Karma

[Tank]

Thought it might be useful to see what Buddhist teachings say about Karma/kamma.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

â€" AN 6.63

"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'

â€" AN 5.57

The way the above talks about karma it is not so much cause and effect as it is action (karma) and result(s) of action (vipaka).  Cause and effect is usually thought of as immediate and linear.  Action and result(s) can be linear but are more often a sort of feed back loop or pattern that ends up as habit.  It can take decades for all of the results of an action to play themselves out.  The key is intention.  The more one acts with skillful intention the easier it gets.  The more one acts with unskillful intention the easier that becomes.  One falls heir to one's intentions and actions over time.  I am one of the older members of this board and I can tell you karma is real in the sense that decisions do have results.

There is a lot of truth in this post. AN 5.57 in particular resonates with me.

[The Magic Pudding]

Do you believe in karma, or the old adage, "What goes around comes around"?

No
I am an atheist.
The idea is crap.
Exotic crap is still crap.
I don't believe in a cosmic boomerang.

[Tank]

Do you believe in karma, or the old adage, "What goes around comes around"?

No
I am an atheist.
The idea is crap.
Exotic crap is still crap.
I don't believe in a cosmic boomerang.

On a practical level though if a person is rude and unhelpful to you and you had a choice of behaviours to return to that person which one would you choose. In one example the lady doctor who was giving a first aid course related the following. She was on A&E one evening and something was going on but she couldn't find out what, everybody was being really odd to her and she didn't know why. Quite by chance she picked up the admissions list and saw a name on it. She went to see the person, she knew him. It was her ex-boyfriend who had dumped her not 3 weeks previously for her (ex)best mate. He had broken his wrist, it had not yet been set, the other nurses had been keeping her out of the loop. Apparently he screamed quite satisfyingly as she set his wrist for him!

[The Magic Pudding]

I'm not sure why I was quoted in the last post (recently if I'm slow).
Did I dismiss it to quickly?
I would like karma to be real.
But there is no evidence, so I dismiss it.
I have a view of how I want things to be.
I like the treat others as you would have them treat you rule.
I don't think anyone or thing is keeping score.
But I follow a largely conventional moral code because it seems best,
not for reward in the here or the ever after.

[pinkocommie]

The thing I dislike about Karma is that it seems to me to reinforce the idea that somehow you can control or effect reality with intention in more of a physical way than is actually possible.  Now, is that a Westernized strawman of Karma or is that an apt criticism, I'm not sure.  But I think there is danger in believing that you have the ability to create good things in your life simply by being a good person.  I think it doesn't hurt, but I see no reason to give the phenomenon a name and to say that I believe in it.

[Tank]

I'm not sure why I was quoted in the last post (recently if I'm slow).
Did I dismiss it to quickly?

No. I don't think you said any thing I would not have said about the superstitious element of karma, but I think in a very real sense what goes around comes around.

I would like karma to be real.

Note sure I would want it to be real, it would be like a permanent game of friends and point gathering on Facebook!

But there is no evidence, so I dismiss it.
I have a view of how I want things to be.
I like the treat others as you would have them treat you rule.
I don't think anyone or thing is keeping score.
But I follow a largely conventional moral code because it seems best,
not for reward in the here or the ever after.

All sounds right too me.

[parrotpirate]

I like to think of it more as something like cosmic retribution.

[notself]

Retribution means only "bad" actions have results.  Of course skillful actions have results as well as unskillful ones.  Equating retribution with karma doesn't make sense.

[Obii]

I, personally, can't seem to believe in Karma, especially in the spiritual concept, which seems to be the general consensus.

However, (and I HATE when other people do this, but) I do have to play the personal experience card. There are, obviously, a lot of different perceptions of right and wrong. From what I have seen, it would seem that some form of judgement exists in some way, shape, or form. I don't believe in karma until I can readily prove it, but I can't deny my personal experiences with it.

