Talk:Karma/Archive 1

Categorization 2

With due respect to Hindus and Buddhists.

Should only Christians write about Angels, Devils, Heaven, etc. ? I'm sure there are Hindus, Buddhists who have written about these.

Should only Japanese write about Zen and Karate? Many Americans have written about Zen.

Angels, Devils, Heaven, Karma, etc. are ubiquitous , well known, universal concepts known all over the world, by the average man on the street and not limited to one religion, system of thought, etc.

Orientation of the (newbie) reader and avoiding confusion

A 'daemon' is a computer server. It is also a Greek concept meaning something like guarding spirit. Many Hindu programmers know the Greek concept as well. The best people to explain Greek concepts to Hindus are other Hindus (I think) already familiar with the concepts. e.g. a Hindu interpretation of 'Daemon' (with Hindu orientation). For this same line of thinking, there is a 'Western interpretation' with western orientation. Newbies to any system of thought, might get bogged down and confused with all other details and deep Hindu concepts. Intertwining creates confusion. Care must be given to make things easy to understand and familiarity with the orientation of the (Western, Christian, Muslim, etc. ) reader.--Jondel 03:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Karma is becoming universally recognized

The concept of Karma is also becoming more ubiquitous even in the Western (Christian) world. People for example attribute bad luck to 'Karma' for example. For some people (with western orientation) who can not accept suffering('ITS UNFAIR!' etc.. ) , the Karma concept offers a way of controlling destiny and becoming more responsible, I think. (It is fair. It was always fair. Your are responsible.)

BTW , I don't claim to be an authority on Western interpretation of Karma so in the same wikipedia spirit, anyone or everyone with authoritive or good sources are invited to contribute, edit and delete if need be.

Anyway, a Western interpretion or conceptualization of Karma is bound to come out .--Jondel 01:24, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category:New religious movements

I have added this article to Category:New religious movements, not because the concept itself is new (obviously), but because of the growing section in this article on its treatment by the new religious movements. --Gary D 19:04, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Universal Need To Believe

Karma can become a very sophisticated , complicated subject.

However the concept satisfies a need to believe that The Universe and Life is Just and Fire (in the light of injustice).
That we are in control and responsible for our circumstances.
That the Golden Rule(Reciprocity), Rules.--Jondel 03:39, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Response to Jondel

It's well-known that differing and 'evolving' (or rather diverging) opinions on the topic of Karma have emerged. But no one is restricting free interpretation of it. What the intention of categorizing these concepts is is to establish their original and standard associations. As an original concept, karma is first found in the Upanishads (Hindu tradition) and soon thereafter in Buddhism. These two religions, each millenia old, developed the concept and its existence today is grounded in Hinduism and Buddhism. If it is a valid and accepted part of "New Age" doctrine, then there is no restricting its inclusion in a New Age category. However the article will surely reflect "karma"s history as an Indian philosophical and religious concept and acknowledge much later trends, indeed trends that mark only at best 150 years of a nearly 3000 year span, later in the article with due space.

As for concepts of "karma" meaning bad-luck or Western misconceptions about the original idea: how a pure and neutral "cause-and-effect" reactionary framework of cosmic being devolved into 'bad luck' is interesting insofar as a footnote regarding erroneous modern usage is concerned. Large sections documenting misinterpretations of karma seem out-of-place. However, more on-the-ball comments on Theosophical or New-Age syncretistic traditions and how their use of Hindu and/or Buddhist philosophy affects people today and their view of karma seem appropriate. But then again, caution must be taken to represent karma faithfully as it is seen today: about 1.5 billion people (Hindus and Buddhists, also Sikhs and Jains) view it traditionally, retaining its original and non-radical evolution. The twisted ideas of Madonna-generation teens and how they see 'karma' meaning bad luck or a cool eastern word implying moral bank-credits from a Radiohead song are not primary references for the topic of karma, though I wouldn't object to brief mentions of it.

This leads me (a little out of order) to your paragraph on how "Care must be given to make things easy to understand and familiarity with the orientation of the (Western, Christian, Muslim, etc. ) reader." An encyclopaedia, and for that matter, any academic or scholarly dissertation/article on a given subject, attempts to present facts and reasonable consensus-understandings in an unbiased manner. Considerations of the reader's ethnicity, gender, or (a)-religious leaning factor in only inasmuch as one tries not to reveal one's own prejudices. To tailor a reading on karma to pinpoint the view of every religious or philosophical group in the world and its particular reaction to it would be an exercise in futility. This includes presenting it as the "Indian version" of the Golden rule. It includes a coherent and sophisticated system of ethics and spiritual ideas. Thus, one should present what karma is and weigh the distribution and presentation of thoughts according to its history. In this sense, it stands to reason that the Hindu and Buddhist stand, the two oldest and the progenitors of any modern non-Hindu-Buddhist understandings, would constitute most of the article. Would one rattle off an Indian philosophical rebuttal and/or reaction to Platonic ideas of "Forms" for half the Plato article? I think not. --LordSuryaofShropshire 03:50, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Responce to LordSuryaofShropshire

I see you are very erudite.

I respect the Hinduistic heiritage of Karma and I don't question your knowledge and don't advocate any deletions from the Hindu/Buddhist interpretions. No one questions that it is first found in the Upanishads. I understand the need for original and standard associations and it should be kept. I also agree that the Madonna generation teenagers are not authorities or good sources on Karma,.

Actually, the concept of Karma made me very happy when I had a spiritual search. Although I am Catholic in my upbringing.

Who are you helping ?

Please consider the need.

Don't you think that Hinduists and Buddhists don't need this knowledge (unless it is as a reference)as much as those with out the same Indian orientation?

There will be many who will reach the limits of their faiths or system of beliefs and even crisis and will seek other justifications. Most would come from non-Indian orientations. For myself, it helped to explain suffering or injustice.

For example, many overtly Christians can not accept an eternal hell of Christianity and and this causes a lot of dilemnas and contradictions and confusion in the Christian faith. There are probably overt communists who want to believe there is a purpose to it all .

Much more suffering may also be caused by an improper understanding of Karma. (I hope I 'm not evangelizing here.) For example , Communists who say 'The end justifies the means'.

Even if it is a bit of an exercise in futility , please do try to make it it easier to understand for the Madonna generation teens, Atheists, Muslims, Christians and non-Hindus and non-Buddhist people. Who are you helping? Are you being relevant?

The more sophisticated and intertwining with other concepts the more confused the reader can become.

The concept is evolving but shouldn't really diverge. If the concept was totally erased from all human memory, it should emerge again like Mathematics, counting, etc.. Perhaps it should be studied more. But effort must be made to make it understandable and simple for all.

Within in the first 50 years of the the last century, Communism was believed in by more than one third of world because it's propagators made it easy to understand and believe in for the common man, pheasants, proletariats, etc... Karma as a concept is more reliable and enlightening than Communism. The end does not justify the means. Just as effort to make communism easy to understand for all. The concept of Karma shoul be made easy to understand and with orientations to the particular type of people.

I agree that the concept shouldn't come from but 'Madonna-generation' teens but it should be explainable in a language understood by them.

