Are (some) crimininals karma collectors?

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

I'm going to be the party pooper here

I'm not even gonna touch that one

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Karma in Buddhist terms is intention. Intending, one goes on to act/think/feel.

Also the Buddhist definition of karma is not simply cause and effect as far as I understand it.

(carry on! )

BT

According to the Britannica karma began in Sanskrit as simply 'action', then it was redefined as 'cause and effect' and then the ethical component was added. 'Kamma' is supposed to be moral causation equivalent of karma - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/...thi/kamma.html
I dare say there's a lot of cross-pollination of concepts, redefining (as Spirituality seems to have a penchant for) and the like across various religions, so it's not hard to see how 'karma' and 'kamma' have been blended.

Intention is also supposed to have an effect on karma, although I can't understand how having good intentions (which the road to hell is paved with) has to do with fixing someone's leg if I'm the cause of breaking it, or they hate me with great gusto.

I'm going to stay with the original Sanskrit with this one too -
""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'..."

That's what those 'high vibrations' is all about, and your Universe is a reflection of you. If you think you're on the karmic wheel, you're on the karmic wheel.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

BT, could you possibly describe the Buddhist definition of karma if you have time? I have been wondering on what exactly the Buddhist definition of karma is and how exactly it differs from that which we see today the what you reap you shall sow.

Very briefly.... The original Sanskrit for 'karma' was 'action', nothing more. If you're talking about taking responsibility for your actions then you're talking about 'kamma' - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/...thi/kamma.html
Add in some cross-pollination and redefining and 'karma' becomes what it is today - including 'reaping what you sow'. Basically it's much the same 'theme', and apparently Jesus and the Buddhists were quite chatty after him having spent quite a few years with them.

With karma, what you're looking at today isn't karma, kamma or reap what you sow. What I find really ironic is that people don't understand the karma of what they're saying about karma.

Originally Posted by Ghost_Rider_1970

So beautifully said once again Greenslade

Have you seen any spiritual philosophy by Alan Watts at all, as he expresses the very same view that I also share? If you have a moment he has many talks on YouTube which I am sure will resonate with you

Thank you. By the way, wanna join my fan club and buy the T-Shirt?

I'm a fan of Allan Watts as it happens and I've literally just found of his that I've bookmarked for later - New Religion: God is dead. Oh yeah!

[sky]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm not even gonna touch that one


According to the Britannica karma began in Sanskrit as simply 'action', then it was redefined as 'cause and effect' and then the ethical component was added. 'Kamma' is supposed to be moral causation equivalent of karma - https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/...thi/kamma.html
I dare say there's a lot of cross-pollination of concepts, redefining (as Spirituality seems to have a penchant for) and the like across various religions, so it's not hard to see how 'karma' and 'kamma' have been blended.

Intention is also supposed to have an effect on karma, although I can't understand how having good intentions (which the road to hell is paved with) has to do with fixing someone's leg if I'm the cause of breaking it, or they hate me with great gusto.

I'm going to stay with the original Sanskrit with this one too -
""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'..."

That's what those 'high vibrations' is all about, and your Universe is a reflection of you. If you think you're on the karmic wheel, you're on the karmic wheel.

' Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect '

Yes it is from my understanding action but it's ' Intentional action '. Mind foreruns all conditions. Whatever we do comes from the mind and the intention behind our actions reaps Kamma.


https://www.thebuddhistsociety.org/p...ns-and-results

Originally Posted by sky123

' Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect '

Google has 4,490,000 results for 'kamma' so pick one. I like to find the 'roots' of things, where they all start. In Sanskrit 'karma' is 'action' and 'kamma' is 'behaviour'. Clicking on a different link will give me different definitions and all we do is end up arguing over how the original words and any meaning we want to derive from that have become what they are today. In another link karma is physical/'Newtonian' cause and effect while 'kamma' is moral causation. And today you have karma and however people to choose to believe that is, perhaps it's more agenda than Spiritual Enlightenment. What's curious is how the definitions come from Sanskrit (and most likely prior to that) to what they are today, and how very different the Spirituality of Sanskrit was but then belief systems reflect those that believe in them.

The issue isn't which is what but the reasons we chose to believe, that becomes kamma and karma regardless of definition. If you choose to believe that a reward and punishment mentality is a Universal Law?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Google has 4,490,000 results for 'kamma' so pick one. I like to find the 'roots' of things, where they all start. In Sanskrit 'karma' is 'action' and 'kamma' is 'behaviour'. Clicking on a different link will give me different definitions and all we do is end up arguing over how the original words and any meaning we want to derive from that have become what they are today. In another link karma is physical/'Newtonian' cause and effect while 'kamma' is moral causation. And today you have karma and however people to choose to believe that is, perhaps it's more agenda than Spiritual Enlightenment. What's curious is how the definitions come from Sanskrit (and most likely prior to that) to what they are today, and how very different the Spirituality of Sanskrit was but then belief systems reflect those that believe in them.

The issue isn't which is what but the reasons we chose to believe, that becomes kamma and karma regardless of definition. If you choose to believe that a reward and punishment mentality is a Universal Law?

