Karma Primer

[Garnet2727]

I'm interested in the concept of karma and I have very little understanding of it. For those who believe in karma, would you give a some simple explanations?

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste,


there are two, main, operative views of karma and, for the most part, they are the same. Sanatana Dharma and Buddha Dharma. however, they are also a bit different in their implications... which we can leave till a futher discussion.

simplistically, this theory can be summed up by the phrase "as you sow, so shall you reap."

it is, in essence, the moral law of causation operative in the universe.

metta,

~v

 

[Garnet2727]

In another post I made, which got buried in the midst of heated discussion, I said that I thought karma, at it's simplest, is basically "what goes around, comes around." I believe that is on point with what you are saying.

 

[rahul_sharma]

Namasty Vajradhara,
Do you think "Original sin" is over simplification (symbolic form) of complex "Maya concept"?


Original sin (explained as as an adam-eve fiction) according to Christianity is the reason of all sinful nature.
Maya is a layer of illusion around soul because of which Eternal soul don't realises its Eternal nature and this state is the reason of Ignorance which is actually cause of sinful nature. This sinful nature of soul goes on deacreasing as the affect of Maya decreases with increase in Spiritual awareness of soul .

 

[vajradhara]

well... in a round about way... perhaps.


however... we have to be rather clear here.

karma is produced by intention of deed, thought and word.

the phrase "what comes around, goes around" seems to be different. this seems to be sayiny: good things will happen and bad things will happen, for this is the way that things are.

however, this is not a proper view of karma since it removes the operative function of intent, in my view.

of course, my view of karma is primarily from the Buddha Dharma point of view and, as such, my Sanatana Dharma friends may have a slightly different view

metta,

~v

 

[satay]

it is, in essence, the moral law of causation operative in the universe.

metta,

~v

Not only universe but also multiverse!

satay

 

[vajradhara]

Namaste Rahul,

thank you for the post.

Namasty Vajradhara,
Do you think "Original sin" is over simplification (symbolic form) of complex "Maya concept"?


Original sin (explained as as an adam-eve fiction) according to Christianity is the reason of all sinful nature.

Maya is a layer of illusion around soul because of which Eternal soul don't realises its Eternal nature and this state is the reason of Ignorance which is actually cause of sinful nature. This sinful nature of soul goes on deacreasing as the affect of Maya decreases with increase in Spiritual awareness of soul . Do you agree?

well... i wouldn't go so far as to describe it as a simplified understanding... as you've no doubt encountered, the concept of Original Sin is quite convoluted in some respects.

to my mind, Maya is less complicated and more easily understood than the idea of Original Sin. of course, i'm a Dharma adherent and that, i'm sure, influences my view.

i don't know if you have much interest in early Christianity, however, as an academic sort of thing, i would encourage you to explore some of it. you will find, as i did, that there is a great deal of variance and dispute in the early days of the Christian movement.

there are some groups of early Christians that don't belive in Original Sin at all!

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

is a good site to read alot of the early material that shaped the Christian tradition.

a snippet:

Borg makes two negative claims about the historical Jesus: he was nonmessianic, which means that he didn't claim to be the Messiah or have a message focused on his own identity, and he was noneschatological, which means that he did not expect "the supernatural coming of the Kingdom of God as a world-ending event in his own generation" (Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, p. 29). Borg summarizes his view of the historical Jesus in these words: "he was a spirit person, subversive sage, social prophet, and movement founder who invited his followers and hearers into a transforming relationship with the same Spirit that he himself knew, and into a community whose social vision was shaped by the core value of compassion" (op. cit., p. 119). By "spirit person," Borg means that Jesus was a "mediator of the sacred" for whom the Spirit or God was a reality that was experienced. Based on his experience of the sacred, for the historical Jesus compassion "was the central quality of God and the central moral quality of a life centered in God" (op. cit., p. 46).

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

metta,

~v

 

[satay]

however, this is not a proper view of karma since it removes the operative function of intent, in my view.


~v

Intent is the keyword...you hit the nail on the head once again.

satay

 

[vajradhara]

Not only universe but also multiverse!

satay

indeed!

but... i don't know if the author hold to a Multi Worlds theory of QM or not

metta,

~v

 

[satay]

I'm interested in the concept of karma and I have very little understanding of it. For those who believe in karma, would you give a some simple explanations?

karma is the most misunderstood concept of Hinduism because of propaganda.

Karma is not punishment…it is not a curse. It is the law of nature.

There is no CEO managing this law and counting how many good deeds you did and how many bad deeds you did. It is simply God’s law or nature’s law. If your actions follow the ultimate law, you will get more and more bliss and if your actions don’t follow the ultimate law then you will fall down.

Here is an example; do you believe that gravitational law is the law of nature? Gravity doesn’t care if you believe or not! Seriously, it doesn’t care if we accept it then fine if we don’t then its okay too. If you walk in a balanced way, gravitational law is pleased with you but if you lose balance, you will fall down on the floor. You may become crippled for the rest of your life.
There is no one deciding or managing who is walking in balance and who is not.