I don't want to tailor a reading on karma to pinpoint the view of every religious or philosophical group but a large portion of the world is Christian , Muslim and Atheist. I think it is not an exercise in futility if the a great portion of world is Christian , Muslim and atheist and as universal concept is explained in their 'language'. Intertwining Karma with other Hindu/ Buddhist/ Jainist concepts are likely to invite confusion and disinterest.

the need

Really, many Indians, Hindus and Buddhistsdon't seem too be concerned about Platonic forms, etc. There is probably no need for an Indian interpretation for Platonic concepts, the 'Golden Rule 'etc.. On the other hand many Westerners are however are concerned with Karma as best as it can be understood, and believe it to be a real active operating principle and are investigating it as well as other oriental concepts to complement their (Christian, ) system of beliefs.
Who are you helping? What do people really need to know?

Please be simple in explanation, and avoid intertwining with other Hindu concepts as it encourages confusion. I also advocate consensus-understandings in an unbiased manner. However, if I see a need or vacuum , I try tofill it.

--Jondel 06:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph titled 'Parallels with Christianity' does not help me better understand the concept of Karma. However, the three words I would most likely associate the word Karma with, are Fate, Kismet and Destiny. It would be nice if one or more of these terms could be somehow incorporated into the article. Preferably somewhere in the introductory summary. hth --Phil R 13:34, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

While it is noteworthy that you wish to educate the spiritually bankrupt, academic and accurate writing about a given subject is not malleable. We present the topic as it is, without distorting the truth or over-simplyifying the matter. Anyone who is educated and can read English, regardles of his or her background, should be able to read the article and imbibe its meaning, and granted, much of this depends on clarity of language and organization. So, what can one do? Well, we cannot sacrifice the integrity of the term, its history and philosophical framework. Thus, we present it in its original Hindu and Buddhist backgrounds and fully explicate the philosophies. Following that, we can obviously give "Comparative Philosophy" sections in which reactions of several Western groups (or outgrowths of a New Age) sort are addressed, in which would be included the views of psychologists (I'm guessing Cayce is a sort of philosopher or some such thing), religious groups and NEw Age groups that incorporate karma into their worldview. THis brings me to Phil R's request for mentions of "Fate," "Destiny," and "Kismet" being included in the introductory summary. Frankly, they have nothing to do with Karma, certainly if they're coming from Western backgrounds (which is what I assume). They do not contribute to the meaning of karma nor in any way have they affected its meaning. They are more meet for "Comparative Philosophy," a paragraph about which can easily be allotted towards the end of the 'karma' article.

"Intertwining Karma with other Hindu/ Buddhist/ Jainist concepts are likely to invite confusion and disinterest." --

Jondel, again, no one is trying to restrict people's understandings. But 'intertwining' HIndu and Buddhist concepts (by the way, no one says Hinduistic or Hinduist, it's just Hindu in English), they are the very foundation and bedrock upon which the edifice that is karma was built. As for Hindu academics and Plato, I think you're very myopic to impute that they have no interest in him. In fact, largely because of Colonialism, Western philosophy and literature was and is to this day highly influential and keystone in Indian academia and affected the course of modern Indian literature across the board. From epic poetry based on the styles of Milton to autobiographical writers in Kolkata referencing Platonic social theories, Hindus (and Muslims, Buddhists, Indians in general) have great stock in Plato and other such thinkers. But I was being sarcastic when I inquired about that. What I was implying is that one doesn't give non-central concepts a central position in articles. One mentions them in side notes or supplementary paragraphs, such as would be fitting for new wave ideas about karma that usually are far off the mark. --LordSuryaofShropshire 15:03, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

LordSuryaofShropshire: I was indeed speaking of those terms in the 'Western Conceptual framework' that you mentioned (in your now-edited post?), and though those terms do not fully summarize what Karma in actuality really is, it is the general westernized understanding of what it is, and as such, it would be nice if the readers were eased into this article's more intricate concepts using those terms more familiar to them, even if it is only to explain that those terms do not completely encompass or fully relate to the concept of Karma. Additionally, if those words appeared in the introductory paragraph, the topic may perhaps seem a little less intimidating to those relatively unfamiliar to the subject. --Phil R 15:36, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Those not only fail to summarize what karma is but in fact have nothing to do with it. Indeed, their inclusion in the summary would only serve to further confuse acolytes in Indian and derivative philosophy involving karma. Shall we deliberately adumbrate language and explanations, in the process tweaking them to inaccuracte bounds, for the sake of people too lazy to try and read clear English about a subject? Must we forever couch subjects in alien language? What I mean by alien language is that destiny and such really have no place in karma. A straightforward explanation of karma is all that's necessary for any sane individual and won't be intimidating at all. Unless we're talking about four-year old Bible belt residents, I don't see why we need to include concepts completely unrelated to anything karmic in the introductory summary as opposed to introducing exiguous "Fate" relationships later on in the article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:06, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

As for "Western understanding": catering to a mistaken Western understanding to correct such mistaken understandings is a logical contradiction. I can sort of see mentioning briefly that Karma has nothing to do with destiny in the intro paragraph, but that point is made clear by simply not mentioning. Do I have to mention that Christ doesn't really have anything to do with Krishna and avatar theology in Hinduism in the intro paragraph of the Jesus Christ article? No, I (or whoever) clearly summarizes who Christ is, leaving Krishna out of the picture and perhaps addressing non-key or heterodox Hindu understandings later in the article. But a somewhat discerning Hindu reader who knows high school English will easily be able to read the Jesus article and understand without a problem that evidently Jesus has little to do with Krishna in his original conception and, as the fellow keeps reading, discovers in the later article that 'avatar' ideas were brought in later by Hindus exposed to Christ. The same goes for this karma article and Westerners. --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:10, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're getting at. Such connotations should definitely come after the main subject and it's original context. Thanks for clearing that up. --Phil R 17:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To all... I have worked a bit on the intro section. Currently, it is too long and much of the explication could be split into other sections. But very gingerly I included mention of fate and whatnot and made abundantly clear that it has nothing to do with it. However, no explanation of any greater detail will really come until later in the article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:28, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

---

I like the recent additions especially the 'spiritual physics of being' which expresses the principle very well. I hope Karma doesn't become an abstract concept with no relevance to day to day living.

I will to try conclude this discussion but still feel one last paragraph after the second in the introduction will satisfy my 'Western framework or interpretation' . Also we do have to cater to the lazy . (e.g. wiki - 'super fast' definition)

I can't help but target 'spiritually bankrupt' people because honestly , I 've had my own spiritual bankrupcy which conventional Christianity could not answer. I also hope it will discourage people from thingking 'The end justifies the means'.

Anyway, certain issues need to be addressed or else somebody will repeat this discussion ("Here we go again.").

I don't want the integrity of the definition sacrificed from its orignal context but would like very much to isolate it from other intertwining confusing Hindu concepts as much as possible. I do believe in Karma as an active operating principle like Mathematics and Gravity. Ignorance doesn't mean immunity. You get hurt by it. In this light, the concept shouldn't diverge much from its core definition.