As I follow Buddhism I have picked my interpretation as it makes sense to me personally

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

BT, could you possibly describe the Buddhist definition of karma if you have time? I have been wondering on what exactly the Buddhist definition of karma is and how exactly it differs from that which we see today the what you reap you shall sow.

Of course, SP

Buddhism's definition and contextualization of karma is different to the commonly held belief that it is simply cause and effect, or that it is only you reap what you sow. It may have elements of this however as we own what we engage in, and produce.

As sky123 pointed out, kamma is defined as:

Intention.

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

— AN 6.63 (Buddha)


That is the key element, and then intending one effectively acts (through body, speech and thought (mind)).

In Buddhism, karma-vipaka represents the results of karma.*

That said, the Buddha emphasized that all beings are heirs to their karma, and that karma can be relinquished (through the application of the Four Noble Truths).

Buddha also taught that the full results of karma* are considered one of the four imponderables, with which only a fully awakened Buddha would know of. For anyone else, it would only fall in the range of speculation (thought processes) or vexation.


§ 22. "These four imponderables are not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about them would go mad & experience vexation. Which four? The Buddha-range of the Buddhas [i.e., the range of powers a Buddha develops as a result of becoming a Buddha]... The jhana-range of one absorbed in jhana [i.e., the range of powers that one may obtain while absorbed in jhana]... The results of kamma... Speculation about [the first moment, purpose, etc., of] the cosmos is an imponderable that is not to be speculated about. Whoever speculates about these things would go mad & experience vexation."

— AN 4.77 (Buddha)

This is a good essay, I will highlight some interesting parts herein: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/...aro/karma.html

In the eyes of most Americans, karma functions like fate — bad fate, at that: an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. "I guess it's just my karma," I've heard people sigh when bad fortune strikes with such force that they see no alternative to resigned acceptance. The fatalism implicit in this statement is one reason why so many of us are repelled by the concept of karma, for it sounds like the kind of callous myth-making that can justify almost any kind of suffering or injustice in the status quo: "If he's poor, it's because of his karma." "If she's been raped, it's because of her karma." From this it seems a short step to saying that he or she deserves to suffer, and so doesn't deserve our help.

This misperception comes from the fact that the Buddhist concept of karma came to the West at the same time as non-Buddhist concepts, and so ended up with some of their luggage. Although many Asian concepts of karma are fatalistic, the early Buddhist concept was not fatalistic at all. In fact, if we look closely at early Buddhist ideas of karma, we'll find that they give even less importance to myths about the past than most modern Americans do.

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

Personally I have not seen much evidence for myself to consider the existence of karma something I should be allowing room for in my personal faith. As an individual human being I have taken witness to people do bad things (what they Sow) and have seen that they have not Reaped.

From a Buddhist standpoint, in my own understanding, kamma represents one's actions through intention. Beings are heirs to their kamma and this kamma remains with them until it is vanquished or remodeled. However kamma-vipaka is non-linear, it is not as simple as one who does evil gets hit by a bus the next day. It is more complex than that, and which is why the Buddha taught it as one of the four imponderables, of which only a fully Awakened Buddha would understand.

My personal opinion is that that kamma is an immediate feedback loop in one's own heart/mind, through one's being. And for beings who are still (primarily) unaware, they repeat and replicate these old kammas and find similar results. This would be akin to, "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do", and yet also, every person does have the ability to break/cease these patterns. In Buddhism, meditation is a central hold and through Buddhist meditation, one can effectively also come to see and break one's own chains of habit/karma.

So therefore, a long way of saying, Buddhist's definition and approach to kamma-vipaka (the results of kamma) are not so straightforward or easily understood by an ordinary human being (without the spiritual insights of the greatly awakened).

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

That is to say yes their are indeed people whom do ill and get away with it. Karma does not for me explain this or rather I have no evidence for karma in these instances.

Karma or the definition often used of it simply has no place in my personal spirituality. That is to say I do not believe one makes a mistake and then has to pay for said mistake, re-incarnate and wait until the karma plays out.

As all is interconnected, what I do personally believe is that there is definitely karma at play i.e. how I am interacts with you, interacts with others, interacts with speech, with action, what I do to you today may affect how you are with another tomorrow, what you choose to be interacts with another, and ad nauseum - consciousness and the effects of karma are actually visible on a larger scale - whether that is politics, or environmental issues, or spiritual maturity etc. As to how each person individually comes to the ripening of their own karma, that is not within my range or direct knowledge, therefore I cannot comment on that. What I can say personally is even people with great wealth etc. cannot be assured of personal happiness, joy, peace etc. But these are the qualities of the Buddhas and those that follow after them - that is why Buddhism is concerned mostly with self-hood first and this has the natural correlation of helping the karma of all beings, if that makes sense to you.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

I rather realize instead that people should take responsibility for their actions, And that yes people do make mistakes or also intentionally do harm. I do not hold faith in either a God, or spiritual system that dishes out punishment.

