Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Temple >

The nature of Karma

15:57 / 31.08.05

Do you believe that every action has a moral consequence for you?

Is that implausible? Every action has some kind of consequence, but it may just be morally neutral.

If so, why do we refer to morality at all?

Buddhists believe that we can only exhaust all our karma over a huge number of lifetimes; on their own terms their karmic system falls down if reincarnation does not exist.

Or are we punished or benefitted by our actions at a more fundamental level, from moment to moment. Jung Chand once wrote: "When people are happy they become kind".

What do you think?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:56 / 31.08.05

Buddhists believe that there is nothing permanent that survives death, and that there is no central soul. Punarvadha is a bit different, but of course there are many different schools of Buddhist thought and many other religions, primarily in the Hindu tradition, which discuss reincarnation and rebirth.

So, to start, what do you understand by the term Karma, and what do you seek to do with the term that would not be done by another formulation, such as "what goes around comes around". What, specifically, does the term "karma" do?

17:18 / 31.08.05

I believe that even down to mere thought, that is memes has a karmic effect. I believe that it works like a three fold effect, anything bad comes three times as worse to you eventually.

Karma is like a demolisher or can exist as a great healer. Depends if you do bad or good. Also depends what the heck is a good soul or a bad soul as well.

It's a personal and a very spiritualy loaded philosophy isn't it?

So if you do good deeds you will be rewarder three times the goodness. I don't know if I make sense here.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:45 / 31.08.05

I'd start by defining bad. Then by explaining whence I got the idea of the "three fold effect". Then provide some idea of why I believed it, either experiential or metaphysical.

13:05 / 01.09.05

Something to ponder: is karma based on intention or result? Let's say I stumble upon an undiscovered tribe in some jungle, and they're starving. I use my own money to bring them a year's supply of rice, something they've never seen before. Turns out they're allergic to it, and they are all killed by the rice I gave them. Would karma reward me for feeding the hungry or punish me for killing an entire tribe?

What about inaction? Are we punished for not doing a good thing and rewarded for not doing a bad thing? Do I get some slight reward for wanting to help Global Problem X but can't see anything that I could do, or is that pang of guilt my punishment for not doing anything about X?

I don't have any answers, but I thought I'd throw out some things to chew on.

14:17 / 01.09.05

1. "Karma" literally means "action." Things that you do are karma.

2. It's more accurate to say "some Buddhists" when discussing almost any bit of Buddhist theology. Pure Land Buddhists (is this what you mean by "Punarvadha," Haus? I'm unfamiliar with that term) definitely believe in something that lasts after death (to be reborn in the Pure Land) but don't have too much to say about karma, since your actions really don't matter as much, results-wise, as repeating the name of Amida, or the name of the sutra in which Amida makes the promise that those who repeat his name will be reborn in the Pure Land.

As explained here (section 4) :
As compared with one's karma, which originates from delusion and fallacy, Amida's Karma arises from Shunyata and is in accord with True Suchness. When these two streams of karma meet, Amida's Karma naturally overcomes and absorbs the other, just as a bigger whirlpool absorbs smaller ones.

Tibetan Buddhism also has a lot to say about things which happen after death. The Bardo Thodol goes on at length about choices your soul makes after death, which are shaped by (but not entirely subject to) karmic forces.

Of course, the existence of the soul is essentially illusory according to what the Buddha said, so no soul, no survival, no rebirth, no death.

3. Most of what we wind up reading about karma has more to do with overcoming karma. That's the basic gist of Bhagavad Gita (actionless action = basis of karma yoga), as well as most Buddhist doctrine (stepping off the wheel, ceasing the flow of rebirths). I think to really get a handle on karma, you might have to back-engineer the ideas from these, which are in some ways essentially critiques of the idea to begin with.

14:29 / 01.09.05

Charrellz: is karma based on intention or result?

The Bhagavad Gita is pretty clear on this:

He who, unattached to the fruit of his actions, performeth such actions as should be done is both a renouncer of action and a devotee of right action; not he who liveth without kindling the sacrificial fire and without ceremonies.

