

[Sascha Germer]

For me at least, the concept of Karma has always served as a strong reminder that everything you do in your life will affect other people.

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?

These are the fuzzy thoughts of a newbie to this forum.^^

[cafolini]

For me at least, the concept of Karma has always served as a strong reminder that everything you do in your life will affect other people.

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?

These are the fuzzy thoughts of a newbie to this forum.^^

Karma is a concept pretty similar to inertia, i.e., a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion unless an external force acts on it. Unchecked karma is your character and that is your destiny.
You cannot be concerned about your effect on other people because your karma will inevitably take you to have an effect you cannot control unless you get rid of the karma. In the west, the idea of being born again is an equivalent. It is nihilistic against false values, i.e., those you carry around by the inertia of your character, your unchecked destiny. Once you have fabricated a bad karma, you need a lot of suffering to get rid of it because all the references you have, on your own, come from within yourself. You need a psychologist to reveal you. That's called therapy. You need a teacher, and the real problem is how do you know that the karma of the teacher is a good karma. You don't. You have to risk.

[Paulclem]

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?

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?

There's no notion of a soul on the basis of its unfindability. Today you hear the word soul bandied, but I wonder what people think it means. I presume they think of something like spirit combined with some psychological element in phrases like "deep in my soul" etc. The Buddha in his meditations and teachings did not find a soul, but rather developed the notion of not self. This is based upon the idea that our postulated sense of I or self has no inherent reality, but is a convenient construction upon which we project a sense of I. This begs the question - what sense of we - and this would be the mind which perceives the body and aspects of personality and names them the I or self. It is a hard idea to take, I think, in our world of individualism and the cult of the individual to say that the individual has no deeper meaning beyond the context of a life - especially considering reincarnation. With some thought, though, it makes the theory of reincarnation work better - how could a self, and individual, a soul deal with rebirth as an insect? The idea that "you" dissolve like the body fits this model.

the quest for ultimate enlightenment

Your statement suggests that there is an inherent quest within a being, which I think is not present. I think strong spiritual wishes backed by positive karma will project a being into a positive life where they can advance upon a spiritual path, but this is rare, and requires the being already have some acquaintance with the spiritual path.

There are different schools of Buddhism, though, and different emphases and explanations for non-self.

[Paulclem]

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.

I think the karma a being creates in this life will apply to future lives, and that the karma experienced in this life is the result of past lives. That does explain why bad people sometimes seem to succeed whilst good people don't.

Bad karma can be purified by spiritual practices and dedicating good deeds. The extent of a person's karma is vast though - they will have the accumulated and multiplied karma of countless lives, and it depends upon what is nurtured. Karma is purified when it takes effect upon you and ends, or it is purified through spiritual practice.

[Paulclem]

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).

My pleasure. I only know what I've read and heard though, and so you should check whatever is important.

[Paulclem]

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?

The situation you describe - of people displaying similar negative qualities - seems quite specific, but it suggests that the person concerned is the cause of the problem. Cafolini's quote is useful, because if this is the case that the person is creating the problems for themselves, then it will take careful observation of what they say and do, and how they react to, or manage social situations. Self awareness is the key, but this takes time, perhaps introspection and meditation, but certainly a truthful review of how the person engages and sustains relationships. A situation I have occasionally observed - when younger - was of a young girl eliciting the same response from male members in different groups. I think it was a lack of awareness and also learned behaviours that caused these reactions. (It was nothing serious - just inappropriate flirting etc).

[Paulclem]

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

How can the key concepts of Buddhism, like rebirth, Karma, and most importantly ending all sufferings, be put to use in the time before one enters Nirvana?

I find thinking about reincarnation and past and future lives fascinating, but I always wondered what Buddha thought about improving the conditions of your current life. If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

It's not really about improving the conditions of your current life.(By this I mean not that having good conditions is bad - we need wealth and leisure in order to be able to devote any time to practice - but that good worldly conditions is not the ultimate aim). If you are in a position to practice - then those are the best conditions to progress upon the path. The concept of Renunciation recognises what the Four Noble Truths explain, that life leads to suffering, but there is a way out. Renunciation - as it has been translated - does not mean "I give up this life". This is a false view of the concept. it is much more about not remaining deluded about life - that there isn't any hope of the lasting happiness it seems to promise us.

If everybody just sat under some tree or shut himself up in some cave or monastery, mankind would regress and finally extinguish itself.

I've heard this argument related to vegetarianism too. What will happen to all the animals if everyone becomes veggie? Well the truth of it is that not everyone will become veggie all at once at the same time, and very few people will be able to practice high level meditations all at once at the same time. HH The Dalai Lama often says things like "kindness is my religion". His constant quest is to get ordinary people to be kinder/ more compassionate. that in itself is completely Buddhist and a very big ask given the way the world challenges many people.