The fact is that God has given us the laws of nature among other things and Karmic law is one such law. It’s irrelevant if someone believes it or doesn’t, it will keep on working as instructed or constructed by God.

satay

 

[satay]

indeed!

but... i don't know if the author hold to a Multi Worlds theory of QM or not

metta,

~v

ah...yes, she did ask for simplistic explanation.

satay

 

[rahul_sharma]

Thanks Vajradhara for the reply

 

[Garnet2727]

well... in a round about way... perhaps.


however... we have to be rather clear here.

karma is produced by intention of deed, thought and word.

the phrase "what comes around, goes around" seems to be different. this seems to be sayiny: good things will happen and bad things will happen, for this is the way that things are.

however, this is not a proper view of karma since it removes the operative function of intent, in my view.

of course, my view of karma is primarily from the Buddha Dharma point of view and, as such, my Sanatana Dharma friends may have a slightly different view

metta,

~v

I think that I understand what you are saying although I'm not sure I can express it very well since this is a completely new concept to me. It isn't about things just happening, it isn't about punishment and reward, it is a natural result of a person's intent and behavior.

 

[Garnet2727]

karma is the most misunderstood concept of Hinduism because of propaganda.

Karma is not punishment…it is not a curse. It is the law of nature.

There is no CEO managing this law and counting how many good deeds you did and how many bad deeds you did. It is simply God’s law or nature’s law. If your actions follow the ultimate law, you will get more and more bliss and if your actions don’t follow the ultimate law then you will fall down.

Here is an example; do you believe that gravitational law is the law of nature? Gravity doesn’t care if you believe or not! Seriously, it doesn’t care if we accept it then fine if we don’t then its okay too. If you walk in a balanced way, gravitational law is pleased with you but if you lose balance, you will fall down on the floor. You may become crippled for the rest of your life.
There is no one deciding or managing who is walking in balance and who is not.

The fact is that God has given us the laws of nature among other things and Karmic law is one such law. It’s irrelevant if someone believes it or doesn’t, it will keep on working as instructed or constructed by God.

satay

I read this after I replied to v. LOL. How does one know the ultimate law? By the way, I do try to live a life of balance, although I often fail miserably.

 

[Garnet2727]

ah...yes, she did ask for simplistic explanation.

satay

Yes, yes! Please don't hurt my poor bedraggled brain!

 

[HospitallerJohn]

http://www.angelfire.com/yt/fairtibet/whexpl.html

Huzzah, the Wheel of Life!
And depending on what you do in one life, you move to the different realm of life (as shown in the middle of the Wheel).

Is this correct? If it isn't, please correct me.

 

[vajradhara]

I think that I understand what you are saying although I'm not sure I can express it very well since this is a completely new concept to me. It isn't about things just happening, it isn't about punishment and reward, it is a natural result of a person's intent and behavior.

correct... no "punishment" and no "reward".

i like to use analogies... and some of them are even appropos to the topic of discussion

i'll use one here, if you don't mind.


if a farmer plants a crop in the field, waters the crop, tends to it, weeds it and cares for it, when the harvest comes in, we don't say that the farmer is being "rewarded" we actually say that he is reaping what he sowed.

if the same farmer chooses not to water his crop, not to tend to it and lets weeds overtake it, when the harvest does not come in, we do not say that he is being punished, rather, again, he is reaping what he sowed.

if that helps

make no mistake about it... karma, as Satay indicated, is a very slippery subject to get a handle on when one is first approaching it from a different paradigm.

as an aside... if it seems as if i am being short or abrupt in my conversation, please forgive it as a bit of a cultural/lingusitic difference, nothing intentional on my part

especially given what you know i believe regarding intention and so forth

metta,

~v

 

[satay]

I read this after I replied to v. LOL. How does one know the ultimate law? By the way, I do try to live a life of balance, although I often fail miserably.

I don't understand your question. What do you mean by "know the ultimate law?"

satay

 

[Garnet2727]

Eh v, you're not being short at all. Just feeding me in small doses.

I find that analogy very helpful. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that karma could also mean something else. Let me borrow your field analogy. If you don't care for you field, aside from the other things that you've mentioned, that karma could play out later in in this life or another life.

Bah, I'm having a very difficult time wrapping my brain around this concept, so I hope no one takes offense at my questions.

 

[vajradhara]

http://www.angelfire.com/yt/fairtibet/whexpl.html

Huzzah, the Wheel of Life!
And depending on what you do in one life, you move to the different realm of life (as shown in the middle of the Wheel).

Is this correct? If it isn't, please correct me.

hiya Hospitaller,

thank you for the post.

well.. what you've linked to is a Buddhist, in particular, a Varjayana Buddhist thangka. as such, that is not really an appropos level of conversation for us at this point.

to address your query, however, in a relative sense, yes... what your intentional actions, thoughts and words are in this arising will influence which realm or destination which you will take rebirth in.

mind you, rebirth and reincarnation, whilst seemingly the same, are actually not.

metta,

~v