I would like to insert a third paragraph in the introduction relating to the following themes.

Core elements of karma

The core elements which I believe (and propose)constitute Karma are: (They expanded on in Parabadha and Samchita sections) 1. Action and reaction (Yes , already defined in the article, I'm placing it here for reference) 2. Relations , Reciprocity in behaviour , human relations. Love and Hate. You attract the people you love and hate until the relationship energy is resolved. (Parabadha). 3. The individual is responsibe of his current and future situations . According to some Buddhists source even physical appearence and form. 4. Acts have far more reaching consequences than normally perceived which may extend beyond the individual's life. 5. Current abilities and talents are the result of Karma. DNA and genes only accomodate Karma. 6. (Sanchita, Samskara) One's personality and inclinations is determined by Karma.

I know, no one is restricting me. But anyone is welcome to add based on the themes above. The descriptions, which I will try to add, if possible should be brief, and with as little as possible reference to Hindu concepts. Such that a Catholic priest or Western teenager can refer to as if he were talking about Gravity.

Cayce was a Christian yet introduced cocepts of Karma and Reincarnation

I can't help but identify with Cayce since he had a very strong Christian foundation yet referred to Hindu Karma and Reincarnation. It bothered him as a Christian but had to reconcile both beliefs (or truths), with Christianity. The Cayce readings, however are very disorganized.

I don't mean to be myopic but pls, lets not be sarcastic. Also about Hindus and Plato. I don't mean that Hindus are not interested in Plato. But the interest in Karma is much greater for Westeners for Karma . A good working definition for daily use seems to be needed that can be readily understood by Westerners . (A 'wiki' super fast definition)

Let's keep the Avatar, Jesus and Krishna subjects out. They belong to another discussion.

Again the recent edits are good at the intro.

Karma and reincarnation were revelation for me and had a powerful impact that's why discuss this.

I believe I've said most of what I need to say (the core elements) and a Western framework which I feel the current paragraph and the one above will satisfy. So thanks for your and views for the time being. --Jondel 08:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another Response to Jondel

I appreciate your desire to be clear and discuss, and this is proving quite fruitive. But I fail to see why your insecurities about Karma being involved in other Hindu concepts should be catered to. We're not secularizing what began as a religious (and still is mostly) a religious topic. We're presenting it as it is. Recent Western interest doesn't change its background. For instance, the Hindu metaphysics involving yugas (ages), atman (soul) that reincarnates through multiple lives, the evolution of the soul, the possibility of transcendence through yoga, meditation, bhakti (devotion), these are all fundamental Hindu ideas in which karma grew up. We can't act as if it has nothing to do with each other! THat's just being silly and prejudiced.

As for Hindus, they have plenty of interest in Plato, moreso than Westerners being that Plato and Western philosophy is a standard part of Western education in Indian schools (which are largely English-medium) whereas karma is a marginalized "Southeastern religions" study course for Western colleges. And trust me, I should know, having been schooled in both India and America.

I appreciate desire for universalism, but karma is clearly too firmly rooted in Buddhism and Hinduism to dismiss the religious contexts in which it burgeoned. We can deal with syncretic Western (re)interpretations later in the article. --LordSuryaofShropshire 19:09, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

Step by Step

I appreciate your efforts to keep the Karma definition firmly rooted in its Hindu and Buddhist framework and I think it should continue. Else the definition might evolve into something very different.

I will be confining my definitions/additions to the Western interpretation /framework section. That way, the Hindu/Buddhist framework is left intact.

---

I don't dispute that Hindu have plenty interest in Plato. Please don't misinterpret me. I think Karma studies shouldn't be marginalized.

The reason a 'secular' version is needed is , like all laws, ignorance doesn't grant immunity . You only get hurt. (Learn Karma the hardway). It is real (I believe).

Besides some people are adverse to 'religion'. What is seen as religion by one person can be an active real operating ('secular/scientific') principle to another.

Presenting with intertwining concepts or other Hindu concepts is like presenting Quantum Physics without going through Calculus, High School Physics, Math, etc..

I don't mean to be prejudiced in isolating a concept from other Hindu concepts but understanding comes in stages. I have no prejudice, in fact I am reading other Hindu material like Shankara, Patanjali, Yoga. (I can't help but reflect how these 'universal' principles operate within a Christian context. ) . BTW, the other wikipedia pages on the same are very enlightening and informative. [--No , I 'm not going to insist on simplifying or creating Western frameworks on those other pages. ] . I feel that a step by step approach is better.

Anyway, I edited/inserted a section (Health, Relationships, Abilities, Talents etc..)and made a few references to Hindu concept like Parabadha and Sanchita and inserted the core elements that I need to see. I hope it reflects Hindu and Buddhists concepts well but they are based on Cayce readings. I hope it will also be more relevant to a Western audience. I hope the definition does not diverge or evolve to something different. Unless the section I inserted is not agreeable to all, there is little for me to say. I'm signing out.

BTW, isn't Kismet an Arabic word? (Or Arabic world according to Wikipedia, somebody correct this(?).) Is this Sanskrit or a Hindu concept ?--Jondel 06:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you need to keep it grounded in Hinduism all the time, though in the beginning it should be set up in that way. Clearly your additions reflect and understanding of both traditional and modern interpretations, and the idea that you're going for a much more holistic understanding of it (rather than treating it like a simple formula) seems extremely accurate. I think this article does have the potential to present all major religious, philosophical and secular/scientific viewpoints in a thorough manner that should appeal to people of all backgrounds. As for kismet, it is definitely an Arabic word. Funnily enough, a lot of Hindi-speakers in India use the word 'qismati' to mean fortune or luck, a linguistic hand-me-down from the Mughals. --LordSuryaofShropshire 18:14, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)

Western Interpretation Section

I'm not happy with the burgeoning size of this section, particularly because a lot of it doesn't 1) seem appropriate and 2) present anything new. Some of the sections sound like moral apothegms and others represent certain ideas of 'collective karma' (and other such thoughts) as if they were established, brought to new light or revolutionized by Cayce (and new schools in the West), none of which things is true. Also, beyond these two problems, these sections are meant to be either brief elucidations of karma or mentions of influential systems utilizing karma; I understand Cayce and the supposedly 'new western' looks are ostensibly both of these, but in actuality neither is Cayce (or the West) so looming a figure nor the information and theories so original as to merit devouring half the article. I'm not going to excise any material that is not mentioned elsewhere, though the Cayce examples don't seem appropriate and at best should be featured on a separate 'Cayce' article; {with)in a week or so, I'll be trimming it down substantially.