This brings up my main question, to myself and others: If we had not been exposed to the term "karma", would we, through our personal experiences, think that something like that actually existed? If I knew nothing of karma, but caused someone pain and earned pain in return later, would I think "oh, well, something must have judged me."? This is tough to answer. I'm thinking, if it happened over and over again, then maybe I would start acting different to sort out the imbalance. I'm not so sure, however, that an idea of universal judgement would come to mind. Thoughts?

[Recusant]

If we had not been exposed to the term "karma", would we, through our personal experiences, think that something like that actually existed?

I think that "something like that" does exist. The phrase mentioned a couple of times already, "what goes around, comes around," is an example of a sort of (very rough) approximation in popular culture of the idea of karma.  Obviously it is applicable more to social interaction than to some "psychic law of the universe," though.  I think that the idea of karma is just that, an attempt to formulate an all-embracing law which works in the metaphysical realm in a similar way to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion.  There is ample evidence of "what goes around, comes around" being a reasonable description of an aspect of social mechanics.  Just as any formulation to describe social interaction, though, it's only reasonable to think of it as a tendency, not as a hard and fast rule.  The more ethereal and universal conception embodied by the idea of karma could only really work, in my opinion, if there were some sort of spiritual existence after life, either reincarnation or another type of afterlife.  The simple reality we see around us, of people behaving in an undoubtedly evil manner, and just as undoubtedly going unpunished, and dying peacefully and perhaps even surrounded by luxury, seems to show that the only way for karma to have an effect on them would be if they were to suffer consequences after death.  As such, I find it unlikely that karma truly exists, outside of the minds of spiritually inclined individuals.

Just as Gravity is a real force (even though it's only been proven mathematically, and there's no sight of the graviton anywhere) I think of Karma as just another natural force of the universe.

Interesting that you should use gravity as an analogy.  I'm not sure if you're familiar with the idea of "fictitious force," also known as d'Alembert force.  What is commonly known as "g-force" is an example of a fictitious force.  The added weight which seems to affect an object or person in an accelerating frame of reference (jet, car, etc.) seems to be the result of a force acting upon that object or person. It's actually only the result of inertia.  Now the interesting (to me, anyway) part: There is a school of thought which holds that gravity itself is a fictitious force. According to Einstein's conception of space-time, matter interacts with space-time by curving it.  The path of an object under the influence of gravity is in reality (according to this line of thought) only that object following the curvature of space-time, and so there is not actual force acting upon it, even though it seems as if there is.  I admit, I'm not entirely convinced by this idea.  For one thing, if matter creates curvature in space-time, that would seem to imply that there is a force involved, somewhere in the mix.  If you're interested in reading up on this sort of thing, Courtney Seligman has a fairly readable page on the subject.

I admit, the above paragraph is extremely tangential to the subject of the thread, but it's something that I had been investigating recently, and the quote, "Gravity is a real force" was irresistible to me.  Mea culpa

[notself]

Karma is a word meaning voluntary action and results of action.   Action / results of action.    Actions can have results in the present or in the future.  Karma does not judge.  It is not punishment or reward.  Obviously someone did think of the relationship between action and result.
The way that the term is used today the Sanskrit word karma means both action and result but the actual translation of the word karma is volitional action.  The word for result is Vipaka.

The spiritual part of karma is the concept that some results do not "ripen" in this lifetime but continue into the next life.  Karma meets rebirth / reincarnation.  There is no credible evidence for rebirth / reincarnation but it is one explanation of why good things happen to bad people and why bad things happen to good people.  A wrong but common understanding of Rebirth takes Buddhism from a practical philosophy into the realm of religion. It's a religion without a controlling creator god, and without a belief in a soul, but most Buddhists still think that they will be reborn.  This is in spite of the fact they think that "self" is a construct of the brain. However, the oldest commentaries on the teachings clearly state that only the phenomena of action and result rolls on.  Here is a quote from the Commentaries on the karma and rebirth.

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."

