Karma - Is it a Universal or Dharmic principle?

[Vinayaka]

I would say, I do not really believe in Karma.

I believe it is more that you don't understand karma.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I would say, I do not really believe in Karma.
If I inderstand it correctly, Karma basically says, there will be a consequence for our actions in this world. If we do unfair to others, we will see a punishment in this world in the form of worldly things. I do not believe this is always true. There is consequence always, but mostly in the form of spiritual punishment or rewards.
There were cruel kings or rulers who killed a million, but at the end, at most, they were killed only once. So, how can it be said, the punishment they received was equal to the sufferings they caused for others.

As i understand it, Karma in the broader sense concerns the consequences of our actions both in this life and the after life, both in this world and the next world. If we try to limit it to either just this life or this world, or just after we die, there will be an abundance of the types of example you used.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

As i understand it, Karma in the broader sense concerns the consequences of our actions both in this life and the after life, both in this world and the next world. If we try to limit it to either just this life or this world, or just after we die, there will be an abundance of the types of example you used.

I think most people think of it as a punishment in this world. I knew a woman, who was saying her exhusband got the MS illness. She said, he was very unfair to her, and saw the illness as a punishment for his unfairness. I am not sure how Buddhists or Hindus see it.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think most people think of it as a punishment in this world. I knew a woman, who was saying her exhusband got the MS illness. She said, he was very unfair to her, and saw the illness as a punishment for his unfairness. I am not sure how Buddhists or Hindus see it.

Most people? Non-dharmics, perhaps. Anyone who doesn't understand karma. I'm a Hindu, and I most definitely do not see it as punishment. The punishment/reward model is almost exclusively an Abrahamic concept. In Hinduism, we are all of the same essence, so if you hurt someone, you hurt yourself. In Newton's third law, is the equal and opposite force a punishment?

This is just further proof of how little Baha'i understand karma, and by extension, other dharmic concepts.

 

[Vinayaka]

As i understand it, Karma in the broader sense concerns the consequences of our actions both in this life and the after life, both in this world and the next world. If we try to limit it to either just this life or this world, or just after we die, there will be an abundance of the types of example you used.

But you're still using just one life and one afterlife. In Hinduism, there are hundreds of lives, and hundreds of afterlives. But it is true that we can alleviate, or endure karma in the in-between stage between lives. In our connections back to this world, as devas, or ghosts, or whatever, we can be helpful, or hurtful. But the essential stuff is mostly here, in physical bodies. As I've said many times, karma makes no sense without reincarnation. Unless of course you alter the understanding of karma. But then it's not karma at all, but something else.

 

[Fool]

Karma can mean different things to different people. A common understanding is the law of cause and effect, of action and reaction. In that sense it is a universal law that not only concerns human behaviour and morality but the phenomonal world too.

Karma in Sanskrit means action, work or deed. Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and future suffering.

The philosophy of karma is closely associated with the idea of rebirth in many schools of Indian religions. In these schools, karma in the present affects one's future in the current life, as well as the nature and quality of future lives.

However the same principle could be applied to Abrahamic Faiths. For example in Christianity, Christ's Teaching in regards judgment in the next world is in accordance with one's charity (Matthew 25:31-46). Christianity also teaches morals such as one reaps what one sows (Galatians 6:7) and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

However many scholars consider the concept of Last Judgment in Christianity as different from karma in Dharmic Faiths. The latter is as an ongoing process that occurs every day in one's life, while the last judgment, is a one-time review at the end of life.

Karma - Wikipedia

So what is karma and to what extent can its principles be universally applied or kept within the traditions of Dharmic religions such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism?

Comments and Questions?

for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction. if the consciousness sows negative things of no value to other as self then it reaps those things sowed as self.

 

[Vinayaka]

for every action there is an opposite but equal reaction. if the consciousness, negative things of no value then it reaps those things sowed

This gets the essence of it, but I like to think of it as more the impact being equal. Lending and paying back can be used as an analogy. If you borrow 100 dollars, you can return it in $1 increments, $10 increments, or all at once. The net effect is the same.

 

[Audie]

Processes of action and reaction are certainly much more complex, random and unpredictable in the social realm. An obvious problem is making sense of why good people suffer while a hypocritcal narcisist may prosper. In many places in the world immoral people achieve success through abiding by an entirely different set of principles than those who would endeavour to live a moral life.

