Fun with karma

[CplFerro]

I have a question about the karma doctrines held by Buddhism and Hinduism. Under karma, all suffering anyone experiences is a result of sins they've committed in a past life. While this doesn't dispose of the problem of evil, it does deftly explain the "problem of luck" in regards to individuals - why am I born /me/ in a comfortable country, where someone else was born in a miserable one? Christianity has no explanation for this other than luck.

But what I wonder is: In karma, if I punch someone in the face, I will suffer for it in a later life. If I'm kind to them, I'll beneft. But look at it from the viewpoint of the other person. If I punch them in the face, they'll suffer. But their suffering is always a result of their own sins. So every time I punch him, he actually deserves it! No matter what I do to people, they'll deserve it! Of course if I hurt people I'll be racking up the pain for later, but still I find this an interesting glitch.

[thatguywhojuggles]

Perhaps it is some sort of "Judas Syndrome." If Judas hadn't turned Jesus in, he wouldn't have died for our sins. But by betraying Jesus, he is condemed to hell.

Likewise, the guy who punches the man with bad karma was drawn to by the cosmic forces of the universe. And in the next life, someone will be drawn to punch him in the face.

Eventually it will just be a bunch of people punching each other in the face.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by thatguywhojuggles

Eventually it will just be a bunch of people punching each other in the face.
One can only hope...

[TragicMonkey]

I'm no expert, but I believe that's why the goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana* and escape the endless cycle of rebirth, death, and karma.


*Nirvana the state of being, not the band whose frontman had to nail Courtney Love. Ick.

No, wait, I'm being mean. She's a lovely woman who is only occasionally covered in vomit and screaming mindless obscenities, whose violence is restrained only by her damaged brain being unable to master enough motor skills to follow the fevered impulses of her little toad brain. We love you, Courtney!

[CplFerro]

thatguywhojuggles,

So you're saying that a person's desires (of who to punch) are themselves moulded invisibly through karma. In other words, my bad karma decides to take a rain cheque and, instead of punishing me in this life, sets me up to do more evil, so I'll be punished in my next life.

That puts a person's status in serious doubt - what I mean is, take a rich man. Is he rich because he was good in his past life? Or is his wealth a curse designed to make him callous, so that he'll suffer in the next life? We could hit an infinite regress of karmic attack here.

* * *

Okay, here's another one.

I've figured out where the Buddha got enlightened. It wasn't under the Bodhi tree. It was when he was on the can taking a dump. There just happened to be Bodhi tree leaves in the outhouse for helping with that process.

So the Buddha's sitting there with a bad case of constipation, and he's been packing down figs from the Bodhi tree like they're going out of style, and finally he gets into this meditative state and overcomes his bowel distress.

That's when he realises with a flash of insight, "The mind is full of **** that must be evacuated in order to find inner peace!"

And the rest is history.

[BracesForImpact]

Originally posted by CplFerro
thatguywhojuggles,

So you're saying that a person's desires (of who to punch) are themselves moulded invisibly through karma. In other words, my bad karma decides to take a rain cheque and, instead of punishing me in this life, sets me up to do more evil, so I'll be punished in my next life.

That puts a person's status in serious doubt - what I mean is, take a rich man. Is he rich because he was good in his past life? Or is his wealth a curse designed to make him callous, so that he'll suffer in the next life? We could hit an infinite regress of karmic attack here.

* * *

Okay, here's another one.

I've figured out where the Buddha got enlightened. It wasn't under the Bodhi tree. It was when he was on the can taking a dump. There just happened to be Bodhi tree leaves in the outhouse for helping with that process.

So the Buddha's sitting there with a bad case of constipation, and he's been packing down figs from the Bodhi tree like they're going out of style, and finally he gets into this meditative state and overcomes his bowel distress.

That's when he realises with a flash of insight, "The mind is full of **** that must be evacuated in order to find inner peace!"

And the rest is history.

I'll buy that. ;)

[Kilik]

The issue to next bring up, might be the balance of freewill vs. what is predestined arrangement

[Taffer]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm no expert, but I believe that's why the goal of Buddhism is to achieve Nirvana* and escape the endless cycle of rebirth, death, and karma.