Know, O son of Pandu, that what they call Sannyasa or a forsaking of action is the same as Yoga or the practice of devotion. No one without having previously renounced all intentions can be devoted.

Action is said to be the means by which the wise man who is desirous of mounting to meditation may reach thereto; so cessation from action is said to be the means for him who hath reached to meditation. When he hath renounced all intentions and is devoid of attachment to action in regard to objects of sense, then he is called one who hath ascended to meditation.

Karma, in this strain of Hinduism, is very definitely a matter of intention and not result. The whole book is basically God (Krishna) convincing a reluctant prince (Arjuna) that it's OK to go kill lots of people, as long as you do it without intention.

14:29 / 01.09.05

To veer away from the definition of Good and Evil (more Headshoppy) and the problems of consequentialism (ditto) 'Karma' as a pop concept has mutated far beyond the original usage derived from Buddhism, and arguably has a different usage again in the field of the occult.

The law of threefold return was introduced in the Wiccan rede, developed ostensibly by Gardner and Valiente IIRC, and likely ghostwritten by Crowley.
Karma-the-pop-concept is (as Haus says) 'what goes around comes around' and is quite different to the religious idea of Karma, which varies according to the form of Buddhism and the interpretation- whether it's 'Action' or consequence or reward or whatever.

In todays contemporary magical environment 'Karma' means something different to it's traditional definition.

(ignore me if this becomes a discussion of Karma in the religious sense)

15:18 / 01.09.05

Suppose one person employs the pop-concept of karma.

Another heeds the religious warnings that you should not be attached from the fruits of your action. He/she meditates to try and detach themselves from self-congratulation as much as possible, but decides, to the extent that self-consciousness of one's motivations must remain, that he/she will generate as much "good karma" (definition still ambiguous) as possible.

To all practical intents and purposes, aren't the two peoplw following the same motivation?

Unconditional Love

16:21 / 01.09.05

I was under the impression that karma was action and equal and opposite reaction, that it had nothing to do with right or wrong action, moral ethical or otherwise, that it was just action and consequence, to do something without attachment means i wouldnt be involved in a judgement as to how that action involves me, so no karma. as soon as i involve myself i percieve a loss or gain so i feel and act of karma created by my attachment to the action. it is the want or need that creates the internal karma so i try desperately to be a good person and in consequence of trying and desiring to be good i create the reflective quality of what is bad within me and begin to percieve the bad around me, karma may be considered attachment through value judgements, it is the attachment or desire that creates karma wether that desire be valued of good or bad is inconsequential to the karma of the action.

16:33 / 01.09.05

No. For example, one person might be acting in accordance to their religious beliefs in order to reincarnate closer to the godhead and avoiding Samsara, another may swear at someone then when they stub their toe think 'Ooh, that's Karma that is!'.
So for the one the motivation is inextricably linked to a closely defined paradigm with many concommitant religious beliefs, for the other Karma is a kind of Newton's third law of magic, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, no religious implications involved.

16:36 / 01.09.05

That reply to Secret Goldfish, wolfangel showing an example of the third law misconception.

16:39 / 01.09.05

to take the pop psychology theory that people who treat others badly feel badly about themselves... that really doesn't hold any water with either definition of karma?

19:26 / 01.09.05

I personally subscribe to the pop-science philosophy. My knowledge of the Hindu Philosophy is not good at all, my knowledge of the that area are books and other freebies the Hare Krisnas would give out. I didn't mean to sound ignorant there with that remark I'm just saying it how it is.

Yep I take my influence partly from the Wiccans and Gerald Gardner and obviously Alesteir Crowley, who it seems played an important part in the organisation of Modern Wiccans.

