To believe in karma, even though it doesn’t always seem to work?

@Nonentitynumpty, I forgot to mention I don't have a clue about any of my past lives, but I still 100% believe in Reincarnation, based on what I have understood about the logic of the joint concepts of Karma and Reincarnation.

Belief needs logic more than proof, in my view.

@Nonentitynumpty

Yes, it is a matter of belief and a third party can't prove it to you.

But if it is indeed true, it will affect everyone, whether they believe in it or not.

The consequences will also be the same for both believers and non-believers.

Acquisition of Karma doesn't depend on whether one believes in God or not, it depends on one's behaviour/lifestyle.

Being an "an okay person in life" makes sense in many ways.

But what sort of behaviour/lifestyle is okay and doesn't result in bad Karma is the essential question to be considered, according to my understanding.

Yes, it is true that people are manipulated, either on purpose or because the preachers themselves don't have a proper understanding.

Although it is very difficult to find the right resources, before following any belief, one should do as much research as possible.

The more you fall into something without properly understanding the logic of it, the more disillusioned you will be, as it seems you have found out.

All around us, we see vast differences, unbelievable injustices, "innocent" and "good" people in terrible situations, "guilty" and "bad" persons in very comfortable situations getting away with all the bad things they do.

Whatever we are is a direct consequence of what we did in our previous lives.

And what we do in this life will have consequences in future lives.

Before I get misquoted again, if we are benefitting from good Karma, it does not mean we ignore the plight of others and write it off as their bad Karma.

Callous and arrogant behaviour towards those suffering creates bad Karma for ourselves to be suffered in future lives whereas kind and caring behaviour creates good Karma for ourselves.

For me, the joint concepts of Karma and Reincarnation are a logical explanation of how things work.

If we try to isolate Karma from Reincarnation, or with what happens after death, the logic disappears as we clearly see from all the injustices around us.

But everyone is free to have their own beliefs!

@NoProblems

I found your comments most interesting, especially your last two sentences, "But you are right, there is a danger of people becoming resigned to their fate.
But that is due to not having a proper understanding of the religion they are following, which is Buddhism in your friend's case."

I used to be a practising Buddhist, but I was shocked at how many people fell foul of understanding properly the teachings on karma - and that applied to even some of those supposedly most "experienced" of practionners. I also witnessed how people were manipulated by misuse of the teachings.

Needless to say, I'm not a Buddhist anymore, and in fact do not follow any religion or religious doctrine. The teachings on karma only make sense if you believe in reincarnation; and to believe in reincarnation relies upon having great faith and quelling any questionning and analytical observations. If you want any evidence, there is none - I certainly cannot remember anything about my past lives, if indeed I ever had any!

So I now see karma as a belief system - if you believe it and it works for you, fine. Otherwise, just try to be an okay person in life and not behave like a dick.

I understand the concept, and why it suits intelligent people these days to reframe karma as a more complicated and nuanced idea than "you'll pay some day, even in the next life". The same thing happens in god-based religions too, because simple folk tale concepts of magical justice, or vengeful gods, obviously don't wash for most educated people.

I grew up with a school chaplain who had all these interesting explanations for the biblical miracles—demonstrating that they weren't miracles at all, but interpretations of dramatic events distorted over time by storytelling. Ultimately, the point was to live a good life and be a good person—you didn't need to believe in magic to prove the existence of god.

Not believing in karma or a god doesn't give a person like me carte blanche to be a bastard, because that would be stupid. There's society, and relationships, and laws to consider—natural consequences. Humans are successful as a species because we have evolved into an extremely sophisticated cooperative societal structure, which requires a lot of rules to function. For most people, cooperation and following the rules does make for an easier life, whether you're doing it for karma, for god, or simply for the smooth running of society.

For a few people, however, breaking the rules pays off—sometimes big style—and often there are no consequences for them at all. That's life, unfortunately. Religious ideas about magical justice exist to discourage the societal rule-breakers, and your nuanced model of karma is just a complicated version of that.