Dont worry about it. Farther along, you'll understand why.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But you're still using just one life and one afterlife. In Hinduism, there are hundreds of lives, and hundreds of afterlives. But it is true that we can alleviate, or endure karma in the in-between stage between lives. In our connections back to this world, as devas, or ghosts, or whatever, we can be helpful, or hurtful. But the essential stuff is mostly here, in physical bodies. As I've said many times, karma makes no sense without reincarnation. Unless of course you alter the understanding of karma. But then it's not karma at all, but something else.

The majority of Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, at least not as Hindus do, yet karma remains central to their worldview.

According to the Ven. Mahasi Sayadaw

Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

Basic Buddhism: The Theory of Karma

In regards my comment to another about the consideration of both the present and future life the Buddha affirms;

"If anyone says that a man or woman must reap in this life according to his present deeds, in that case there is no religious life, nor is an opportunity afforded for the entire extinction of sorrow. But if anyone says that what a man or woman reaps in this and future lives accords with his or her deeds present and past, in that case there is a religious life, and an opportunity is afforded for the entire extinction of a sorrow."
(Anguttara Nikaya)

The principle of as we sow, we reap is clear in the words of both Jesus and Buddha:

The Samyutta Nikaya states:

"According to the seed that’s sown,
So is the fruit you reap there from,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps,
Down is the seed and thou shalt taste
The fruit thereof."

So at sometime, in his life or in a future birth or life we reap what we have sown.

The principle makes most sense from the perspective of rebirth or different lives both in this world and in the next. It is clearly integral to the worldview of both Hindus and Buddhists including those who don't believe in a literal reincarnation.

I like your emphasis on the present though, for that is where can most change the effects of karma, both positive and negative.

 

[Vinayaka]

The majority of Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation, at least not as Hindus do, yet karma remains central to their worldview.

Depends on the Buddhist, as far as I know. They go looking for new lamas based on signs, and they (the lamas) get reborn. I'd have to do more research.

Edited to add: Tibetan Buddhism: what is reincarnation?

This paper seems to agree with Hinduism, with the exception of old souls. But then hindus believe that too.

 

[Marcion]

But you're still using just one life and one afterlife. In Hinduism, there are hundreds of lives, and hundreds of afterlives. But it is true that we can alleviate, or endure karma in the in-between stage between lives. In our connections back to this world, as devas, or ghosts, or whatever, we can be helpful, or hurtful. But the essential stuff is mostly here, in physical bodies. As I've said many times, karma makes no sense without reincarnation. Unless of course you alter the understanding of karma. But then it's not karma at all, but something else.

I don't know about Hinduism, but I learnt that after the death of the body there is no chance to influence any of your karmic load because there is no working brain or body with which you can any longer act or think. The unit mind is in deep sleep (like between the dream states) and is "run" or guarded by the Cosmic Consciousness (during life in deep sleep for breathing etc.).

The only ones who may act in a special way to change their karmic load even after death are so-called luminous bodies, who have only three of the five elements we normal physical being have. Luminous bodies are spiritually highly evolved people/souls who at the time of death remained stuck with one subtle but strong desire (such as to be beautiful or to make beautiful music). That hindered them from getting complete liberation so they partially return to the world as a so-called luminous body (of different types according to the remaining samskara's). Perhaps those are sometimes perceived and called angels by Christians. They can sometimes be seen by or give help to spiritual minded people in desperate need and that is how they can relieve their own karmic load.

I don't understand how such luminous bodies can function without a normal functioning body or brain.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't know about Hinduism, but I learnt that after the death of the body there is no chance to influence any of your karmic load because there is no working brain or body with which you can any longer act or think. The unit mind is in deep sleep (like between the dream states) and is "run" or guarded by the Cosmic Consciousness (during life in deep sleep for breathing etc.).

Yes there are many different takes on it, depending on schools. Some are ancient, others are integrated takes. In your statement above, the word 'your' most likely refers to the ego/personality of this particular lifetime. We Hindus would believe also that there is no karmic load on that aspect, as it no longer exists. The temporary ego/personality dies, completely other than in the memories of other temporary ego/personalities.