- Visuddhimagga XVI 90

[Recusant]

Karma is a word meaning voluntary action and results of action.   Action / results of action.    Actions can have results in the present or in the future.  Karma does not judge.  It is not punishment or reward.  Obviously someone did think of the relationship between action and result.
The way that the term is used today the Sanskrit word karma means both action and result but the actual translation of the word karma is volitional action.  The word for result is Vipaka.

Thank you for clarifying the definition of "karma."  It sounds from this as though karma ~~> vipaka is merely describing causality, in the realm of animal interaction (people being the most relevant animal, in this instance). If that is the case, then it's hard to find anything to disagree with. However, the volitional actions of certain malevolent individuals might have positive results for them.  For instance, a person about to go on trial murders somebody who is going to testify against them, and gets away with it.  The trial results in acquittal. Since "karma doesn't judge," the vipaka is, the murderer not only gets away with murder, but also escapes punishment for the earlier crime.  Without the spiritual component, I don't see the relevance of using the word "karma."

[notself]

Thank you for clarifying the definition of "karma."  It sounds from this as though karma ~~> vipaka is merely describing causality, in the realm of animal interaction (people being the most relevant animal, in this instance). If that is the case, then it's hard to find anything to disagree with. However, the volitional actions of certain malevolent individuals might have positive results for them.  For instance, a person about to go on trial murders somebody who is going to testify against them, and gets away with it.  The trial results in acquittal. Since "karma doesn't judge," the vipaka is, the murderer not only gets away with murder, but also escapes punishment for the earlier crime.  Without the spiritual component, I don't see the relevance of using the word "karma."

It may appear that some malevolent individuals get away without bad results for bad acts but it is impossible to really be sure.  Perhaps they gain financially but lose psychologically by developing paranoia that takes away the pleasure of the gain.  People may appear to lose when acting altruistically but may gain by having inner contentment.  Karma can be obvious or subtle.

[pinkocommie]

Thank you for clarifying the definition of "karma."  It sounds from this as though karma ~~> vipaka is merely describing causality, in the realm of animal interaction (people being the most relevant animal, in this instance). If that is the case, then it's hard to find anything to disagree with. However, the volitional actions of certain malevolent individuals might have positive results for them.  For instance, a person about to go on trial murders somebody who is going to testify against them, and gets away with it.  The trial results in acquittal. Since "karma doesn't judge," the vipaka is, the murderer not only gets away with murder, but also escapes punishment for the earlier crime.  Without the spiritual component, I don't see the relevance of using the word "karma."

It may appear that some malevolent individuals get away without bad results for bad acts but it is impossible to really be sure.  Perhaps they gain financially but lose psychologically by developing paranoia that takes away the pleasure of the gain.  People may appear to lose when acting altruistically but may gain by having inner contentment.  Karma can be obvious or subtle.

Is there any difference between the concept of karma and the understanding that actions have consequences?  I guess I just don't see why you have to "believe" in karma if all it is is a word for cause and effect.  Things which exist can definitely be obvious or subtle, but applying this to what seems to be an abstract concept reminds me too much of Sagan's Dragon.   I'm totally on board with karma right up until the point where it starts being regarded as an active agent in finding some kind of balance to the universe.

[The Magic Pudding]

Earlier I dismissed a karma as crap, I see this wasn't very tactful, particularly when Buddhists are posting, sorry notself & KebertX.

This is the WordWeb definition

(Hinduism and Buddhism) the effects of a person's actions that determine their fate in this life and the next incarnation

If a belief is helping people do good (sorry, no definition for good) I don't have a problem.
I have seen video of people, Hindu I think, throwing themselves in the dirt and shit, crawling through it, putting their heads in it.
They seem to be wasting their lives, I don't know if they have families that need them.
I could be wrong, but I think they do this from a belief in karma, not a god as such.
All the crawling through crap is supposed to bring benefit in their next life.
If I've got this right, a belief in karma is doing harm, sometimes anyway.