Karma - your experience

[longway]

ive never really been able to understand karma. the way it looked to me was that if we had to pay back our karma then we are all in gigantic karmic dance, even though our actions seem free we are just puppets being jigged about by the universe to fulfilling our karmic destiny.

i also found it a paradox that many times for a person to fulfil their karmic 'debt' another person would have to commit bad karma have to pay that back and so on ad infinitum. also helping someone can seems pointless, because if you ease someone's/something's suffering then you are just leaving a partial karmic debt for them to pay back at a later date. im aware of skillful and unskilful actions, but i did find a contradiction here.

later i thought i was looking at it from the wrong the wrong point of view. ie my own. the dhamma states (if im right here) that the self an illusion we are just all aspects of a whole, even time is the illusion of the logical mind. and now i am not so sure; it all gets to deep for me. am i making any kind of sense here? or does it even need to make sense? are things are just the way they are, however, if you follow the dhamma you can break free.

i feel more comfortable with the interpretation that a lifetime of skilful actions enhances one's character so that even with the worst that life can deal you you take it with equamity. for example hitler may have been born rich and handsome through pure chance, but his charactwer is such that he will never be happy. and he will always be trapped in the maya, playing out countless lifes and suffering forever being born gain and again in all sort of forms. whereas people who perform skilful actions will eventually free themselves

im not too sure what im trying say here, but i will post it anyway and hope some people will have some comments.

[Plus]

Karmic debt - if it was all paid and there was no debt left, the world would cease to exist.

[longway]

Karmic debt - if it was all paid and there was no debt left, the world would cease to exist.

is it just that we as humans would cease to exist? or is karma really an inextricable part of the fabric of the underlying reality? perhaps trying to separate karma from it is like trying to separate a donut from from its hole. (sorry no better analogy come to mind though i bet there are dozens )

the question that does come to mind is that why did the world come into existence in the first place then? there was no karma 'before' then so why should it cease to exist when it is all 'paid'?. suppose everyone was in credit due to their skilful actions? as long as there are living things or at least self aware life then karma will always be generated.unless everyone left is enlightended and we all become free of our karma. why should that mean that the world/universe ceases to exist? isnt the goal to become one with the underlying reality and not have to be born again to fulfil our karma.

i wonder if we really do have any choice in our lives. does every good or bad thing that happens to us a consequence of karma or are their random occurances too? perhaps the only 'free' thing about us is how we deal with our karma.

personally i find that the concept of karma makes my head melt.

of course none of this puts food on the table, so i will get back to that now and continue on with my karmic destiny as a lich hansum man in thailand with some luck.

[Plus+]

Karma, as a law of nature, is not limited to humans only, and I'm afraid, you don't have a choice whether to follow your karma and put bread on the table or sit around pretending to be a boddhisattva.

You can't stop the world from going about its ways, or stop your participation in the global cirlce of events, BUT, if you are free from self illusion then it won't bother you anymore.

Think about it - we, farangs, identify ourselves with Thailand, at least to some degree, we get involved, we suffer in our hearts when Dr. T does this or that, we write "constructive crtitsism" letters to Bangkok Post because we can't stand injustice or whatever. We feel for it. Why? Why don't we feel as much for children of Dafur, or Burma? Is it simply because our ego doesn't spread that far?

[longway]

Karma, as a law of nature, is not limited to humans only, and I'm afraid, you don't have a choice whether to follow your karma and put bread on the table or sit around pretending to be a boddhisattva.

You can't stop the world from going about its ways, or stop your participation in the global cirlce of events, BUT, if you are free from self illusion then it won't bother you anymore.

Think about it - we, farangs, identify ourselves with Thailand, at least to some degree, we get involved, we suffer in our hearts when Dr. T does this or that, we write "constructive crtitsism" letters to Bangkok Post because we can't stand injustice or whatever. We feel for it. Why? Why don't we feel as much for children of Dafur, or Burma? Is it simply because our ego doesn't spread that far?

well thx for letting me know about karma. it is or it isnt i guess.

for the second as a whole species we are probably more sentimental than compassionate.

funny to get posts by twins (i assume). nice names btw

[DrBooze]

ive never really been able to understand karma. the way it looked to me was that if we had to pay back our karma then we are all in gigantic karmic dance, even though our actions seem free we are just puppets being jigged about by the universe to fulfilling our karmic destiny.

I think karma pushes us in certain directions but it doesn't necessarily dictate our existence. If I poke someone in the eye it's probably going to cause some problems for both of us. He/she's got a black eye and I have planted a karmic seed that will ripen at some point in the future. But how this seed ripens depend on a lot of things... your motivation and reasoning for doing it... whether you tried to make up for it afterwards... how you act in other situations... whether you feel about the action etc. When this seed ripens, I might end up with a black eye... or maybe not. Maybe that karmic seed only has a minimal effect because it is diffused by other actions. Or maybe, I get a black eye and accept it - without any negative reaction. Then the "negative" karma has been absorbed.

