Karma/Sin

[Paraprakrti]

The second post of the first page is not a full definition of karma. Karma is not simply the mechanical laws of the universe. It is not just newtonian physics and such. Karma also applies to morals; i.e. if you live your life toturing others, then later you will be tortured by others. You reap what you sow. What goes around, comes around.

 

[Sonic247]

Ok but not eveyone here uses that definition of karma, although that is probably what it originally meant. And I don't mean me, but other people that believe in karma describe it diffirently.

 

[YmirGF]

I can only echo Seyorni's wonderful explanation and Mystic'Heather's valiant effort to shed understanding on the matter.

My take on karma is much more immediate. Karma is Newton's law, "For every action the is an equal and opposite reaction" but with a twist. Karma, from my standpoint is "for every action there is an equal reaction of the same nature". In effect, so-called "good" actions will result in favorable reactions from the world around you. So-called "bad" actions will yield unfortunate results. It is the knowledge of this simple process that one takes with them from life to life as they wend their way to "enlightenment", not the karma itself. In effect, life deals with a person's actions during a given lifetime and you either learn from the experience or you do not. The individual has direct influence on their personal karma and their personal karma is NOT dependant on the external influence of some imaginary "invisible friend". NO ONE, but the individual, can absolve you of your karma, period. Karma is an autocorrecting mechanism that enforces responsibility for actions.

Sin, on the other hand, is more like a cheque book, in my opinion. The individual can indeed learn to "sin no more" but they still retain their accumulated "sins" and have to be hopeful that an external agency (aka "invisible friend" or "gawd") will absolve that imagined sin. It is both filled with hope and also with hopelessness, as we are told we are all inherently sinful creatures and that only "god" can remove our sins entirely. It's a bit much to hope for, in my opinion.

Since karma is up to the individual, and sin is up to god, they cannot be the same thing. Perhaps they have similar effects in life, in that the individual theoretically become a "better" person, but they have decidedly different cleansing methods. In effect, karma uses life to autocorrect behavior; whereas sin relies on a rather large stick of fear and the carrot of reward as the impetus. To me, that is unseemly and unrealistic. Give me reality any day.

Oh well, what would I know, eh?

 

[Paraprakrti]

Ok but not eveyone here uses that definition of karma, although that is probably what it originally meant. And I don't mean me, but other people that believe in karma describe it diffirently.

All I can say is that what is originally meant is the true definition of the Sanskrit word.

 

[Sonic247]

I can only echo Seyorni's wonderful explanation and Mystic'Heather's valiant effort to shed understanding on the matter.

My take on karma is much more immediate. Karma is Newton's law, "For every action the is an equal and opposite reaction" but with a twist. Karma, from my standpoint is "for every action there is an equal reaction of the same nature". In effect, so-called "good" actions will result in favorable reactions from the world around you. So-called "bad" actions will yield unfortunate results. It is the knowledge of this simple process that one takes with them from life to life as they wend their way to "enlightenment", not the karma itself. In effect, life deals with a person's actions during a given lifetime and you either learn from the experience or you do not. The individual has direct influence on their personal karma and their personal karma is NOT dependant on the external influence of some imaginary "invisible friend". NO ONE, but the individual, can absolve you of your karma, period. Karma is an autocorrecting mechanism that enforces responsibility for actions.

Sin, on the other hand, is more like a cheque book, in my opinion. The individual can indeed learn to "sin no more" but they still retain their accumulated "sins" and have to be hopeful that an external agency (aka "invisible friend" or "gawd") will absolve that imagined sin. It is both filled with hope and also with hopelessness, as we are told we are all inherently sinful creatures and that only "god" can remove our sins entirely. It's a bit much to hope for, in my opinion.

Since karma is up to the individual, and sin is up to god, they cannot be the same thing. Perhaps they have similar effects in life, in that the individual theoretically become a "better" person, but they have decidedly different cleansing methods. In effect, karma uses life to autocorrect behavior; whereas sin relies on a rather large stick of fear and the carrot of reward as the impetus. To me, that is unseemly and unrealistic. Give me reality any day.

Oh well, what would I know, eh?

Karma in it's original context can only be removed by God also who by the way is not imaginary. Eternal life is not a carrot, and there is reason to fear because if every action has an equal reaction what is the punishment for denying God, it would be that he denies you.

 

[James the Persian]

Sin, as I conceive it, is action in contravention of the will or regulations of a powerful, Divine Personage. Sin is dangerous inasmuch as it offends Someone with the power and will to harm those offensive to Him/Her.

This concept of sin is peculiar to western Christianity. The eastern concept, summed up by the Greek word translated as sin, hamartia, is very different indeed (though it still has little or no resemblance to karma).

Sin is not akin to a legal trnsgression for us at all - not even close. I could try to explain the difference but I'd prefer to just point you towards this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48208

The article I have linked to explains the difference between our and western concepts of sin far better than I ever could.

James

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In response to Mystics question. I am most definately, without any doubt in my mind, calling the people who say they are free from wrong thoughts liars. There is proof for only one person that he wasn't, and that is the one that rose from the dead.

Hmmmmmmm, I guess it might not be expedient to invite you to the DIR Buddhist forums since you have made up your mind about my religion. It is a big lie, no? Too bad for you, since I disagree.



By their fruits, you shall know them.



I guess from your vantage point all our Tibetan monks and nuns who have been repeatedly persecuted, tortured, raped, and murdered for practicing their religion..........and have not once shown anger or self-pity, and who have remained gentle, compassionate, and generous, from the Chinese occupation are all liars and deceivers. This is all an act, correct? For close to 50 years? They are also rarely separated from the public. Have you ever visited the Dalai Lama's website and seen his schedule? The man is booked solid for his lectures around the world. He exudes wisdom and compassion, and has consistently brought people happiness.



Con artists can be spotted and tracked because of what they take from others. Our tradition seeks to give happiness and tools for individuals to find happiness. It is entirely possible to have unceasing joy and to be free from suffering in this lifetime. Buddha taught us how in the Dharma.




I find it sad that you would hold suspiscion toward someone who was doing good in this world. Enlightenment is not claimed for the masses to "ooh" and "aah" over. Enlightenment is achieved in order to help others. The banishment of wrong thoughts and wrong actions upon achieving enlightenment is not to spike the football and do the victory dance.........it is in order to have the best ability to help the entire world. The motives for enlightenment are purely selfless.




Have a good day.



Peace,
Mystic