Bingo. The first teaching of the Eight Fold Path (ba1 zheng4 dao4http://img365.imageshack.us/img365/3939/bazhengdao7hr.jpg) is that all life is suffering that is caused by desire for personal gratification, and that only by following the Eight Fold Path and attaining Nirvana can we overcome suffering.

I can only speak for Buddhism, but I believe that Karma in the Buddhist sense is only attributed to reincarnation. If you are bad in this life, you are reborn as a lower life form (or in a lower social standing). But after being reborn as a duck, if you are a very good duck, you might be reborn as a prince or something. It all depends on how you behave during your life. The ultimate goal, the reaching of Nirvana, is when you gain enlightenment, and are 'reborn' into the state of Nirvana (unless you are a Mahayana and become a bodhisattvas instead).

[Ryokan]

Karma and reincarnation is very different from Hinduism to Buddhism.

Unfortunately, in the west, the Hindu meaning is what people know about, and attribute it to Buddhism as well. Gautama Buddha used the terms to explain his philosophy, but gave them different meanings.

In Hinduism, it is as you say, your karma controls how you reincarnate. The ancient Hindus, however, used this to keep the status quo of the castes. There was no need to help the poor, for example, because it was their own fault, being bad people in their former life. Likewise, the people in the higher castes, the rich people, could enjoy their lifestyle to the fullest, knowing that they deserved every bit of it.

That's not how it works in Buddhism, however.

Firstly, Buddhists don't believe in a self ('soul'), so what is it that reincarnates? Buddhist reincarnation is closely tied to karma, which Buddhists call 'the universal law of cause and effect'. It's not your 'self' that reincarnates, it's your karma, your actions. Be a good person, do good deeds, and this sends ripples into future generations, making the world a better place.

Also, remember that karma and reincarnation is not in any way the core of Buddhist beliefs, the Four Noble Truths are, and they speak of this life, not the next.

There's a zen story I like to tell.

A man once asked a zen master, 'master, what happens to us after we die?'

'I have no idea,' said the zen master.

'What?!' the man said, 'but aren't you supposed to be a zen master?!'

'Yes,' the master replied, 'but I'm not a dead one.'

[Taffer]

Originally posted by Ryokan

That's not how it works in Buddhism, however.


I stand corrected.

Also, remember that karma and reincarnation is not in any way the core of Buddhist beliefs, the Four Noble Truths are, and they speak of this life, not the next.

Never said it was ;). Although I was under the impression that the Four Nobel Truths were more about how to reach Nirvana.

Originally written by Siddhartha Gautama
*Suffering exists
*The cause of suffering is desire
*Suffering may be ended by attaining nirvana
*The way to nirvana is to follow the “Noble Eight-fold Path"

EDIT to avoid double posting: I was also under the impression (and again, this is my take on it, I am in no way an authority on the subject, having only taken one paper that delt with this) that the basic Buddhist view that "life is suffering" is partially to do with reincarnation. I think this because life is often described as a endless cycle of birth and death, which is suffering, which can only be stopped by reaching Nirvana. Nirvana, on the other hand, is described as a constant, ever lasting, state of bliss and total enlightenment where no suffering exists. To me, at least, all this implies reincarnation. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ryokan]

No, the Four Noble Truths is the path to end suffering.

- There is suffering

What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five categories affected by clinging are suffering.

- Suffering comes from attachment/desire/craving

What is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering?

It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that: in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being. But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and flourishes.

- You can end suffering,

What is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering? It is the remainderless fading and cessation of that same craving; the rejecting, relinquishing, leaving and renouncing of it. But whereon is this craving abandoned and made to cease? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it is abandoned and made to cease.

- by following the eight fold path.

What is the Noble Truth of the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering? It is the Noble Eightfold Path, that is to say: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration.

There's nothing in the Four Noble Truths, which is the core belief of Buddhism, about karma, reincarnation or nirvana. These terms have stuck in the head of westerners (and often the wrong interpretations of them, reincarnation (of self) for example) because they point to an afterlife where the righteous are rewarded and the naughty are punished, something it seems westerners crave ;)

http://www.4truths.com/

http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble.htm

Edited to answer another question :

Originally posted by Taffer
I was also under the impression (and again, this is my take on it, I am in no way an authority on the subject, having only taken one paper that delt with this) that the basic Buddhist view that "life is suffering" is partially to do with reincarnation. I think this because life is often described as a endless cycle of birth and death, which is suffering, which can only be stopped by reaching Nirvana. Nirvana, on the other hand, is described as a constant, ever lasting, state of bliss and total enlightenment where no suffering exists. To me, at least, all this implies reincarnation. But please correct me if I'm wrong.