The soul body (perhaps the same as your 'unit mind') is still there.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Depends on the Buddhist, as far as I know. They go looking for new lamas based on signs, and they (the lamas) get reborn. I'd have to do more research.

Sounds very much like the Tibetan Buddhists.

https://www.dalailama.com/messages/retirement-and-reincarnation/reincarnation

Regardless, it doesn't fit into the Abrahamic view, as far as I can see. Christians and Muslims for sure speak out directly against it. So which is the Baha'i view, Christian, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu, or some amalgamation of all 4 that only makes sense to Baha'i, and doesn't make any sense at all to the other 4 faiths? In other words, the correct and right way to see it? The glorious Baha'i way.

The karma concept appears universal, but an argument can be made that its so inextricably linked to reincarnation that it shouldn't be.

Christians of course criticise karma because of the association with reincarnation. I'd need to do some research about why Muslims would speak out against it. Other than a belief in literal reincarnation the principles of karma and eternal dharma fit nicely into a Baha'i paradigm IMHO.

 

[Vinayaka]

Christians of course criticise karma because of the association with reincarnation. I'd need to do some research about why Muslims would speak out against it. Other than a belief in literal reincarnation the principles of karma and eternal dharma fit nicely into a Baha'i paradigm IMHO.

That hasn't been my experience of why Christians criticise karma. The main reason I've heard is that it's fatalistic ... a person can't escape his karma, so it gives Hindus an excuse to allow suffering, to slough off any human suffering they observe as 'it's that person's karma." So basically it's an assertion that Hindus are an uncaring bunch, and we Christians will come into the rescue. Besides, it gives no counter argument that makes much more sense for the causes of suffering. Mother Theresa herself thought that suffering was good for the soul. Generally in my experience, Christians explain suffering by saying they must be sinners, or that it's simply unexplainable.

I agree that that is a valid criticism of people, but not of the doctrine itself. It doesn't acknowledge kriyamana karma, or the actions one can do at the moment. So if you understand karma well, when you see suffering, it is your duty to alleviate it as much as you can, building punya (merit) and reducing your own pile of sanchita karma.

I have no idea how Baha'is would explain suffering. All I think I've heard is that it is because they haven't yet recognised Baha'u'llah, as if that would relieve suffering.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have no idea how Baha'is would explain suffering.

So if you understand karma well, when you see suffering, it is your duty to alleviate it as much as you can

That is what is asked of a Baha'i, as you said above.

At the same time we know suffering is part of this life and as such Abdul'baha prayed that all suffering may be His, so that all others may be spared.

This would also be our aim.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

That is what is asked of a Baha'i, as you said above.

At the same time we know suffering is part of this life and as such Abdul'baha prayed that all suffering may be His, so that all others may be spared.

This would also be our aim.

Regards Tony

So how do you explain the 'persecution' of whole peoples? There isn't much an individual can do about it, from a distance. In Hinduism we would see it as individual karmas only apparently as a group karma. In other words, at one time the Rohingya were persecutors, as individual souls. Those of us who have benefited from such atrocities such as inhabiting lands that were once forcefully taken also inherit some karma from that, but not nearly as much as the direct perpetrators.

Over the long run, of many lifetimes, not individual lifetimes, karma is totally fair. Temporarily, over a single lifetime it can seem brutally unfair. But that would be maya, illusion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

into a Baha'i paradigm IMHO.That hasn't been my experience of why Christians criticise karma. The main reason I've heard is that it's fatalistic ... a person can't escape his karma, so it gives Hindus an excuse to allow suffering, to slough off any human suffering they observe as 'it's that person's karma." So basically it's an assertion that Hindus are an uncaring bunch, and we Christians will come into the rescue.

So the Christians create a straw man argument by portraying karma as something it isn't, then demolish it. I've heard that argument.

Besides, it gives no counter argument that makes much more sense for the causes of suffering. Mother Theresa herself thought that suffering was good for the soul. Generally in my experience, Christians explain suffering by saying they must be sinners, or that it's simply unexplainable.

Suffering certainly is important for spiritual growth.

According to Abdu'l-Baha

'those who suffer most, attain to the greatest perfection.'

