Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII (Life After Death?)

[Tobiishi]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Bansho, I just dodged over and read the 'Komments', and wondered, am I missing the positive side of the discussion there? He seems to spend the whole article telling us what karma is not, without defining what he believes it is. Or did it go over my head? I would like to have a clearer understanding of karma in the context of that article, if possible.

Gassho,
Tobiah

[disastermouse]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

I find that it's best to view karma as a practice, not a belief. In effect, it causes one to think ethically about one's actions on a much larger scale than one might otherwise.

[Shohei]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

I find that it's best to view karma as a practice, not a belief. In effect, it causes one to think ethically about one's actions on a much larger scale than one might otherwise.

Indeed Chet! That is the way I handle karma in practice.

Gassho, Shohei

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Hi Kevin,

One mistake a lot of people make is that they think karma is personal. It isn't.

Other people pay for your mistakes. Such is life.

Karma is volitional action, which may manifest itself as thoughts, words or deeds.

I'm not sure what relevance your comment has with regard to what I said. Can you elaborate?

I think that "the commonly accepted usage of 'karma' to represent the universal law of cause and effect" is a pretty good one, provided that we are talking about the cause and effect with respect to delusions, since Buddhas, being without delusions, do not produce karma.

Buddhas have "actions", including willed actions, but their actions are not deluded.

At least, that's how I define those particular terms.

If we wanted to we could define karma in such a way that Buddhas had karma!

The mistake most people make, as I see it, is that people think karma is "theirs", but fail to see that cause and effect does not respect such boundaries.

[Bansho]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Hi Tobiah,

He does in fact describe it in some detail, defining karma itself, as well as the context in which it is often misunderstood. What I quite like about the essay is that he's very precise about stating just what it is and what it isn't. It's not any kind of entity which inherently exists apart from us, nor is it deterministic, nor fate, nor cause/effect in a scientific sense. As I mentioned above, it is volitional action, which can take the form of thoughts, words or deeds. It's part of a model, but a well-defined model, not just some vague idea where everyone makes up their own definition. The reason why a correct understanding of it is IMHO important is that it can be - and still often is - harmful if misconceived and practiced on that basis. Maybe you should have a closer look at the essay? I'm reluctant to quote any excerpts from it directly, as it is copyrighted.

Gassho
Bansho

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

. . . it is volitional action, which can take the form of thoughts, words or deeds.

I don't think that says hardly anything at all, on its own. Seeing actions in isolation from their causes and consequences is not helpful, is it?

What is important is the kind of actions we are talking about, and this is discovered by taking into account the causes and consequences of the actions in question. And there we have cause and effect.

I'm reluctant to quote any excerpts from it directly, as it is copyrighted.

You're safe to quote from anything at all for the purpose of discussion, so long as you don't duplicate long swathes of the stuff, which, hopefully, you wouldn't do.

[Bansho]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Hi Kevin,

The mistake most people make, as I see it, is that people think karma is "theirs", but fail to see that cause and effect does not respect such boundaries.

This can be interpreted in a few ways, that's why I referred you to that essay. If your intention is that our actions (harmful or not harmful) can affect not only ourselves, but others around us, then yes, I'm with you. Our karma is what we do. How others react to that is their karma.

However, if you intended to say that there is such a thing as collective karma which decides the harming or well-being of larger populations (for example, the idea that the victims of the Tsunami in S.E. Asia 2003 was the result of karma, or the idea that people in a poor country somehow deserve the situation in which they were born), then I think that is a misconception.

Gassho
Bansho

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

If your intention is that our actions (harmful or not harmful) can affect not only ourselves, but others around us, then yes, I'm with you. Our karma is what we do. How others react to that is their karma.

Ok, I see what you mean. Delusion is our own. Our suffering is a result of our own delusion. The distortion is coming from our own faulty lenses.

But we should always be aware that our actions can create delusion in others, creating their karma. I know that most Buddhists baulk at accepting this idea, thinking instead that we each have our own separate streams, so to speak.

However, if you intended to say that there is such a thing as collective karma

A collective is a kind of individual - especially when it acts as an individual, such as we human societies do. In fact, the individual human being is itself really a collective, behaving as an individual. When we "make up our mind", many voices weigh-in, like in a democracy.

So the distinction between collective and individual karma is in reality a false one.

which decides the harming or well-being of larger populations (for example, the idea that the victims of the Tsunami in S.E. Asia 2003 was the result of karma, or the idea that people in a poor country somehow deserve the situation in which they were born), then I think that is a misconception.

The Tsunami itself would have been the result of karma only if it was the result of deluded action, which it doesn't appear to have been. But I think it's fair to say that the overpopulation, which resulted in so much suffering and loss of life, was certainly a result of karma, among other things.

