Can we talk about karma?

[DuffyFluckling]

I see a lot of references to karma on Mumsnet, usually the gist is that someone who has done something bad will get their comeuppance.

But terrible things happen to good people. And good things happen to bad people. How does karma fit in to that?

I do not subscribe to any organised religion. I do have a moral code though, and very much believe in doing good things and doing the right thing. I'm not entirely sure why though.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Message withdrawn

To a Hindu life is about following you dharma. If teh prescrived dhamrma for a cow is to be a cow- so be it. probably the same with a baby but IIRC the life of a baby or child isn't valued (by the faith, not by its family I am certain) in the same way; minors can't be buried in the Ganges, for example. They are incomplete people. Remember that there is no death in Hinduism. The sould as we call it, Atman, is a bit of god that lives within you. When you die (or lose your eartly body) that passes either onwards in reiincarnation or back to God if release is obtained. Rather than death as an end it is cyclical and an entirely different mindset.

The Hell is separation from God thing is based on this thing from Wikipaedia

'The concept of Hell in Christianity comes from the Bible and the "casting out" of Lucifer. In being cast out, he was removed from the presence of God. Therefore, if taken in its most literal sense, Hell is separation from God. Stated another way, to the Christian mind being separated from God is to be in Hell.

Though I have seen it listed as a Heresy as well

I believe though I am no Theologian. I do think people can suffere hell on earth though- some forms of mental illness certainly, and a few rare other horrific events.

Message withdrawn

I think there's a few parts to that, it'scertainly not something I have read up on in any great depth though.

Firstly Karma is not earned, it is accrued or burned off; I presume then that being an animal (a cow is revered so different) allows one to burn off that accrued karma. You'd have to know why that soul became an animal I guess? but you don't necessarily take specific actions to burmn off karma, it happens to you; bit like the whole disability debate back along. If you were reincarnated an animal as a result of some awful karma then maybe you will be more vulnerable to cruelty, or to hard work- for example I could see how a lazy person might be reincarnated a bee or ant (thats completely off my ehd though I should say LOL)

Also I'm not sure but it may be that a Hindu would see an animal as being capable of those decisions- a Buddhist would after all, and there are gods such as Hanuman (a god in the form of a monkey).

Definitely something worth reading up on I think.

Message withdrawn

Ah no disability isnt a punishment for sin as such. That I did take a lots of interest in ( I have 2 SN and one SEN myself).

This is where the balance comes in I guess. You're not born disdabled becuse you were 'bad'. It's becuase of a need for rebalance- so say if you were very dependent you might be born dependent. remember that that episode to a Hindu is just one bried moment for a Hindu who believes he will have many, thousands? of lifetimes.

Now- I'm not arguing that there are some Hindu's who probably do believe that (and some non- Hindu's IME). There's an academic divide between Village hinduisma nd Brahmanical tradition; BT is the Vedas driven monotheirstic type, VH the polytheistic variant. Obv. in RL most people will fall somewhere along that line, as with most extremes.

But its not a punishment- its actual;ly in many ways a chance, to take another tep towards releasefrom samsara.

Don't get me wrong- I can see a great many problems with Hinduism, the plight of the Dallits (lower castes) for one; but I do think its hard for our Westernised minds (if you are of course, who knows on MN) to understand on our terms. I think you and I see the tragedy in SN but I suppose a Hindu might see it as a brief step, maybe even one we all take. If it was seen that way I could see benefits in Western beliefs TBH as there is such a them-and-us about SN still. Of course under-educated VT is going to be the one that prevails for most people.

And remember if you are ctruel to a person who is disabled then you might find that you end up having accrued negative karma from that and ending up in exactly the same position. Karma should be a miotivator but of course it isn't always.

Peachy, I appreciate and respect the extent of your study and that you are determined on neutrality.

I don't think there's any evidence to show that cultures whose religion developed with the incorporation of karma and reincarnation had some special level of hardship which could explain it.

lt's simply one way of explaining the bad times within a faith. But it seems in wholly pragmatic terms to have become not just an explanation of the bad times, but a cause.

I wouldn't demand objectivity from a person of faith, not any faith. But I don't have to join in: I am outside. For me, accepting the consequences of karma and caste as not undesirable requires a stretch of moral relativism I am not prepared to contemplate.

You know I dont like it either and I have written (and been told off for LOL0 some fairly damning essays on the application of caste, it's horrendous.