Unconditional Love

20:40 / 01.09.05

karma sutra

what i have explained is my own approximation of theravadin buddhisms ideas of karma, it is very similar to the third law, but very different to the hindu conception which is what most people are familiar with, the theravadin view is also not too disimilar to the reaction of gnostics to the idea of the ressurection either.

karma imo is not meritocracy, good and bad tokens you collect or that come back on you. good acts dont get you to heaven and bad acts dont send you to hell. but mind gaming religous institutions can do both in one life time.

Unconditional Love

20:53 / 01.09.05

karma better link

14:04 / 02.09.05

I'm not sure true non-attachment (religious) can function when you're holding the "what-comes-around-goes-around" concept (pop-psych) in your head. The one is about banishing all thoughts of result, the other is specifically invested in the results of actions.

This does get really close to the paradox at the heart of (some kinds of!) religious Buddhism, where you're acting (meditating) to pursue non-action, and your intention is to divorce yourself from intention. But that's not quite the same thing.

08:25 / 03.09.05

I personally subscribe to the pop-science philosophy...
Yep I take my influence partly from ...Alesteir Crowley

Me no understand.

1) Pop-science karma: what goes around comes around
2) Crowley: advocate of child sacrifice (correct me if i'm wrong).

aren't these two, if not mutually exclusive, very awkward bedfellows?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:14 / 03.09.05

Crowley: advocate of child sacrifice (correct me if i'm wrong).

You are wrong.

Mind you, I also don't associate Crowley with the three-fold return thing in the Wiccan Rede. I don't know anyone who believes in that "law" exect Wiccans, ex-Wiccans, and people who've watched The Craft too many times.

09:47 / 03.09.05

mord- is that rumor new to you? or did you hear it and dismiss it?

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:56 / 03.09.05

I heard it and dismissed it. It's derived from this passage in Magick in Theory and Practice:

"For the highest spiritual working one must accordingly choose that victim which contains the greatest and purest force. A male child of perfect innocence and high intelligence is the most satisfactory and suitable victim."

I'm less familiar with Crowley than a lot of people here, but my understanding is that this is not a reference to literal child sacrifice but an allegory for a particular Magickal working.

Unconditional Love

17:43 / 03.09.05

Eat that sperm.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

18:01 / 03.09.05

Well, I wasn't going to be the one to say it.

14:46 / 07.10.05

Two things I'd like to clarify:

the hippie/crowley doctrine that what goes around comes around. why do you think it accrued such popularity (aside from the fact it imples that the world is fair) when it seems, to me at least, to be manifestly untrue?

second - is there any brain scientific evidence that treating others well makes you happier and vice versa?

16:25 / 07.10.05

the hippie/crowley doctrine that what goes around comes around

Since when did Crowley (or hippies, for that matter...) have anything to do with the "doctrine" what goes around comes around?

And yes, the reference to a male child in 'Magick in Theory and Practice' refers to sex magic and semen in particular. It's quite chilling that there are people about who still believe that Crowley advocated the actual sacrifice of children. I'm stunned.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

17:56 / 07.10.05

Uncle Al would probably find the idea hilarious, though.

Less searchable M0rd4nt

09:44 / 08.10.05

sg--I still don't know where you're getting your notions about Crowley from. One minute you're associating him with child sacrifice, the next with hippies (what did the poor fellow ever do to you?) and their supposed doctrine. I'm also not sure where you're getting your notions of 'karma' from since you seem to have settled on a rather simplistic pop-culture model (what goes around comes around). Maybe you'd like to pop off, do a bit of reading, then come back and reframe your questions.

To get you started, here's Wikipedia on Crowley and on Karma.

In answer to your second question, here's a thread in the Lab discussing the concept of "elevation" (positive feelings engendered by performing or even witnessing an act of altruism).

09:59 / 08.10.05

Well - thank goodness we have you around to correct me. Ok -

1) The child sacrifice thing was my own interpretation of the text MC linked to. It's chilling idea because it refers to a chilling act. But if you read it knowing nothing else about crowley is presumably not too hard to work out how the mistake might occur.

2) I think 'hippie' has been a shorthand for precisely the sort of pop-simplistic notion of karma. maybe unfair.