I 'll be creating a Edgar Cayce on Karma and transferring. Hope this is agreeable to everyone.--Jondel 00:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. And when you do, you can transfer the Category:New religious movements tag over to it, since this section is the reason for that tag being on this article. Thanks. --Gary D 01:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK with the New religous tag. How about this Talk/discussion ->Archive? delete ?Transfer to E.C. on Karma from Categorization 2 par down?. I'll be doing this very soon.--Jondel 02:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say archive or sort or sort and archive, use your discretion. --Gary D 03:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My Rebuttal

I do not believe in Karma. Why? Think of all the children with cool and loving families (therefore fairly unlikely to commit "mortal sins") getting brutally raped and beaten to deaths due to racial/social class hate/vendetta. Think of the poor children in Sudan or Ethiopia starving to deaths whilst sick from AIDs. Karma tells me that all these children deserved to die horrific deaths because they have, or would all commit crimes in their lives had they lived. Karma tells me, Africa is a place of bad Karma, because it has so much suffering, and people are only Africans because they have bad Karma. I do not believe in this, and I do not want to believe that there are people who would believe in Karma based on these grounds. Please do prove my interpretation wrong. RZ heretic 01:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we? This is NOT a forum!--81.164.134.236 08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good deeds bring good karma. In buddhism, there is no good or bad karma. Nothing is determined as good or bad. It's all up to how you interpret it. So it's just karma. Not good, not bad, just karma. Karma is everything that happens. Satanicbowlerhat 05:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Go to a Buddhist temple and ask a Buddhist monk about this. They have the authority to explain about karma in details in a way that truly impacts. Levin10 07:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing thoughts on the subject in the article — rather, the talk page's only purpose is to discuss changes made to the article. Belief in the subject of the article is irrelevant to the article's quality and therefore should not be discussed here. --Jeames _{(Talk to me!)} 02:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I Think u got the day-to-day meaning of karma wrong.Karma tells that all these children had to die horrific deaths not because of what they would have done,but because of what they had done in their previous births.The concept of reincarnation is intrinsic to the concept of karma.The deepest meaning of what can be attributed to your argument is that,actually "nothing in this world is as is",ie there is no such thing as absolute enjoyment or bliss etc.It all depends on one's perception of a subject.A person in suffering,may feel dejected or sad,while another in the same pain,may think of it as a way of dissolving his karma.

AdamHolt 16:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC) You can also take the idea of karma, or cause and effect, on whatever level you wish. For example, you don't believe in karma, but nonetheless you react in certain ways based on this disbelief. Then, due to the way you act, you both have certain impressions planted in your mind, and also other people react to your actions- perhaps you're angry or something like that. Due to ignorance, you don't know all of the results of your actions, which then causes basically unwanted or unseen results, since you didn't see the full scope of each action. So, you don't have to think of Africa as having bad karma in the sense of necessarily evil karma or something like that, but that due to ignorance people may have gotten into situations where they raped others, beat them, etc, and due to not understanding that this does not just end there but has results, ended up being born in Africa under bad circumstances. Hopefully they will learn from it and not repeat the actions, and I don't really know that what I'm saying is 100% true, but nonetheless we all make causes of future results. And we don't always know, or at most rarely know, the full results of our actions.

Karma and Judgement

I found the article sort of confusing. In the first paragraph, it says "Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward. Karma simply deals with what is," but throughout the article it talks about karma as being about these things: "In the popular American Series My name is Earl, Earl (played by Jason Lee) becomes the victim of karma but eventually realises that he must make up for all the bad things he's done in order to stop being punished." "Spirituality or a belief that virtue is rewarded and sin creates suffering eventually leads to a belief in Karma." "Some observers have compared the action of karma to Western notions of sin and judgment by God or gods, while others understand karma as an inherent principle of the universe without the intervention of any supernatural Being." et cetera

I understand that the concept is inherently confusing and that many different definitions exist, but I think that this is a pretty important point to address. Does karma contain moral judgement, or is it merely a causal explanation? In the idea of karma, is there some objective standard of moral behavior, or is the distinction entirely subjective, based on what the individual desires or doesn't (as is described in the "Karma on a practical level" section)?

NC/04.17.07 Karma - The Essence of the Law The Law of Karma is not so easy to grasp. The first thing to note about the law is that it rests upon the pillars of Causation. "It signifies that nothing can happen without a sufficient cause in the moral as in the physical world - that each life with all its pains and pleasures is the necessary result of the actions of past lives and becomes in turn the cause, through its own activities, of future births." In fact 'Karma'is nothing but a name given to this causal theory when practically aplied to the life of humans or other conscious beings. It has got nothing to do with virtue, sin, punishment or rewards. None would reward and punish until and unless 'I' myself would be there to execute an action. And once an action is executed the reaction takes its own course. Indian orthodox schools like the Samkhya and Mimangsa hold that this reaction being autonomous takes its own course, while others like the Nyaya and Vaiseshika maintain that Karma is unconcious and hence needs the guiding control of God. 'Karma', no doubt is subjective which is why it is roundly taken as the cycle of 'desire' and its consequent action. As the soul desires and acts it reaps the fruits of action and returns to this world for performing further actions.

What Is Karma ?

There is a word "Karma", passed on from the past, but nowadays it is rare to find someone who knows correctly what Karma is. What do we call Karma and what is Karma ? Karma is something that exists in the source which moves oneself, lets have a look carefully how the Karma which is in the source, is made.

What is Karma ?

submitted by: Paul S

Talk:Karma ARCHIVE: New age, Western interpretation, Step by step, Edgar Cayce, Universal need to believe, fidelity to original Hindu concept

From karma:

"Life is a cycle of conceptual rebirths evident in what can be defined as consciousness. Far from being a strictly action/reaction agent, karma is at work during our physical lives albeit in an unfathomable manner at times (ie. great beings who suffer much)."

I think I actually agree with that. But I'm not sure. Can it be said any more clearly??

*Also* -- we need to phrase this in a neutral manner, not "X is", but "Some people think X is", or "X may be regarded as ..."

Thanks!!

---

I think the opening sentence puts karma in the context of Eastern religion; it's not necessary to pepper the entire article with "Some people think..." and "It is believed by some that...". Besides, that's just bad style. ;-) --Stephen Gilbert

moved from article

' Karma as a term is often misunderstood to mean specific accumulation of a sort of negative energy from misdeeds (compare with aspects of the Golden Rule). In fact, while karma includes this concept just because it includes the consequences of all human existence, it is really about accumulation of worldliness, in the sense of worldliness inhibiting spiritual passage. '

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you are saying, and I think that a refrased version of this would be better suited to later in the article, rather than as the introduction. Sam Spade 04:37, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Tbis is an article that explains NOTHING about karma to the reader unless and until they are willing to wade well into it. There needs to be an introductory summary to give a) the casual reader who won't go deeply into the subject a rudimentary understanding, and b) the serious reader an initial orientation to better form a framework of understanding. The article like it is reads fine as an abysmally arcane piece of esoterica (I do not mean to cast any aspersions on either writing or substance, which seem fine); it needs to be more accessible to the average reader. jaknouse 15:58, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tried to refrase it. I agree with Jaknouse that there should be a summary in the introduction before the table of contents.Andries 19:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I like it how it is now, great work. Sam Spade 19:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. jaknouse 03:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

===Request: Explain Diff with Karma and Christian sin; and Karmic implications of Thoughts=== Somebody, please explain a difference in the concepts of Christian sin and karma. e.g. Something like sin deals with punishment and reward for good behaviour, etc. Also, Christianity does deal not much with thoughts. For example , is bad karma created by wrong thoughts, resentments, hate, etc.? Please place under the Christianity paragraph. Thanks Jondel 07:06, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)~~