There are more elements at play than just action and retribution. And however complicated karma might seem it's probably more so. It's difficult for us to understand just as it's difficult for a fish to understand dry land. I try just to think that every action has a consequence. Many of these consequences will be beyond our comprehension depending on our level of intelligence or insight. Therefore, it is useful to at least try to be mindful in action and pure in intentions.

[Plus]

Every thought has a consequence, too, at least mental, and very often thinking leads to actions so their are all part of one big universe ruled by karma.

Our thoughts are limited to our past experiences - they don't just pop up out of nowhere. I don't see really much room for "independent thinking" or "independent choices". Otherwise sales technics, marketing, and advertising wouldn't exist.

Plus and Plus+ are results of e-mail confirmation malfunction - I had to register again and when I logged in from different computers I didn't remember which one worked. Turns out both nicks are ok and log on automatically at home, office, and notebook. No one thinks it's a different person, I hope.

[chownah]

Every thought has a consequence, too, at least mental, and very often thinking leads to actions so their are all part of one big universe ruled by karma.

Our thoughts are limited to our past experiences - they don't just pop up out of nowhere. I don't see really much room for "independent thinking" or "independent choices". Otherwise sales technics, marketing, and advertising wouldn't exist.

Plus and Plus+ are results of e-mail confirmation malfunction - I had to register again and when I logged in from different computers I didn't remember which one worked. Turns out both nicks are ok and log on automatically at home, office, and notebook. No one thinks it's a different person, I hope.

I was reading on another forum and discovered that karma doesn't control everything (at least according to the post I read there) and that Buddhists believe that there are five different types of forces that make things happen and that kamma is one of these five.....it was really surprising to read this since it seemed contrary to everything I had heard before so I asked for some references to back up this idea....this all happened today so I'll check back tomorrow and see if there is some reference I can look at and pass on here.

[camerata]

I was reading on another forum and discovered that karma doesn't control everything (at least according to the post I read there) and that Buddhists believe that there are five different types of forces that make things happen and that kamma is one of these five.....it was really surprising to read this since it seemed contrary to everything I had heard before so I asked for some references to back up this idea....this all happened today so I'll check back tomorrow and see if there is some reference I can look at and pass on here.

I like the idea of the five niyama (categories of natural law) too, but they are only mentioned in the commentaries, not the Pali Canon. See Payutto at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/kamma1.htm#law for an explanation.

[chownah]

I was reading on another forum and discovered that karma doesn't control everything (at least according to the post I read there) and that Buddhists believe that there are five different types of forces that make things happen and that kamma is one of these five.....it was really surprising to read this since it seemed contrary to everything I had heard before so I asked for some references to back up this idea....this all happened today so I'll check back tomorrow and see if there is some reference I can look at and pass on here.

I like the idea of the five niyama (categories of natural law) too, but they are only mentioned in the commentaries, not the Pali Canon. See Payutto at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/kamma1.htm#law for an explanation.

Thanks for the link...I'm checking it out. As I am exposed to more and more of different people's ideas about Buddhism I'm starting to get a bit sceptical of how faithfully some of the commentaries have preserved the message of the Buddha. My view as of today is that the core teachings are repeated so many times (with agreement between them) that I have no trouble so far in following the path...but...some of the commentaries and some of the commentaries on the commentaries seem to go far afield on tangents that seem sort of unnecessary and distracting...and sort of contrary to the core teachings....at least to me.

[chownah]

I've returned after reading the article containing an explanation of niyama but I couldn't find any reference as to which commentary contained the information....an interesting article anyway....I'm always wondering that if a concept was not mentioned or discussed by the Buddha to any great extent then how could it be of much significance to following the path....and if its not significant to following the path then why sanctify it in scripture....regardless of the possible truth of it. (By the way I'm Theravadan and it seems that I'm a very conservative Theravadan.)

[camerata]

I've returned after reading the article containing an explanation of niyama but I couldn't find any reference as to which commentary contained the information....an interesting article anyway....

Actually, it's a whole book about Kamma and the best single source on the subject that I've found so far.

I'm always wondering that if a concept was not mentioned or discussed by the Buddha to any great extent then how could it be of much significance to following the path....and if its not significant to following the path then why sanctify it in scripture....regardless of the possible truth of it. (By the way I'm Theravadan and it seems that I'm a very conservative Theravadan.)

I guess that by the time scholars started writing about Buddhism half a millenium had passed and the original teachings were either not clear enough or not complete enough for most people to understand. So commentaries were required. But did those later scholars get it right themselves? Not everyone is convinced, and some prefer to stick with the Pali Canon.