Bahá'í Reference Library - Paris Talks, Pages 49-51

Further

'Men who suffer not, attain no perfection. The plant most pruned by the gardeners is that one which, when the summer comes, will have the most beautiful blossoms and the most abundant fruit.

The labourer cuts up the earth with his plough, and from that earth comes the rich and plentiful harvest. The more a man is chastened, the greater is the harvest of spiritual virtues shown forth by him. A soldier is no good General until he has been in the front of the fiercest battle and has received the deepest wounds.'

I agree that that is a valid criticism of people, but not of the doctrine itself. It doesn't acknowledge kriyamana karma, or the actions one can do at the moment. So if you understand karma well, when you see suffering, it is your duty to alleviate it as much as you can, building punya (merit) and reducing your own pile of sanchita karma.

Baha'u'llah teaches

'Do not busy yourselves in your own concerns; let your thoughts be fixed upon that which will rehabilitate the fortunes of mankind and sanctify the hearts and souls of men. This can best be achieved through pure and holy deeds, through a virtuous life and a goodly behaviour'

I have no idea how Baha'is would explain suffering. All I think I've heard is that it is because they haven't yet recognised Baha'u'llah, as if that would relieve suffering.

Abdu'l-Baha talked about the mental and material tests that would afflict those in the West.

And yet, how often we seem to forget the clear and repeated warnings of Our beloved Master, Who, in particular during the concluding years of His mission on earth, laid stress on the "severe mental tests" that would inevitably sweep over His loved ones of the West — tests that would purge, purify and prepare them for their noble mission in life.

To what extent do they form a part of those "mental tests and trials" destined at various times by the Almighty to stir and reinvigorate the body of His Cause, and how far are they traceable to our imperfect state of understanding, to our weaknesses and failings?

Mental Tests

Are Baha'is any more immune from such mental and material tests? We are not. However like the severe trials that afflicted the Persian Baha'is in their native land, these trials enable us all to grow spiritually or render us completely incapacitated, whether we are Baha'is or not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

So how do you explain the 'persecution' of whole peoples? There isn't much an individual can do about it, from a distance. In Hinduism we would see it as individual karmas only apparently as a group karma. In other words, at one time the Rohingya were persecutors, as individual souls. Those of us who have benefited from such atrocities such as inhabiting lands that were once forcefully taken also inherit some karma from that, but not nearly as much as the direct perpetrators.

Over the long run, of many lifetimes, not individual lifetimes, karma is totally fair. Temporarily, over a single lifetime it can seem brutally unfair. But that would be maya, illusion.

I see I can first change myself, only then can we be a guide for others to change. Any bad we face while we work at this, that is out of our control, we accept whole heartedly. We have confidence all wrong is righted. This is Gods promise, we are never tested beyond our capacity.

The question you asked as to how do you help the persecution of whole peoples, well the answer to me would be via the examples of Bahau'llah and then His gift of Abdul'baha. This is why I see Baha'u'llah and all Messengers have come. I see they alone know how to offer change on a worldly scale.

Anyway, it is a big subject and we all have to just do our best.

P/S Adrian showed we have lots of quotes on this subject

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Suffering certainly is important for spiritual growth.

But only when applied to yourself. It's for learning and the soul's development, and the Hindu view is to accept your karma cheerfully and with dignity, not to whine, 'Why me? Why me? Why has God forsaken me?" and all that nonsense.

Of course it all falls apart if you put it on other people, or take it upon yourself to cause suffering for others. Then it's your karma to return. That's why I'm so against proselytizing, or himsa toward anyone. It causes suffering, does more harm than good. So we have to rid ourselves of this, ''I'm smarter, I know what's good for you, and all that." Tough.

 

[Vinayaka]

The question you asked as to how do you help the persecution of whole peoples, well the answer to me would be via the examples of Bahau'llah and then His gift of Abdul'baha. This is why I see Baha'u'llah and all Messengers have come. I see they alone know how to offer change on a worldly scale.

That doesn't help anyone, Tony. Sharing a story about someone does no real good at all. You have to go out there and help. The 'good news' when unwelcome is not good for anyone. If you want to help the Baha'i 'persecution' problem or any other group persecution, you can write a letter to your international affairs government minister, or give a subtantial donation to Amnesty International, or the International Red cross. Proselytizing hurts more than it helps. It's very misguided charity, in my view.