But I do personally beleive that there is a reason most religions becopme what they do. Thedevelopment of anything cultural is dynamic isnt it? We now that religions adopt and absorb from the environment that they exits in- eg the Pagan traditions that influence Chriostian celebration and calendars.

I think that if you want to change those tgings the best way is to try and understand as much as possible of what fed it in the first place.

One of those things is intolerance and to truly combat that we need information on what we are making a stand about. It also helps when you are trying to change something to have some idea of the postives ijn a faith system- it alienates peopleless, especially if like me you are coming from another culture and beleif system.

Bigotry based on caste is officially illegal in India. But it happens, in the same way as women were still burning themselves that we know about in the 1990's,and 'untouchables' subjected to terrible treatment. As someone who is committed to this area of study I can either turn p and say this is crap and offend everyone in the entire building, or start from a shared understanding and work from there. If that makes sense?

My own interest is in education and how it can change everything. And thats another firld where I have to be practised in neutraility.... not just becuase of the chidlren of different faiths, but the Atheist MN briagde who truly seem to think I will be braisnwashing their kids when actually thats not really what I am about.

If we want to change things the best way IMO is to empower people, give the tools- educations, optimism, a vision- to those who are there and let them build a new path for themselves within their own culture.

Sorry preaching LOL. My own soapbox I guess. I'm a great fan of amnesty and a beleiver in changing the world, but I think my role is to do what I can quietly through educating. I'm not a dynamic warrior or brave Ghandhi type, but I can quietly teach and share my studies and hope that if a few kids learn about treating each other fairly regardless of faith then they will pass that on and it will emancipate along the way.

Message withdrawn

I dont think its to learn exactly- its to balance karma. perhaps it helps if you view karma as a physicalthinga s some do;simply negatiove and positive particles that you attaract. When you rebalance you simply shed some of the negative: the aim is an equally balanced neutraility IYSWIM?

Actually thats a critical point isn't it?

In our culture, we (supposedly) want to be very very good; love thy neighbour, altruism etc.

Karmic faiths however see things a bit differently. You're looing to shed karma to be freed: that is positive as well as negative. Too good, and on you go again. Your spirit level needs to be even.

Buddha called it the middle way; neither austerity nor indulgence. Just.... nothing. Dont accrue anything. Be a Hindu or Jain monk and wander around naked so you dont accrue anything and live off handouts. Get the lay people to do anything that might accrue it, but neitehr do you get invovled in any acts of supreme kindness either, you just exist and burn it all off.

It's vcery strange to my mind, this fatalistic approach: obliteration is the aim. The rest of us, we want immortality.

Peachy you are interesting and I agree with many of your points (and am educated by others!).

I don't think it's the job of the "West" however to try to change another country and another faith. I'm sure you don't either. When the British were in India, they bought into caste lock stock and barrel, used it and exploited it. It was there before we arrived however and it's still there. We've stepped back and so we should have done. You and I have, I think, a similar instinct away from caste: but as you say we can't impose our views. I like your education stance: but it's still "enlightened" outsiders telling people what is right.

Anyway good luck with your chosen field. You are obviously passionate about it.

Bloss I like your line of questioning too!

I agree and its ahrd to balance it isnt it? I think the way forwards is to give people the freedom to question from withion, but not necessarily change their faith- Vivekananda (sorry LOL) didn't, he just set up a mission helping people and addressing the problems he saw with society, and it as interfaith dialogue that made him do that. When we see how others live we can question our own ways which isnt teh same as imposing ur way on anyone- we have an awful lot to learn as well, potentially just as much I think. The asnwers are out there, but to find them we must branch out beyond our usual ways of addressing the problems.

Or to put it better: I like ISlam, I find a lot in it to be inspirational, such as Zakat. But isf someone wanted me to stand by and accept a stoning in the name of religious rights they'd be out of luck.

I respect and adore the right of a person to worsip and believe as they see fit: I do not accept their right to impose cruelty on anone in the name of that, whether in my own culture or another.

Yes, that sums it up better LOL.

Yes I like a nice bit of Islam too. It seems very peaceful and not to fit what's actually happening.

Peachy and Bloss - I am loving this.

Just a thought: I read a Hannah Arendt essay on time and immortality the other day (it's famous but I'm terrible with memory at the moment, so no name!). In it she points to the difference between the Greek and the Romantic concept of immortality/eternity.