[sabaijai]

I've returned after reading the article containing an explanation of niyama but I couldn't find any reference as to which commentary contained the information....an interesting article anyway....I'm always wondering that if a concept was not mentioned or discussed by the Buddha to any great extent then how could it be of much significance to following the path....and if its not significant to following the path then why sanctify it in scripture....regardless of the possible truth of it. (By the way I'm Theravadan and it seems that I'm a very conservative Theravadan.)

The pañca niyamadhamma or five niyama were laid out in the Atthasalini ("The Expositor"), a commentary to the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Commentaries accompany all three baskets of the Tipitaka, including the Sutta Pitika. In fact there are more commentaries on the suttanta than any other part of the Pali canon. Here's a link to a list of all the commentaries and subcommentaries:

Commentaries to the Pali Canon

There are a couple of English translations of the Atthasalini around, one from Pariyatti.com and one from the BPS (they might be the same). I've also seen a Thai translation around.

What Plus is saying above is germane as well, and it links with the thread on mental noting. Karma/kamma begins with intention or volition (cetana in Pali). Here is a detailed explanation of how cetana is linked to karma, as explained in the Atthasalini:

Cetana

[Abandon]

As one or two of you know I am not very fond of the commentarial additions to Buddhism. The niyama explanation is one that I like. So what I do is take the commentarial explanations that I like as true, and the ones I don't like I dismiss. I justify this by pointing out that the commentators must have gotten some things right and some things wrong ... and the right and wrong interpretations of course coincide with what I like and dislike.

What can I do? Blame it all on Mara I suppose

[Plus]

Err.... I'm not a Buddhist, I'm talking about general Hindu perception of karma. I believe there's little actual difference, at least as far as this thread is concerned, however I don't think there are two people who completely agree on nuances of "free will", for example.

Sorry to intrude.

[camerata]

Watching Thaksin's "resignation speech" the other night the Thai expression "Tham dee dai dee, tham chua dai chua" popped into my head. And a little while later the famous opening lines of The Tale of the Heike:

The sound of the Gion Shoja bells echoes the impermanence of all things;

The color of the sala flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous must decline.

The proud do not endure; they are like a dream on a spring night;

The mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind . . .

Not so much that Thaksin's stepping down is a fall - more like a stumble and loss of face - but he's developed health problems and according to the gossip columns his children are suffering from the unaccustomed stress in their lives. He looks to me like a man with a lot of dukkha in his life, but he still doesn't see where it came from.

[sabaijai]

There are lessons everywhere you look, and this is a big one.

[nokia]

Do good get good? Really true?? I'm sure most have heard of the Thai expression "Tham dee dai dee, tham chua dai chua". In all mathematical probability, do "good", get "good" sometimes, get "bad" sometimes, or get nothing in this lifetime. As for evil doers, some get punished, others go away scot-free.

---

Karma is classified into four kinds:

1. REPRODUCTIVE KARMA

2. SUPPORTIVE KARMA

3. OBSTRUCTIVE KARMA OR COUNTERACTIVE KARMA

4. DESTRUCTIVE (UPAGHATAKA) KARMA

[thaibebop]

I believe I am paying off a large karmic debt. Either that or I am stupid and if that is the case one can not control their stupidty so it's back to Karma.

[camerata]

...the famous opening lines of The Tale of the Heike:

The sound of the Gion Shoja bells echoes the impermanence of all things;

The color of the sala flowers reveals the truth that the prosperous must decline.

The proud do not endure; they are like a dream on a spring night;

The mighty fall at last, they are as dust before the wind . . .

And so it goes with Thaksin. The proud man who fell (after badly treating the Retired Emperor) in Tale of the Heike was Taira Kiyomori. His clan was driven into exile (sound familiar?) and disappeared. He himself died a horrible death of some kind of fever and boils.

[sleepyjohn]

Whoops

[sleepyjohn]

In all mathematical probability, do "good", get "good" sometimes, get "bad" sometimes, or get nothing in this lifetime. As for evil doers, some get punished, others go away scot-free.

Isn't the most important karma vipaka the one that lives inside the "heart" of the "offender"? My feeling is the more developed and sensitive cannot live with unskilful actions which is why they have to stick to the highest ethical standards. They simply have no choice. The more animal can attempt to ignore it but it will walk where they walk and you wouldn't want it to be there with you on your deathbed. They can put on a face to others and even themselves but their inner being will always know what has been done and it would be a terrible thing to disdain oneself at that deep level one cannot escape. That causes a lack of integration and saps energy.

I feel dishonesty or any lack of thoughtfulness for your fellow man or any other sentient being is a form of duality, in fact magnifies and emphasises it, and duality is the source of our grief. Therefore these actions very directly make you more isolated and lonely in this very moment and in the future.

Hope that's not too heavy man.