I see what you are saying, but I think the idea of punishments handed down by a God is very different to the concept of a natural law that you can observe and choose to take advantage of.

Also it’s unfortunately not consistent with teachings on karma to say ‘it’ll be better in the next life’ - it’s less of an optimistic picture really because karma is created out of mental actions. That means that moment by moment we are creating karma that we will experience eventually, and without a consistent level of training to help us go against our (often pretty self obsessed) desires, we continue to experience suffering.

I know you don’t believe this and probably don’t want further info, so not sure why I am expanding but just perhaps helpful for the initial scope of the thread - that the concept of karma is not what is commonly thought, and in the west it’s hard to divorce it from our Christian cultural upbringings that bring in the ideas of punishments and salvation, which are just not part of it.

It's exactly the same thing as God's plan though. It's a clunky explanation of Why Shit Happens, combined with a set of rules (albeit not set down on tablets of stone) to help you tip the balance in your favour by being a Good Person. Karma may not involve an angry god, but it's the same idea.

When shit happens to good people, you're told it'll be better in the next life—it's the same comfort blanket whether that next life is heaven or reincarnation.

I agree that all religions seek to answer why bad shit happens, and personally can’t get along with the idea of God’s plan. I disagree with the comfort blanket bit in respect of karma though. To me it’s no mental effort to say ‘it’s one life only and nothing I can do about it’, compared with ‘my actions have consequences for me in this life and beyond, and if I want to change that, I have to change my mental habits/behaviours’. That’s taking personal responsibility and not an easy thing to do at all.

If Karma exists then my ex husband should be shitting himself.

Sadly, it doesn't.

According to my understanding, there are two sides to it.

It is right to accept that one's problems are a consequence of one's own past negative Karma.

If a person has been wronged, it shouldn't stop the person from trying to get justice as per the laws of the land.

But the person should avoid acquiring new negative Karma by being consumed with thoughts of revenge.

The second side is Buddhism and the other religions that believe in Karma are very clear about being proactive in what you do to acquire good Karma and avoid accumulating bad Karma.

But you are right, there is a danger of people becoming resigned to their fate.

But that is due to not having a proper understanding of the religion they are following, which is Buddhism in your friend's case.

My best friend and most wonderful woman I knew died this year at 35 years old of a brain tumour.
She also believed 'everything happened for a reason'.
I sometimes wonder if she ever doubted that as she took her dying breaths.

There is no reason.
There is no fate.
There is no justice.
Life is a series of random events.

The sooner people realise that the better.

According to my understanding, everyone has a mix of good Karma and bad Karma.

The important thing is to avoid the sort of behaviour that is a cause for acquiring bad Karma.

The four Indian religions that have Karma as core to their philosophy have described the actions which lead to bad Karma (and good Karma).

Mind you they are not all the same - they have major differences!

It only.works if you have a conscience. If not, you can get away with murder and not suffer for it.

Do you think it came back to Hitler?

Maybe in the sense he must have been terribly distressed in his inner state in his bunker during his final hours?

Isn't it 'woo woo' or wishful thinking that a terrible person must have had consequences in their inner state before dying?

You have seen it play out countless times, but there are countless people, myself included, who have seen it not play out countless times.

In real life it is crystal clear that most (bad[ actions don't seem to have consequences and too many people are getting away with it.

If there are consequences, the only logical explanation would be most of them they happen after death.

I didn't say it wasn't logical. I said it was completely invented.

Like chess. Or dungeons and dragons. Or - perhaps more pertinently - snakes and ladders.

All religions (and pseudo-religions) have highly convoluted "explanations" for why awful shit happens. It's much less mental effort to embrace absurdism, accept that we live in a howling chaos, and that there's no such thing as any kind of natural justice, God's plan, or karma. Whatever philosophy it's dressed up in, it's all the same comfort blanket concept.