The aim of a Buddhist though is to escape from Samsara - to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human. This world we live in is fatal and full of countless suffering - most of the suffering being caused by ourselves in all our unwise, irrational, jealous, selfish, angry and uncompassionate acts. To stay as a human and not progress further is to risk rebirth as an animal or an insect, or to take rebirth in other unfortunate realms. This aspect of Buddhism has been called anti-human, but, as I said, it offers the opportunity to end suffering and become more than human.

[mal4mac]

If everybody just sat under some tree, then everybody would stop harming each other. Looks like progress to me!

The aim of a Buddhist though is to escape from Samsara - to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human...

And the aim of a Christian is to go to heaven. No doubt, being a Buddhist, you don't believe in this Christian idea. But there is equally little evidence for a "superhuman state of Enlightenment". There *is* evidence for states of joy & calm during meditation. I've even experienced them, in fits and starts, myself. But these are just human feelings. In fact, it wouldn't be possible for a human to have other than human feelings!

Karma, reincarnation, nirvana, 'supernatural enlightenment'- these are all metaphysical, religious concepts with no basis in fact. Just as heaven, angels, and the holy ghost are metaphysical, religious elements with no basis in fact.

The aim of your kind of Buddhist, to escape from Samsara, to become an Enlightened Being, and not to be human, is an impossible aim. But there are other kinds of Buddhist - Stephen Batchelor, Glen Wallis, etc,... who don't believe in karma, enlightenment, nirvana, reincarnation, etc..., and who are happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God. The aim 'to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human' is nothing but an attempt to be a God. Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that. Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

[Paulclem]

And the aim of a Christian is to go to heaven. No doubt, being a Buddhist, you don't believe in this Christian idea. But there is equally little evidence for a "superhuman state of Enlightenment". There *is* evidence for states of joy & calm during meditation. I've even experienced them, in fits and starts, myself. But these are just human feelings. In fact, it wouldn't be possible for a human to have other than human feelings!

There's a logic to thinking - if this is correct, then that may be correct, and this is moderated by The Buddha's words to be a lamp to yourself. There's also the teachings given by teachers today, and personal experience of practice. If this doesn't encourage - then fine. You have to make your own decisions, as do all Buddhists.

Karma, reincarnation, nirvana, 'supernatural enlightenment'- these are all metaphysical, religious concepts with no basis in fact. Just as heaven, angels, and the holy ghost are metaphysical, religious elements with no basis in fact.

It's a suck it and see religion. If it doesn't work for you - fine. There are other voices that disagree with yours, and it is up to everyone to make their own judgement - not have it imposed. Basis in fact? Basis in experience, the logic I've mentioned, teachings and the testimony and writing of teachers, but no, not fact. Again it is up to the individual to make the judgement.

The aim of your kind of Buddhist, to escape from Samsara, to become an Enlightened Being, and not to be human, is an impossible aim. But there are other kinds of Buddhist - Stephen Batchelor, Glen Wallis, etc,... who don't believe in karma, enlightenment, nirvana, reincarnation, etc..., and who are happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God. The aim 'to become an Enlightened Being and not to be human' is nothing but an attempt to be a God. Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that. Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

My kind of Buddhist? That would be one who follows the Buddha's path - the common definition of what a Buddhist is. You are correct that there are those who follow the Buddha's path, but who don't believe in Karma etc. This is a good thing in that it generates questioning and revisits concepts rather than just accepting them. I knew a Nun who could not accept reincarnation, and this was ok - she remained a Nun for the time I knew her. The thing is, if it is true, then it will be discovered through the practice. If not - it won't. I like that kind of openness to questioning.

It is also ok to be content to be an ape as you put it - human without the aspirations laid out by The Buddha. In fact you can't not be human without the effort to see if it is possible to become something more/ other. The Buddha's path says that it is possible and that this will end suffering. That's the crux of the matter - to end suffering and enter a deathless state. The only certain thing about it is that suffering and death will come whether a person works on the path or not. Again it's up to the practitioner.

happy to remain human, content to be a happy ape, and not a God

The Buddha did not claim that Enlightenment made a person into a God. The God realm is clearly described, whereas Enlightenment is usually described in terms of what it is not or oblique effects. There is no claim of omnipotence, or actually any ability, to aid humans except through teachings whereby delusions can be reduced and Buddhas perceived. I'm surprised you combined the terms. There really is little in common with Christianity, except in general terms, as I'm sure you know.

Not much evidence that anyone has succeeded with that.

That's correct. Beyond is difficult to evidence.

Or do you really believe the tales of levitating Lamas in the Himalayas? If you do, could you post some photos?

Miracle powers or photoshop wouldn't persuade anyone. My own experience is what persuades me and me only. I haven't seen levitation, but I have had interesting experiences that lead me not to be cynical about what can be achieved. I'm not trying to be mysterious - there would be no point in presenting it to others. Cynicism can be good if it allows open mindedness as well. I'm a bit surprised by your comments though to be honest.