Yes, responsibility is the stronghold of Buddhist teachings. As to how that all plays out, I cannot say, but in that people are heirs to their karma, I believe those patterns and effects do take hold in someone's heart/mind and as to the outer effects/patterns, I presume there is a greater course at play - but I cannot be certain on that either at this point.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

That is only my own view on this currently. I am interested like I said in the Buddhist definition of karma, I used to read on Buddhism quite a bit, but seems I perhaps have forgotten having read this? Possibly.

Thank you for the question, SP.

BT

[SaturninePluto]

Thank you very much for your answer and information BT.

Yes Karma is what I have considered before to be a wide array of things, or that it works somehow in differing ways. I do not believe much of the Westernized view of it, is what I was trying to put to words, a lot of the snippet there in your quote the fatalistic approach.

But also I feel, of course I do not verily know, that re-incarnation may have more purpose than karma or kamma itself. Or that is to say I do not entirely believe myself that to break the re-incarnation cycle that one must come to terms, with either their karma, or kamma if you will allow, as I am not entirely sure the re-incarnation cycle need even be broken if you will. I feel that if it does happen may happen for reasons which may not have been considered, or perhaps that we do not know. I feel in other words there is greater purpose for and to things, and to struggle against the re-incarnation cycle if it does exist, is only in truth struggling- trying to break a cycle implies a strife or dissatisfaction. I prefer not view life or perhaps even being reborn as something that I need to break away from, as perhaps it is a blessing.

I was reading the link GreenSlade had given where it spoke of the eight fold path which I found interesting, where it speaks of reflection before action. What will be the consequences of this action, and I was contemplating ways of trying to utilize and apply this to anger, as when angry I find it easy to succumb to acting on a moment's whim. I was thinking on attempting to utilize forethought reflection as a means of even if briefly a way of stepping back from the spontaneous action quickly, but long enough to reflect on such impulsivity first. And then I considered but what if this could somehow be managed with every action? And then I concluded the act of trying this itself may drive one mad, and further still concluded that reflection such as this may be achievable if one is a kind of master, as it is so hard to conceive for myself the means and lengths of such reflection.

Thank you again for your explanation. I will probably refer back to it, now and then for more study as well as the link you gave.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

I'm not even gonna touch that one

Originally Posted by Greenslade

Intention is also supposed to have an effect on karma, although I can't understand how having good intentions (which the road to hell is paved with) has to do with fixing someone's leg if I'm the cause of breaking it, or they hate me with great gusto.

I'm going to stay with the original Sanskrit with this one too -
""'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'..."

That's what those 'high vibrations' is all about, and your Universe is a reflection of you. If you think you're on the karmic wheel, you're on the karmic wheel.

I'll respond at another point on this one

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

Thank you very much for your answer and information BT.

The pleasure is all mine, SaturninePluto.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

But also I feel, of course I do not verily know, that re-incarnation may have more purpose than karma or kamma itself. Or that is to say I do not entirely believe myself that to break the re-incarnation cycle that one must come to terms, with either their karma, or kamma if you will allow, as I am not entirely sure the re-incarnation cycle need even be broken if you will. I feel that if it does happen may happen for reasons which may not have been considered, or perhaps that we do not know. I feel in other words there is greater purpose for and to things, and to struggle against the re-incarnation cycle if it does exist, is only in truth struggling- trying to break a cycle implies a strife or dissatisfaction. I prefer not view life or perhaps even being reborn as something that I need to break away from, as perhaps it is a blessing.

And that is a beautiful viewpoint, in my opinion.

To elaborate slightly, from a Buddhist standpoint, one of the questions that Buddhism [and I am sure, many other spiritual traditions address] is who or what is reincarnated, and who or what is ever and omni-present. That said, I do agree with you that there are probably greater reasons than simply "karma" when it comes to this life - yours and mine and all of ours

In Buddhism, there is a term called Bodhisattvas. It is more predominant in the Mahayana traditions of Buddhism (called the "Greater Vehicle" and evidenced by Zen, Tibetan schools amongst others) - it is said that such Ones reincarnate intentionally to help all beings, I do not know but it has merit and possibility, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

I was reading the link GreenSlade had given where it spoke of the eight fold path which I found interesting, where it speaks of reflection before action. What will be the consequences of this action, and I was contemplating ways of trying to utilize and apply this to anger, as when angry I find it easy to succumb to acting on a moment's whim. I was thinking on attempting to utilize forethought reflection as a means of even if briefly a way of stepping back from the spontaneous action quickly, but long enough to reflect on such impulsivity first. And then I considered but what if this could somehow be managed with every action? And then I concluded the act of trying this itself may drive one mad, and further still concluded that reflection such as this may be achievable if one is a kind of master, as it is so hard to conceive for myself the means and lengths of such reflection.

I am confident in your path, SaturninePluto, however you find it is meaningful for you. Also, I personally find your approach, enquiries, thought processes to be mature, kind and giving - I am sure you will find what you seek.

Originally Posted by SaturninePluto

Thank you again for your explanation. I will probably refer back to it, now and then for more study as well as the link you gave.

Anytime at all. The pleasure is mine as I said.

Thank you, SP.

BT