[Bansho]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Hi Kevin,

But we should always be aware that our actions can create delusion in others, creating their karma. I know that most Buddhists baulk at accepting this idea, thinking instead that we each have our own separate streams, so to speak.

It doesn't surprise me that most Buddhists baulk at accepting that idea. Where did you get it? Each of us are responsible for our own actions.

A collective is a kind of individual - especially when it acts as an individual, such as we human societies do. In fact, the individual human being is itself really a collective, behaving as an individual. When we "make up our mind", many voices weigh-in, like in a democracy.

So the distinction between collective and individual karma is in reality a false one.

Sure, societies as a whole display patterns of behavior, no question about it. But - that has nothing to do with karma. As Ven. Kobutsu talks about in his essay, karma isn't the only force in the universe.

Gassho
Bansho

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

But we should always be aware that our actions can create delusion in others, creating their karma. I know that most Buddhists baulk at accepting this idea, thinking instead that we each have our own separate streams, so to speak.

It doesn't surprise me that most Buddhists baulk at accepting that idea. Where did you get it? Each of us are responsible for our own actions.

It's something that I myself have discovered to be true. We are not only responsible for our own karma, but also the karma of others. That's why teachers teach.

It's a mistake to think that we are all isolated units.

This is what I see as the essential "Mahayana" realization.

Of course, it's a mistake to think that we are totally in control of the karma of others, just as it would be a mistake to think that we are totally in control of our own karma.

There is no reason to think that we cannot be instrumental in the arising or falling away of the deluded actions (karma) of others, and it is only a mental block in Buddhists that prevents them from realizing this.

A collective is a kind of individual - especially when it acts as an individual, such as we human societies do. In fact, the individual human being is itself really a collective, behaving as an individual. When we "make up our mind", many voices weigh-in, like in a democracy.

So the distinction between collective and individual karma is in reality a false one.

Sure, societies as a whole display patterns of behavior, no question about it. But - that has nothing to do with karma.

What societies do, as individuals, meets the definition you have provided for karma. Socieities act, and they usually act in a deluded fashion.

As Ven. Kobutsu talks about in his essay, karma isn't the only force in the universe.

Sure, karma is only one of the many forces in the universe.

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

It's an interesting point to note, that if one were to define "karma" as being only personal, then one would be effectively defining it out of existence.

[humblepie]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Good point, Bansho. In the context of the thread I began that dealt with the war on terror, individuals who commit acts of terrorism would have to answer to the karmic consequences of their actions as well as many other consequences. And due to their actions, the people from their societies may have to face consequences as well, but not on the karmic level.

The exception to that would be if an atrocity is carried out, and the people who are not directly involved don't make any attempt to oppose it and refrain from associating with those who were responsible. The choice to not take any action has just as many consequences, but does inaction also have karmic consequence where the undue suffering of others is not opposed?

Gassho,
Dave

[Kevin Solway]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

. . . individuals who commit acts of terrorism would have to answer to the karmic consequences of their actions as well as many other consequences. And due to their actions, the people from their societies may have to face consequences as well, but not on the karmic level.

That other people experience the consequences of our karma (deluded actions) is undeniable.

I'm only interested in the nature of the action, and its causes and consequences, which is to say that I'm not interested in pointing the finger at individuals and saying "it's your fault", or "it's your responsibility". There is too much at stake for that, and I don't think it's at all helpful.

If we really thought that other people's karma was isolated from our own then we wouldn't bother trying to help them.

The choice to not take any action has just as many consequences, but does inaction also have karmic consequence where the undue suffering of others is not opposed?

When inaction is a deluded action, it is karma, by definition.

[humblepie]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

When inaction is a deluded action, it is karma, by definition.

Thank you, Kevin. I'd agree with that.

Gassho,
Dave

[Bansho]

Re: Jundo Tackles the 'BIG' Questions - VII

Hi Kevin,

There is no reason to think that we cannot be instrumental in the arising or falling away of the deluded actions (karma) of others, and it is only a mental block in Buddhists that prevents them from realizing this.

No. The way an individual reacts to a given situation is that individual's karma. We cannot make anyone responsible for it other than ourselves.

What societies do, as individuals, meets the definition you have provided for karma.

No. As I've stated previously, societies exhibit patterns of behavior, but only individuals can be said to act based upon their own will.

Generally I don't like to get involved in long-winded discussions about these things, however karma is a touchy subject. If it's viewed incorrectly it can become a dangerous ideology. My understanding of the Buddha-Dharma affects the way I interact with and treat others, and I should think that applies to all other Buddhists who take their practice seriously. If your personal way of looking at things leads to beneficial behavior, that's great, keep up with it. However, as you've stated yourself, it's something you yourself came up with and has been rejected by other Buddhists. It shouldn't be confused with the Buddha-Dharma.

Gassho
Bansho