What about "if you have sinned in your heart" and all that rah rah? - Nat Krause 09:47, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that should be considered equivalent to volitive Karma. However, the schools of thought of what is generally meant today by "Christianism" tend to claim that such "Karma" is made null and void by proper practice and faith in God. I am not sure how best to word it - if at all; IMHO Karma simply isn't a very good fit to Christian teachings. Luis Dantas 13:06, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the parallel with Christianity and mention of thoughts.I believe that Karma covers a broad field, including thoughts, although it is a Hindu concept. Jesus seemed to hint that even wrong thoughts can be sinful because the Jews (no offence intended to Jews)in his time seemed to be satisfied at overtly just following the 'Laws' as pointed out in the 'If you have sinned in his heart...' . Jondel 08:00, 13 May 2004 (UTC)~~

Categorization

We should only use the most specific pertinent categories; i.e., if Karma is a Hindu and Buddhist philosophical concept, it shouldn't also be categorized as "Hinduism" or "Buddhism". -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 20:24, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My problem with this whole categorizing business is that it is liable to be extremely redundant, as you've pointed out. The additional problem with Indian philosophy both Hindu and Buddhist is that it is inevitably a deeply-rooted and practiced religious stream. They were not like the Greeks sitting on marble steps and discussing long dialectics. While they perhaps did do some of that (replace marble steps with kusha grass) the religions we today speak of as Buddhism or Hinduism with their various denominations are such because of their having actively utilized this 'philosophical' concepts. How does one begin to delineate?? Are the philosophical concepts sections irrelevant when dealing with Indian religion? Brahman, for instance, is certainly a philosophical concept of Hinduism and yet it is completely vital to any Hinduism category stated. The philosophy and religion of Buddhism are similarly intertwined. What to do? --LordSuryaofShropshire 20:32, Jun 22, 2004 (UTC)

That's certainly fair, and I've had a related concern myself, but I was planning on waiting until other natural categories presented themselves (Buddhist Ethics, for example, would probably cover all of the non-philosophical uses of Karma in Buddhism) and then add them, rather than using redundent supercategories. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 21:02, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Western Interpretation Section

I'm not happy with the burgeoning size of this section, particularly because a lot of it doesn't 1) seem appropriate and 2) present anything new. Some of the sections sound like moral apothegms and others represent certain ideas of 'collective karma' (and other such thoughts) as if they were established, brought to new light or revolutionized by Cayce (and new schools in the West), none of which things is true. Also, beyond these two problems, these sections are meant to be either brief elucidations of karma or mentions of influential systems utilizing karma; I understand Cayce and the supposedly 'new western' looks are ostensibly both of these, but in actuality neither is Cayce (or the West) so looming a figure nor the information and theories so original as to merit devouring half the article. I'm not going to excise any material that is not mentioned elsewhere, though the Cayce examples don't seem appropriate and at best should be featured on a separate 'Cayce' article; {with)in a week or so, I'll be trimming it down substantially.

I 'll be creating a Edgar Cayce on Karma and transferring. Hope this is agreeable to everyone.--Jondel 00:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Works for me. And when you do, you can transfer the Category:New religious movements tag over to it, since this section is the reason for that tag being on this article. Thanks. --Gary D 01:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK with the New religous tag. How about this Talk/discussion ->Archive? delete ?Transfer to E.C. on Karma from Categorization 2 par down?. I'll be doing this very soon.--Jondel 02:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say archive or sort or sort and archive, use your discretion. --Gary D 03:09, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Archive was done. Also a new wiki page on Edgar Cayce on Karma . The Cayce material was transferred. --Jondel 00:09, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is "the Karma cannot be proven as easily as the law of gravity" supposed to mean? Karma isn't something that is/can be proven, it's an ideology. The first sentence is just a waste of words and should be removed as well. Prometheus235 17:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

So, anyone else bothered by the characterization of Newton's 3rd law as 'action is reaction'? A more proper statement of it is 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'. Stated this way it loses any real connection to karma and should be removed IMHO.

Karma is good.

I like the concept of Karma. I makes me awake. I see myself quite smoking because I see the cause not the fun of smoking. I see the result of extreme pain and suffering.

Karma includes everything, even thoughts.--Jondel 08:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Initial Definition

I wrote a brief, very simple definition at the begining. The article is long and detailed, but someone simply wanting to know what karma stands for would have had a hard time. I am sure it will help the uninitiated. --Subramanian 19:08, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

minor corretion by newby

I changed one sentence in the last paragraph to the section "Buddhism" in the hopes it more closley approximates the original author's intent. I guessed it was either vandalism or an unintentional scramble. Comments?

Understanding the way enables sex to be of important to all universal law of Karma provides order to a beginningless and endless universe.

what is this supposed to mean?

Cynical karma

Cynics tend to twist it around to "No good deed goes unpunished"

i needed to put that somewhere :) - and no, i'm not a cynic :P -- — Nate | Talk 13:04, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

A good example of Cynical Karma: http://cynical-karma.blogspot.com

24.155.158.226 17:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Daniel

Theosophists in the house?

Umm... what's the deal with the Akashic Records/Karmic Lords foofawraw in the intro? I don't remember that coming up in any of my Asian religions classes.... — grant -- 15:19, 2 Sep 05 == == == == == == ==]]]]''

Not Supported By Christianity

In one sense, there is a similarity. Both karma and the teaching of Jesus on what he calls “sin”—both include the idea that man can and does do things wrong and evil. That there is something wrong with the human race is somewhat included in both of these concepts. But the differences are great. The source of our problem and how to counteract it are very different in the teaching of Jesus. The Bible teaches that man lives once, and then after death there is judgment. Karma assumes many lifetimes in order to escape the cycle of birth and death and be freed from the web of Samsara. Jesus teaches that all men accrue a debt that comes from one life of deeds, motives, words, and thoughts that are bent or evil. In the teaching of Jesus, having more than one lifetime would only make the problem worse, the Visa debt would simply climb higher and higher. The solution to sin is also deeper in the Christian teaching, in that deeds and meditation are not acceptable balances to the problem. Jesus teaches that God is absolutely perfect and demands this from His creatures as well. Man cannot make up for evil deeds with good deeds, because the standard is not a balance of good and evil, but goodness and purity and perfection. The Visa bill that is due is not payable in money or in pilgrimages or good deeds: in fact it is the lack of the fullness of these in a complete way that brings the debt due. Jesus also reveals that God is compassionate and full of grace. The teaching and life of Jesus is that He came as God in the flesh, the only incarnation of God among men, and that He went to a cross intentionally-- to pay the debt for all the world’s sin. As the only perfect man, he was qualified to pay the debt. As God incarnate he has the full weight to pay for the sins of the entire world. The way of forgiveness is simply to address the Visa bills: “payable by Jesus.”

