Fair and Impartial Trial in the Court of Cause and Effect

[cherydactyl]

The theory of karma should not be confused with so-called "moral justice" or "reward and punishment." The idea of moral justice, or reward and punishment, arises out of the conception of a supreme being, a God, who sits in judgment, who is a law-giver and who decides what is right and wrong. The term "justice" is ambiguous and dangerous, and in its name more harm than good is done to humanity. The theory of karma is the theory of cause and effect, of action and reaction; it is a natural law, which has nothing to do with the idea of justice or reward and punishment. Every volitional action produces its effects or results. If a good action produces good effects and a bad action bad effects, it is not justice, or reward, or punishment meted out by anybody or any power sitting in judgment on your action, but this is in virtue of its own nature, its own law. This is not difficult to understand. But what is difficult is that, according to the karma theory, the effects of a volitional action may continue to manifest themselves even in a life after death.

--Walpola Rahula in What the Buddha Taught, from Everyday Mind, edited by Jean Smith
Tricycle's Daily Dharma for July 23, 2008

Comments

[gizelnort.livejournal.com]

Interesting quote...I'm just wondering first how this sits with the idea of the reincarnation wheel, since some of the stories I've read seem to have a rise/fall concept built into them. Second though this made me think of karma as being closer to ripples in a medium bouncing back more then anything else.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

Well, the first thing to note is that the Buddhist concept of Karma is different than the Hindu one (and the one used in Jainism or Sikhism). Here's the Wikipedia article about karma, which should give you an idea of the differences from one religion/interpretation to another.

This is the term that people in the West are most likely to misunderstand, from what I can tell, due to more than a century of loose and incorrect usage dating back to the English domination of the Indian subcontinent.

"The idea of karma was popularized in the Western world through the work of the Theosophical Society. Kardecist and Western New Age reinterpretations of karma frequently cast it as a sort of luck associated with virtue: if one does good or spiritually valuable acts, one deserves and can expect good luck; conversely, if one does harmful things, one can expect bad luck or unfortunate happenings." (from the Wikipedia article)

I'm not saying that I understand the concept completely, either.

Some Buddhist sources say that the "goal" of existence is the extinguishing of karma, which I take to mean "stop having the burden of prior causes." I happen to like the relatively Zen version of karma, that it's a name for cause and effect, and that "good karma" just describes the reality that good actions have good effects.

I have problems with doctrines of inevitable corruption (which some sorts of Buddhism definitely talk about) and revolution. Some sects talk about ages of corruption of the dharma (teachings), and I think that is the human tendency to impute "Golden Age" status to earlier times, as opposed to a real thing.

edited for reorganization/typos

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

you might want to check out presterjon's reply below...he's got more study in on this topic than I do by far.

[fierce-femme21.livejournal.com]

What appeals to me is that karma removes that guilt-inducing judgment factor from the equation.

[presterjon.livejournal.com]

Another common misconception of karma that grew from the theosphical society is its identification with the individual. Nineteenth century TS teachings were rooted in a fundamentally erroneous notion of the persistence of a human soul. They taught that Karma associated with the individual soul guided its reincarnation through a cycle of karmically appropriate rebirths until wisdom gathered and enlightenment/escape from samsara became doable.

Hopeful crap rooted in dualistic delusion. Nothing personal reincarnates, only the individual's habit patterns. Beloved memories of grandma now passed; Aunt Mable's apple pie; a loved one's hand held; cradling your child heart filled with love; or rage-filled pounding your attacker in the bloodied nose with your fists; or mourning the loss of that perfect someone who dumped you; all the special moments in life that create one all gone with only the habit patterns indulged in (here is that karma) perpetuated anew in the world.

Reincarnation and karma was never meant to be the consolation that western misconception turned it into. Nothing more than hope which is nothing more than displaced fear, nothing more than the root cause of delusion informs the misconception. Death is death, there is no running from the end, only preparation for a life worth living until the path becomes the destination. Inescapability is part of the lesson here I think.

There are a few Buddhist sects that believe that personality can be preserved from life to life. None of them believe that it can be easily done. A soul must be earned and diligent daily practice and preparation must be engaged in. Very few people are accomplished in this way. The rest of us die like dirty dogs, no different than animals.

Karma then is an impersonal force, as much as death. First Noble Truth: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering. The path of unwinding karma is said to be the longest one.

Though on the bright side this is a liberating feeling. My choices are my own, I choose to benefit others or myself. No good, no evil, just my own insignificant contribution to the splendrous display of existence. Nice. Freeing. Helps me in my work every day.

Caveat: This writer claims no realization whatsoever, I merely parrot words of my betters.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

:)

I'm glad you chimed in. You're more expert at this than I am, having had more years of study. I think I will point out your reply to gizelnort, who, by the way, I think you would get along famously with.

[(Anonymous)]

Reading does not make one expert, on that all the experts agree. Practice makes one expert. One is expert when the path becomes one's life. I regurgitate information and have lazy lazy mind. By those standards, I am far far from expert, though I greatly appreciate the well intended compliment.
;)

Still dharma discussion has great value and its nice to be involved.

[cherydactyl.livejournal.com]

I assume this was you, presterjon :)

Can't argue with anything you say...except that *relative to me*, you are an expert.