I posted some quotes and a link to the Four Noble Truths. As you can see for yourself, there's nothing in there about reincarnation or nirvana. For an explanation of what suffering is, see the first Noble Truth.

The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering and reach enlightenment in this life.

[Taffer]

I was not taught this by a westerner, so I fail to see how that applies.

Also, my quote was taken from (I believe) one of the early chinese buddhist texts (I can't recall the name off hand). And I do not agree that the Four Noble Truths are not about Nirvana, although I can concede reincarnation (I was making an assumption in my original post anyway). The FNT's state that to end suffering you must follow the Eight-Fold Path, which will lead to Nirvana.

The goal of Buddhism is to end suffering and reach enlightenment in this life.

By obtaining Nirvana, which is a state of being where life and death cease to exist, and 'you' exists in perfect bliss for all eternity.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Taffer
I was not taught this by a westerner, so I fail to see how that applies.

It wasn't aimed at you at all, I only commented that many westerners have misunderstood the terms.



Originally posted by Taffer
Also, my quote was taken from (I believe) one of the early chinese buddhist texts (I can't recall the name off hand). And I do not agree that the Four Noble Truths are not about Nirvana, although I can concede reincarnation (I was making an assumption in my original post anyway). The FNT's state that to end suffering you must follow the Eight-Fold Path, which will lead to Nirvana.

Of course, there are many different Buddhist denominations, and their beliefs vary greatly, from the orthodox Theravada, to the happy-happy superstitious beliefs of Pure Land, from wacky Zen to the polytheistic Tibetan Buddhism where they use magic to cut through illusions to reach enlightenment.

But I'm a Buddhist, and I have studied the Four Noble Truths for a long time, and I have never encountered nirvana while doing so. To (most) Buddhists, the term is simply not important and not something we talk about a lot.

It's more an intellectual term than a term that describes anything in 'reality'.


Oh, I missed something you said earlier.

Originally posted by Taffer
The ultimate goal, the reaching of Nirvana, is when you gain enlightenment, and are 'reborn' into the state of Nirvana (unless you are a Mahayana and become a bodhisattvas instead).

First of all, Mahayana is not a denomination in itself, but rather a geographical grouping (the 'northern' Buddhism) that includes such diverse groups as Zen and Pure Land.

A Bodhisatva is a person who has reached enlightenment, but instead of being 'reborn in nirvana', he chooses to stay behind on earth and help others reach nirvana. The path of the Bodhisatva is not for everyone.

Not all Mahayana denominations believe in Bodhisatvas.

[Taffer]

Of course, there are many different Buddhist denominations, and their beliefs vary greatly, from the orthodox Theravada, to the happy-happy superstitious beliefs of Pure Land, from wacky Zen to the polytheistic Tibetan Buddhism where they use magic to cut through illusions to reach enlightenment.

Absolutely, but I would argue that the schools I studied (all of which are chinese) are fairly close to the original teachings of Gautama. This is a proof-less claim I am making, based simply on the dates that Buddhism was introduced into china (AD 25-220) which, while still a long time after Buddhisms creation, is closer then a lot of the modern 'schools' that have popped up in recent years.

But I'm a Buddhist, and I have studied the Four Noble Truths for a long time, and I have never encountered nirvana while doing so. To (most) Buddhists, the term is simply not important and not something we talk about a lot.

Then I am somewhat at a disadvantage here, having only studied chinese buddhism for half a year :). However, from my studies I took away the messag that the 3rd Noble Truth was that suffering can be ended through obtaining Nirvana, and the 4th Noble Truth that to obtain Nirvana one must follow the Eight-Fold Path. Again (and I cannot stress this enough), this is just my interpretation, based on various texts I've read. If there are other interpretations of Gautama's writings, I'm sure they are as equally valid. I hate to point it out, but just because you "do not talk about it a lot" does not mean it isn't a part of the religion.

t's more an intellectual term than a term that describes anything in 'reality'.