Thank you . I honestly like very much hearing opinions. 1)The thing is if for example, Hitler became a Christian before he died. Is if fair that he goes straight to heaven? Or if a priest or any holy person who did good all his life, suddenly makes one mortal sin before he dies , does he burn in hell for eternity? What about a sincere communist doctor or Buddhist social aids worker who spend there life helping people do they burn in hell with the Devil for eternity? Wha do you feel the answer is? Isn't it better that the law of right and wrong be written in the soul of a person by experience? 2) Does it mean that if I believe in Jesus Christ, I can't believe in Karma? Can't I believe in both Jesus and Karma --Jondel

I am not here to Judge or think on behalf of God (thus creates cult) on the judgment of Hitler or the communist Doctor, The 'Karma' (Which associated with reincarnation) is no way related to bible or Christianity, I would like to remove the passage which reads "Parallels in Christianity" I am really not here to debate what is right and what is wrong, it is a blasphemy to say that bible supports eastern version of ‘Karma’

>it is a blasphemy to say that bible supports eastern version of ‘Karma’

Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God. The article is not defaming the name of God. Please fulfill your declaration to not Judge or think on behalf of God and not call Parallels in Christianity blasphemy.--Jondel 01:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As a Christian, I do believe in karma to an extent. Someone who claims to have received grace must strive to live a life worthy of that grace. James 2 tells us that faith without works is dead, and Galatians 6 assures us that, as a man sows, thus shall he reap.

Added POV

Please remove the Christianity reference from this article as Christianity doesn't support Hindu version of 'Karma' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Karma2Grace (talk • contribs) .

Christianity is not a monolithic entity that supports this or that. It is composed of billions of human beings, some of whom surely believe in karma. That said, the article doesn't claim that Christianity supports the idea of karma, merely that some Christians see some Christian doctrines as analogous to the doctrine of karma. — goethean ॐ 21:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't support, deny or contain the word 'Karma'. There are however similar concepts in the Bible and Christianity. I define it as cause and effect in the Spiritual realm but affecting destiny, and happiness. This is a universal concept like math. Why should a reference to Christianity be removed? It is like discovering the concept of pi or prime numbers on different sides of the ocean . Same concept , different words but undeniable.--Jondel 00:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

User Karma2Grace added the POV tag, and I will remove it. From the article with emphasis added: "Christian teachings do not usually include the idea of Karma, although some parallels can be made, such as in the Golden Rule and as exemplified by biblical verses". A very soft statement. Furthermore, no consensus here on the talk page about a POV was made, not even a debate was started. No arguments were presented. Even more important: similarity ia a free act that is often in the eyes of the beholder and does not need endorsement. Subramanian ^talk 23:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I have accepted the POV removel with the changes i made--Karma2Grace 20:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

why do we add Christian views on karma in this article that is quite alien to the subject. Can we also add Islamic view on karma? Rastafarian view? Zen? Ramtha's view? The list is endless. Andries

I 100% agree with Andries !--Karma2Grace 21:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we could include other religion´s views on Karma. You see, the article is about Karma, then every view of karma should be shown, not just Hindu-Buddhist Karma (for those specifics we have Karma in Hinduism). We could create another article on that, perhaps. Actually, I think we need a mediator here. Subramanian ^talk 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Some more arguments: a sub-branch of Christianism known as Spiritism, with some millions of followers, believes in karma and uses this very word in their doctrines (1). So, there is a line of thought believing karma to be indistinct from christian teachings. It really doesn´t matter whether we agree or not: they do, and that makes it encyclopedic. Also, all the arguments explaining why some people think karmas has nothing to do with christianism should be written as well. No preaching, however. Please. Subramanian ^talk 22:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Since we have this dispute, I added POV, I am repeating my point again, Since there are bunch of people believe something doesn't qualify to be posted here, If so I can post about Satanism in all the links of Hinduism, Is it OK?--Karma2Grace 18:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Not wishing to rock any boats here - but I tend to agree with K2G on a basically doctrinal front: My reasoning is to examine the socioreligious purpose of the metaphysical assertion of Karma in those religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, Sikhism etc) that assert it, against those religions that, traditionally at least do not, including the Ibrahimic religions. Most importantly, as K2G's name implies, there is no way that the Christian doctrine of "Grace" can work alongside Karma - Grace depends upon "God the Judge", whereas Karma does not allow for a divine arbiter of justice - indeed Karma depends upon causality itself as the arbiter of consequence. The purpose of both "God the Judge", and "Karma" is the same - if you do wrong, bad things will happen to you.. If you do good, then good things will happen to you. However, there are distinctions between these two doctrines - one of them being the strong notion of 'sin' found in Ibrahimic religions, due to the personal nature of the judge. Indeed divine intercession is a very difficult concept within those religions that assert Karma - and though there are different ways in which this is dealt with, within the scope of omnipotent deities (eg Vishnu within Vishnaivism), they tend not to buck the trend where karma comes in (see how/why Krishna died). Whereas there is a great scope for prayer and faith within at least some central christian schools - and the notion of divine grace is pretty central to the christian religious stance. So, in the end, I feel that with the doctrine of an omnipotent "God the judge", the doctrine of Karma is redundant and counter-productive. I understand that for many modern christians, karma actually appears more 'reasonable' than some moody omnipotent judge, but certainly within a traditional stance, christianity has no need for karma, and is happy with a moody omnipotent being with the ability to be completely arbitrary in his decisions. (20040302 19:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC))

Ah! Finally we have some arguments here! Karma2Grace had given us nothing to discuss upon. Fine. To the point, I can see all that you are stating above and it seems very fair and balanced. However, the section mentions Paralells with karma. It does so because some chistians (theosophists, spiritits and others) believe this to be true. 20040302, you have explained why it makes no sense to equate karma to a doctrine that focuses on grace. True enough. But the discussion here is not that entirely: it is whether such a view is encyclopedic or not. Note that millions believe in it. Our theological opinions cannot be entirely set apart from the process of creating an article - we need them to make a good job -, but it should be impersonal and involve as few original thought as possible; instead, we should focus on accurately portraying the two sides of what´s out there. We must, true, be respectful to all faiths involved, not offending anyone, and I believe the article is good enough at that. Subramanian ^talk 21:23, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Subramanian, nicely met.