I often wonder why polytheism died out in most human cultures. If you must have a supernatural explanation for the shit show, a bunch of self-interested gods squabbling over various conflicts of interest, which directly or indirectly affect humans, makes far more sense than one god with an unknowable plan.

I used to have a friend who was a devout Buddhist. She struggled with her health and ability to do her job. But whenever you tried to talk about addressing any of her issues, she'd just shut down and moan, "Oh, it's just my negative karma!"
I think that is the danger of these teachings for some people - they take it as they deserve to suffer to purify their "negative karma" rather than proactively deal with the issues at hand.

I also find the way absolute rot is being promulgated here disturbing and take issue with it.

I disagree, and find it very logical when you study the ins and outs. Clearly you don’t, which is ok!

You do know, don't you, that this meticulously-constructed, reverentially-regarded and carefully-presented argument is completely and utterly made up? There is nothing at all to support it. Nothing. At all.

It's just....I mean...you know....invented.

That’s a good question and one I think which illustrates how karma works quite well. Assuming you’ve read previous explanations that karma operates in a multi life model and not based on just this life as is commonly thought. Al fayed is likely in the past to have created the fortunate karma to be wealthy, by being generous in a previous incarnation. He also in the past has created the tendency to be a rapist by previously being a rapist. Karmic results are said to be effects similar to the cause, but increased. This explains babies arriving with very specific tendencies that can’t be explained by environment or genetics. They were like that in one, or more likely many, previous lives.

The important point in your question is, if he was a rapist in previous lives, how has he found himself in a fortunate situation now? My understanding is it’s a complex interplay of factors - one of the main being the importance of the state of mind a person dies with, determining which ‘karmic seed’ will ripen to produce the next life. So someone with the previous karmic potential of committing terrible actions (that’s everyone unless they have trained the mind) could still die with a peaceful and loving mind, or die saving someone else, or in some positive way, and receive a fortunate rebirth. Then all the other imprints of all the other previous actions ripen in that life as day-to-day experiences, both good and bad.

That's why for Buddhists a huge focus is training the mind so that at the time of death they can be peaceful and compassionate which are the conditions for positive karma to ripen and not negative. And keeping the mind loving and happy in general is the best way to help positive ‘seeds’, rather than negative, to ripen.

Al Fayed will undoubtedly reap the results of the actions he has sown, at some time in the future and what he experiences will be worse than what he has meted out.

Until someone can explain how you can be a serial rapist and own Harrods, I'm going to stick to the conviction that it's crap.

Yeah I have heard of that. I am so unlucky I sometimes think I must have been someone awful in a previous life.

I dont believe in karma in a woo woo reincarnation sense but I absolutely believe in it from an "actions have consequences" sense and I have seen it play out countless times.

It might not happen immediately but it does happen. If you behave like an arsehole to others it does come back to get you eventually because your inner state (if it's hateful) affects the world you perceive and experience. How could it not?

That doesnt mean bad shit never happens to good people because it does, but if you interact with the world in a selfish, greedy, mean spirited manner you will eventually reap what you sow. I've witnessed it happen too many times not to believe this.

Apologies, Justice4Friend, the Rigveda does mention the word 'Karma', but only as a duty towards Dharam and nothing to do with the Karma we are talking about here.

It became more defined in 'Santhan Dharam' much later at the time when the 'Shraman' philosophy is known to have existed.

All this happened more than 2,500 years ago and there is no clear cut answer from scholars as to who explained it first.

What you are insisting to be true is a matter of faith but cannot be asserted in black and white to others.

Almost all researchers of Sikhism will say that Sikhs rejected idol worship because of Muslim influence, but Sikhs have their own views on it.

You were talking about the original scriptures of 'Santhan Dharam', that is the Vedas and Upnishads.

Does the Gurugranthsahib incorporate the Vedas and Upnishads in full?

Does it include everything about the the trinity of Lord Brahma, Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva, and the Ramayan and Mahabharat?

Are the differences between Sikhism and what is commonly known as Hinduism only practical rather than philosophical?