She suggests a notion of immortality different from our more modern notions. In this version, immortality is becoming the same as the rocks and plants; a slow running cyclical-ness, that in its slow cycle is unchanging. Against that, (a) person appears, as an individual, just once, singularly. The only possible "immortality" for man is in inscribing singularity in memory. But it's not really immortality. Actually, its absolutely the opposite of immortality.

Modern notions sort of re-work that dualism in a slightly different way and really seize this singularity as immortality.

It strikes me that the sort of nothingess you describe is closer to this older idea of immortality, where a true immortality is achieved by somehow achieving an identity with the unchanging change at the heart of being.

I don't know, I'm probably misinterpreting wildly, but it's just a little thought prompted by this thread.

I think there's a question I want to ask you about karma - but I'm going to have to trot off and think about it a lttle more.

CB yes that makes sense, and it is sort of strange immortality that it achieves. That varies though- Buddhism, right back at the beginning, was very specific about nothingness: death was absolute. The latter sort of Buddhist beliefs where you get Buddha existing in a sort of divity come later and are amore modern (I use the term loosely LOL) take: Buddha was definite about the end post enlightenment being just that. Hinduism is mroe as you describe though-a part of you lives on forever but as a part of Brahman, supreme god / energy / etc; everything is part of Brahman so you become part of the absolute if that makes sense?

I would try and define Brahman but a trad definition of Brahman is the indefinable LOL

Jainism is different again and immensely rare so I won't delve too deep except to say that anyone born on Earth isn't there yet anyway as you have to be born when a Tirtankara is preaching and right now there are none on Earth, but would need to be on a another planet where they are in action (Mahavira was the last here IIRC)

I will try and anser any questions but I'm only grad level LOL, though might enter this thread as a PhD submission

Here's my question about karma.

I attended a "yoga Sunday School" a while back. In it, I learned that "karma" is more to do with the essential amorality and valuelessness of the universe. Something happens, you judge it "bad" or "good", according to the immediate situation. Time rolls on, and that act, which was judged "bad" or "good" now assumes a different character, according to the new context, and so on.

Given this flux, all you can do is assume a stance of "indifference". Well, it's not all you can do, actually, imo (!), but it is the stance recommended and is the philosophical underpinning of that stance.

I've not read much in the way of Easter religion/philosophy but I have read a few of the early Western religious responses to Eastern philosophy/religion, which seemed to pick up on this aspect and find it deeply troubling. So I'm guessing it does exist as a fairly mainstream religious/philosophical position. (Or it wouldn't have been there to bother Western, Christian interpreters so much.)

So, my question is, how does this viewpoint develop into the ideas of karma that seem to be embraced by mainstream religion? And do any Eastern religions still hold this viewpoint?

Anyone who's interested in karma and the way it ties into christianity among other things should have a look at the writings of Rudolf Steiner, or google anthroposophy. Steiner's writing is a bit dry and fusty, partly because of being translated from the original german. But he merges the hindu and christian viewpoints in a way I find interesting. Definitely worth a look...

little bump, looking for PEACHY.

cheerful - yes, he comes out of that turn of the century, post-Blavatsky thing. But I'd rather not get into an anthrosophy chat ... .

i understand it that if someting bad happens to a bad person and you sya 'ooh that's karma'then you are judging that person, and by doing so inflict bad larma on yourself.

acceptance of another's actions, and beng non judgmental is a high state to ascribe too tho !!

i of course meant karma not larma

(goes off and pisses herself laffin)!!!

When you look at the concept of Karma in Buddhism you need to bear in mind that Buddhists do not believe in the concept of "self" it is as if individuals were all little lightbulbs plugged into the electricity supply. When I started to attend Buddhist meditation it was explained to me that karma is not individually linked to one person ( because of no self) but is a string of issues that need to be resolved over more than one life time.

Just come back to this, yes sorry for mentioning Steiner. I honestly had no idea anthroposophy was such a contentious issue on MN, I did I bit of searching (after I posted!) and couldn't believe my eyes But we will say no more about it...

Stuart Wilde has some interesting things to say about karma in his latest book, but not very palatable stuff: about how earth is basically a giant correctional facility, not all souls get sent here and if you do, it's because you need the experience pretty badly, i.e you messed up somewhere along the line. I found it a bit depressing but it made me think. SW is very far out though and I think would piss off a lot of the people on here.

I'll get my coat, shall I...