Truly, my pleasure. Subramanian ^talk

Please, I do not see anything wrong with the current 'parallels' paragraph, except I don't particularly identify the core issues with Christianity alone - and as many would point out, Christianity comes in more flavours than Baskin-Robbins. There is a very interesting point made by Markandeya on your talk page: God is omnipotent and His grace can overcome the karma of man. This is one of the issues that I raised earlier - that actually there is a conflict of view regarding omnipotence and karma; because if one accepts the existence an omnipotent being, then all laws, rules, and behaviours are subject to Her/His whim. In this sense, Karma ceases to be a law of nature, and once more becomes merely the method of judgement - after all, if God is omnipotent and is also all-loving, then there is no space left for suffering. This (of course) is an old dilemma - but certainly not one that belongs to Christians alone. Buddhism addresses the issue by stating that there are no omnipotent beings, and there cannot be. Several Christian schools also adopt this view - that actually God is not omnipotent - whereas others adopt the view that God is far from all-loving, and has no compunction at all from sending people to hell/narak. Markandeya's point is one which reduces Karma completely to being nothing more than the default judgement of God - and therefore it remains an arbitrary ruling. If we accept that an omnipotent being must also be omniscient, then it is hard to understand why God would allow Karma (a default treatment) to function, when he has an infinite amount of energy to work with even the smallest of insects. Therefore, I am more interested in looking at those components of Hinduism that do not merely reflect the same problematic regarding grace/karma as would be found in Christianity, and certainly within many schools of Hinduism, we find that God, regardless of omnipotence, always chooses to conform to the law of karma - indeed karma is one of Her/His main teachings. Whereas other schools hold that even the Gods are subject to the law of Karma. I feel This area is worthy of further thought and study. (20040302 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

20040302, it is great to talk theology with you, even though I'm slightly afraid this is not the proper place. I mostly agree, and I commend you for the clarity of your arguments. As for the paradox of a Judging God bestowing karma, thus overruling the default mode (I liked your expression), I don´t feel it as an excluding situation - God or Karma. Even if I look at it from a christian viewpoint, God usually follows the natural laws that He created. Jesus, in this view, could have been born from a flower, but he was born from a woman. Jesus ate, slept, wept. Joseh was saved from the pit in an apparent coincidence. When, however, the christian God alters the events in a more spetacular fashion, a miracle, He is making a specific adjustment of one single point - and parallels to those punctual interventions can be found even in Hinduism. I will not repeat it here, but a good addition to this exchange of ideas is the answer I wrote to Raj here regarding his mentioning of Markandeya. We were then talking about grace and the thief at the cross by Jesus side. Shanti. Subramanian ^talk 03:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

our mental conceptions regarding spiritual reality

Dear user 20040302, the mental construction you presented to us here is very well conceived and clear, however the final results may fail to represent 'reality' due to just one nuclear detail: it is based upon the social/cultural general assumption of what the religion of Christ and related Teachings are; assumption that was developed or imposed by the dominant group of human beings (organized in this physical world to this end, of interpreting what was transmited to human beings, as what we may call a 'church' or 'mainstream denomination') throughout the last two millennia and adopted collectivily and in an inconscient way by the evolving majority; assumption developed through human conceptions of ignorance related to Spiritual teachings (not of this world).

If you consider to apply your mental construction, with your own life experience, without these limitations (unpreconceived as the mind of a little child) you may find yourself discovering relations and creating representations of what reality may be related to what Cristianity truly is or to any other Religious teachings, as if their, and our, development could be represented through the image of an iceberg, or any other you might be able to create. P.S.:

These words are also related to my last edition in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bible_and_reincarnation#samson in response to the conservative (if not of 'censor' like if in the middle ages we were) editions of User:Goethean and User:Karma2Grace. Regards, --212.113.164.104 23:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi 212.113.164.104, sorry - this means nothing to me. I'm not interested in any form of supposed objective truth: My interests are those that reflect the socio-cultural assumptions, conventions and languages that populate our world. Moreover, I do not find your paragraph to be particularly relevant to the current discussion, and I am wary of the doctrines and metaphysical vocabularies that you adopt. Lastly, if you wish to be taken even slightly seriously by Wikipedians, register a username. (20040302 00:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

No Parallels in Christianity

Christian teachings does not include the idea of Karma saying otherwise is simply ridiculing the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, Salvation in Christianity is purely by Grace

Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast

Although some out of context parallels (in the article) made by 19th century eastern (cult) Gurus came to west to preach eastern views, those verses primarily teach, On Judgment day every one need pay the price for rejecting Christ

Karma is NOT a natural Law, Spiritism is NOT a sub branch of Christianity, Who ever believe in karma will better qualified as a Hindu than Christian

Well, millions would disagree with you. Spiritism is Christian, see here (portuguese, the Spiritism Federation of Brazil, but it has Jesus written in very big letters). Their founder even wrote The_Gospel_According_to_Spiritism. Not a traditional christian, sure, but neither was Martin Luther. Karma2Grace, please see that you keep giving us doctrinal points of view, but the discussion here is if the opinion that parallels exist is relevant enough to be included in the article or not? I does not matter which side we might think is right. Subramanian ^talk 18:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I agree with Subramanian- Karma is indeed a natural law to most Buddhists and Hindus, as well as many others. Indeed the 'naturalness' of it is so appealing that Karma has become a use-word in all western cultures, no doubt to the annoyance of a few religio-supremacist Christians.

I agree that there is a great divide between Karma and Grace, which is either ignored by many, or circumvented through different doctrinal/theosophical approaches. There are also the standard philosophical problems of causality that may be applied to Karma, but as a general rule, such developments are beyond the scope of the current discussion.

Regardless, I propose that the 'parallels' paragraph remove Christianity as the sole parallel faith - there are many, many others that also assert grace, as Subramanian and his friends say, there is scope for Grace within Hinduism, which certainly =does= also assert the metaphysics of Karma (which though I may find a difficult position to understand, does not stop it from being a doctrinal position held by many individuals).

As for who, and who is not a Christian, such a discourse is completely out of place here - and there are plenty of other arenas for such a discussion.

Moreover, the ideas of K2G have about when the concept of Karma arrived to the west are just wrong - the world is a far smaller place, and we know that Eastern traditions and thoughts have pervaded middle-eastern and western cultures for millenia - indeed Buddha has been a canonised saint (see Josaphat (saint) ) in the Catholic Church since the 8th Century or so, and Buddha certainly asserted Karma. (20040302 19:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

I would like to let it recorded here that I have added the following:

A large majority of christians belive that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith, and that to think otherwise is offensive. For them, the idea of the Abrahamic God, dispersing decisions through ineffable and omniscient judgements, makes the concept of karma redundant. Therefore, only God through grace can save humans in the afterlife; humankind is usually thought to be too sinful to achieve salvation through its own means. Traditional doctrine on forgiveness and remission of sins is very different from the belief that one is eternally caught in the cycle of cause and effect, in this life and beyond. Most interpretations of christianity do not emphasize the religious importance of intentions or thoughts (called volition), a major point of karma.

under the "Parallels in western religions" section just to try to conciliate things, but I don´t think this article is the proper place for such a paragraph. This is the Karma article, and the paragraph above simply studies christianity and grace. But for the sake of clarity, and peace, if it is needed, so be it. As for 20040302's comment on expanding the parallels so that it will not consider christianity alone, I fully agree, but I can´t write about any other western faith related to karma. Could people help? Does Sufism have any parallel, for instance? Subramanian ^talk 20:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello. Karma2Grace has made this edit and I feel it´s rather agressive, redundant and derogatory to certain christian sects, but I think I have contributed already and I would prefer if someone else impartially analizes it. Could someone help? Thanks! Subramanian ^talk 20:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Subramanian , I don't see any wrong or derogatory information provided in my change (If so pls point that out), I don't think a sect which belives in Reincarnation and Karma will be Christian (than Hindu), None of the main line christians will accept "spritists" as christians.--Karma2Grace 20:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said, since we don´t agree, we need a third party. Subramanian ^talk

Subramanian, You have provided a citation for your claim, but User:Karma2Grace has not for hers. Her text should be deleted from the article until she is able to do so. — goethean ॐ 21:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

goethean I am he not she. By the way Subramanian can you tell me what is derogatory or wrong in my edit?--Karma2Grace 21:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What strikes as one-sided and inaccurate is the following assertion

"In Christian point of view, The Grace in Christianity is entirely different from Hindu version of Grace, Work and grace cannot co-exist as it will cancel each other, if man attain salvation is by his/her works then it become a right there is no place for grace!"