How can it describe anything in reality if to live in reality is to suffer? Isn't obtaining Nirvana to be 'born' into Nirvana, and to leave the earth? Is it not this that the Bodhisattvas give up to help others reach Nirvana?

First of all, Mahayana is not a denomination in itself, but rather a geographical grouping (the 'northern' Buddhism) that includes such diverse groups as Zen and Pure Land.

I learned Mahayana as 大乘, or Big Raft, which is one of two main schools of thought of Buddhism (the other being �乘 Little Raft). I was not aware that it is a geographical grouping, as in china, it is associated with various schools of thought rather then location. This may not be case elsewhere, however.

A Bodhisatva is a person who has reached enlightenment, but instead of being 'reborn in nirvana', he chooses to stay behind on earth and help others reach nirvana. The path of the Bodhisatva is not for everyone.

Er...yes, isn't that what I said? I've added emphasis for effect on the appropriate section.

Not all Mahayana denominations believe in Bodhisatvas.

Did not know this. I was only aware that Bodhisattvas are only from the Mahayana school, which they (the Mahayana's) attribute to Gautama himself.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Taffer
Absolutely, but I would argue that the schools I studied (all of which are chinese) are fairly close to the original teachings of Gautama. This is a proof-less claim I am making, based simply on the dates that Buddhism was introduced into china (AD 25-220) which, while still a long time after Buddhisms creation, is closer then a lot of the modern 'schools' that have popped up in recent years.

I've studied Theravada, which uses the original Pali texts, which were written down around 100 years after Gautama Buddha's death. Not saying they are more correct, who can know? But on the Four Noble Truths, nirvana isn't mentioned.

Originally posted by Taffer
Then I am somewhat at a disadvantage here, having only studied chinese buddhism for half a year :). However, from my studies I took away the messag that the 3rd Noble Truth was that suffering can be ended through obtaining Nirvana, and the 4th Noble Truth that to obtain Nirvana one must follow the Eight-Fold Path. Again (and I cannot stress this enough), this is just my interpretation, based on various texts I've read. If there are other interpretations of Gautama's writings, I'm sure they are as equally valid. I hate to point it out, but just because you "do not talk about it a lot" does not mean it isn't a part of the religion.

I concede that we are both laymen, and therefore both our interpretations are equally valid. However, I'll stick to my interpretations that the Four Noble Truths, the core of Buddhism, has nothing to do with reincarnation and nirvana, but is the path to enlightenment in this life.

Originally posted by Taffer
How can it describe anything in reality if to live in reality is to suffer? Isn't obtaining Nirvana to be 'born' into Nirvana, and to leave the earth? Is it not this that the Bodhisattvas give up to help others reach Nirvana?

One does not need to 'leave the earth' to reach enlightenment, the Buddha is proof of that, as is several others.

Originally posted by Taffer
I learned Mahayana as 大乘, or Big Raft, which is one of two main schools of thought of Buddhism (the other being �乘 Little Raft). I was not aware that it is a geographical grouping, as in china, it is associated with various schools of thought rather then location. This may not be case elsewhere, however.

Hinayana, The Little Vehicle, is a somewhat derogatory name for southern Buddhism. I prefer Theravada.

The largest Mahayana group is Pure Land (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land), which has often been called the Christianity of Buddhism (also somewhat derogatory), in that it has saints (Bodhisatvas) and you can gain entrance to an afterlife paradise (the Pure Land), through prayer (chanting to Amitabah Buddha). The second largest is zen, which I assume you know about.


Originally posted by Taffer
Er...yes, isn't that what I said? I've added emphasis for effect on the appropriate section.

Yes, this is what you said. However, in orthodox Buddhism, like Theravada, Bodhisatvas are not the same as in Mahayana. In Theravada, a Bodhisatva (more often called an Arhat), is one who has completely understood the Four Noble Truths :)

I fully respect the Bodhisatva ideal, but I don't believe there is such a thing as a Bodhisatva in the sense that it's a person who has 'forsaken nirvana to save mankind'.

Originally posted by Taffer
Did not know this. I was only aware that Bodhisattvas are only from the Mahayana school, which they (the Mahayana's) attribute to Gautama himself.

Zen does not have a Bodhisatva tradition, although they respect the ideal.

ETA : Few typos

[Taffer]

I agree we are both laymen (me moreso then you, I fear), and you are probably right about all this. But when it comes down to it, isn't the practice of Buddhism mainly about individual interpretations? Intividual enlightenment? (I say mainly as Mahayana isn't, but anyway...). I interpret the texts (that I've studied, and may not be correct) to mean that upon reaching nirvana, they 'ascend' to another plane of existance. Perhaps this was all metaphorical. Who knows? Not me, at least. :D

You have sparked my interest in the subject, I'll have to do some digging and possible look into the non-chinese buddhism (as I've only learned about chinese buddhism), and for that I thank you. :)

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Taffer
But when it comes down to it, isn't the practice of Buddhism mainly about individual interpretations? Intividual enlightenment?

This is true.

I've always found the Kalama Sutra (http://www.mahasati.org/library/kalama_sutta.shtml) quite handy when studying Buddhism, religion in general and, well, everything else as well.



Originally posted by Taffer
You have sparked my interest in the subject, I'll have to do some digging and possible look into the non-chinese buddhism (as I've only learned about chinese buddhism), and for that I thank you. :)

You're very welcome! Thanks for the Dharma talk ;)

[Beerina]

Originally posted by CplFerro
I have a question about the karma doctrines held by Buddhism and Hinduism. Under karma, all suffering anyone experiences is a result of sins they've committed in a past life. While this doesn't dispose of the problem of evil, it does deftly explain the "problem of luck" in regards to individuals - why am I born /me/ in a comfortable country, where someone else was born in a miserable one? Christianity has no explanation for this other than luck.

The flaw in this theory is that psychologists have long since shown that for punishment to work, the organism must know why it is being punished. Dogs, I believe, won't associate the punishment unless it's something like a few seconds after the incident

Since your mind is wiped on rebirth, you have no knowledge of why you are suffering.

That is, unless subconscious psychological tendencies are preserved on reincarnation, and these are modified. But making someone into a skittish, untrusting, self-protective soul seems like it would be the net result.

But what I wonder is: In karma, if I punch someone in the face, I will suffer for it in a later life. If I'm kind to them, I'll beneft. But look at it from the viewpoint of the other person. If I punch them in the face, they'll suffer. But their suffering is always a result of their own sins. So every time I punch him, he actually deserves it! No matter what I do to people, they'll deserve it! Of course if I hurt people I'll be racking up the pain for later, but still I find this an interesting glitch.


"Hey, look everybody! I'm handin' out wings!" -- Nick the Barkeep in "It's a Wonderful Life", as he makes his cash register's bell ring (from the idea that "every time a bell rings, an angel gets his wings!')

Yeah, some of these philosophies are not too well thought-out.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Taffer
Bingo. The first teaching of the Eight Fold Path (ba1 zheng4 dao4) is that all life is suffering that is caused by desire for personal gratificatio

Hhhhhhhh-h-h-h-hold on now! What's with this hate-on for pleasure and enjoyment that gods of all religions seem to have? What's their problem?!?!?!?

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by Beerina
Hhhhhhhh-h-h-h-hold on now! What's with this hate-on for pleasure and enjoyment that gods of all religions seem to have? What's their problem?!?!?!?

Nonono, this is a common misconception about Buddhism. It's not the personal gratification that is wrong, it's the desire for it.

Desire isn't really a good word for it, either. I prefer attachment. You can enjoy things even if you get rid of your attachment to those things.

Edit : Also, the Buddah isn't a god in any way :)

[jjramsey]

Originally posted by Ryokan
Desire isn't really a good word for it, either. I prefer attachment. You can enjoy things even if you get rid of your attachment to those things.

If I understand right, it seems like Buddhism isn't against pleasure but rather the "rat race" or stressing out trying to get what you want.

[Ryokan]

Originally posted by jjramsey
If I understand right, it seems like Buddhism isn't against pleasure but rather the "rat race" or stressing out trying to get what you want.

Indeed, that is one form of attachment.

The Buddha once said that he had nothing against rich people, because rich people could do a lot of good with their money. Accumulating money just for the sake of accumulating it, however, does no good.

[Taffer]

Using the same example, I think of it as wanting to get rich to have a better life is bad, but getting rich to help others isn't.