The assertion that in Christianity only grace is important, not so much good deeds seems to me a protestant interpretation of Christianity and at variance with Catholicism. Andries 21:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey, people! Actually, Spiritism (also referred wrongly as "Kardecism"), which is a Christian religion, also states its opinion about karma. The doctrine says that karma exists, but it is not irreversible, as its subject can have its karma turned lighter or even be free of its expiation, according to his behaviour in the actual life. In the same way, it can be turned worse. Any comments about this, please write me a particular brief message. Rafael "Banzai" 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To receive the Grace of God, I believe Christians need to have true faith and accept Jesus as their savior into their life. In addition, there are many more undertakings before they can truly consider themselves as Christians.

Through their sincere actions/intentions to want to receive God's grace, Christians have already generated in themselves a karma. This karmic action results in an effect - the down flow of God’s Grace to the persons concerned. As a result, the faithful Christians, following the teachings and abiding in the Truth are saved in the manner as described by the Bible scriptures. This is exactly what Karma for Christians is all about: the earnest and continual devotion to Jesus and God will bring forth the outcome: salvation. This is the Law of cause and effect. That is Karma. When your mind constantly turns inwards while you pray and rest in True Reality, you become one with Jesus and with God. Other faiths have different way to achieve unity consciousness. For example, the Hindus and Buddhists- they practise stillness of the mind to free themselves from the worldly attachments. This way they are in contact with the Voidness, the One, and the True Reality. Simply put, each religion has a different path to salvation. Ultimately, what truly counts is the earnest devotion of each and everyone to practise self-cultivation to achieve purity of the mind and heart: You will bear fruits through your devotion in prayers, through belief in Jesus, through acquiring the transcendental wisdom of Buddha, through meditation, through self-examination of transgressions and sincere repentance of sins, through chanting, through outpouring of loving-kindness, compassion and universal love, through helping your fellow beings, through being truthful and honest, through stillness etc. Those doings that come deep from your inner self are what really count because those actions and intentions are seeds that will bear fruits. The continual cultivation and purification of the heart and mind will lead one closer to spiritual realization and eternity. (e.g. emancipation from cycles of re-births for the Buddhists and attainment of Kingdom of Heaven for Christians etc) Self-cultivation is never a one-off thing and it requires continual devotion and practices. That way, our life becomes meaningful and our living purposeful. - John

Parallels => Analogs

I examined the former seven paragraphs of under the parallels section, and most of it has decayed into a discussion on the relative merits/demerits of faith and grace, which do not really have much to do with Parallels to Karma. Therefore excuse the large editorial swipe - and it's replacement with a paragraph that draws out the analog of Karma with God the Judge.

I propose that we add an additional paragraph that deals with the redundancy of both God the Judge and Karma - but this is far more to do with those religions that assert both (Hinduism, Spiritism, etc), rather than those religions which do not (mainstream Christianity).

As for the issues of Karma vs. Grace, it may be possible to add yet another paragraph concerning that - (and once again, Grace is a concept we find in Hinduism - and the Grace vs. Karma arguments have a history related to the Hinduism vs. Buddhism dialogues, rather than anything to do with Christianity)

Lastly, there are enough pages on WP for quotes from the bible - and IMO this article is not an appropriate forum; generally, non-christians do not accept the bible as having any divine authority or mandate. If we wish to quote from scriptures concerning Karma, that is fine - but quoting from scriptures to concern ourselves with Grace in Christianity is - IMO - severely off-topic. (20040302 09:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

20040302, I must say I find the inclusion of the mentioning of Spiritism as Christian group who believes in karma very necessary, as they use the very word karma in their doctrines. After all, the article is about karma, and every important view on karma should be mentioned. This specific one is noteworthy as it is a christian group using this eastern concept. Subramanian ^talk 17:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I refer you to List of Christian denominations, where Spiritism is not included. Though I have no opinion on that. However I guess I consider the inclusion of Spiritism on a general article about Karma to be rather spurious. (20040302 17:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

It´s not included because it´s mostly a Brazil-based faith. It has three million followers here. Since this is the English Wikipedia, it has no proper representation; see [1]. Three million is a large enough group to be representative of Christians believing in Karma, isn´t it? There are less than a million Quakers, for example, and they are noteworthy. Subramanian ^talk 20:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I get your point, though just because it's an English site isn't relevant - I was implying that if you wish to argue the case for Spiritism as a Christian Denomination, then you should do so on the List of Christian denominations article, rather than here. My personal experiences differ from your assertions though: I lived with a Spiritist partner a few years ago, and she never really thought of Spiritism as being Christian - her views were that it was partly derived from Christianity, but not really Christian. After all, there is a strong Catholic presence in Brazil, and I am not sure that many Spiritists consider Spiritism to be "Christianity", but rather more auxiliary to Christianity. Regardless, there are also more strong cases to be made for Karma in Christianity - after all, as mentioned before, Buddha has been recognised as a catholic saint for about a thousand years, and he definitely teaches Karma *smile* (20040302 12:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC))

I've addressed this question in the List of Christian denominations as List_of_Christian_denominations#Christian_mystery_religion and in the discussion page Talk:List_of_Christian_denominations#Christian_mystery_religion. Yet, it is not a definitive answer as in order to fully understand their roles (Spiritism and Esoteric Christianity) it is necessary a deeper understanding of the Gospel of John ("The Promises of the Spirit") than the one I am able to present here at this time. May it be, at least, a basis for further research. Regards, --194.65.22.226 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV Meanwhile, I've done a brief development to the the refered discussion page: Talk:List_of_Christian_denominations#Christian_mystery_religion. --194.65.22.226 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Hinduism Small

Karma in Hinduism is a better repository for the 'Hinduism Small' template. I have adjusted the template, this article, and Karma in Hinduism to match. (20040302 09:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC))

Parallels with Christianity (section)

This article, like the article Bible and reincarnation, is being submited to an anathema of current-days, regarding the issue of the 'Law of Karma' in Christian religion, by users which want keep a biased vision of the social-cultural reality defended by the literal radicalism in mainstream denominations (Evangelists, Protestants, Catholics,...) and through these invious actions are trying to throw into oblivion alternative views (Esoteric Christianity groups, Spiritism, ...) which are able show through intellectual logic the existence of the 'Law of Karma' and 'Reincarnation' in the Teachings of the Christ and are able also to help us to re-acquire the forgotten faith in God our Father.
These destructive actions of the mainstream denomination(s) were done also in the past through long centuries (almost two millenia) of persecution, suffering and death to the labeled "heretics" (Alexandria Gnostics, Cathars, Knights Templar, Operative Masonry, Mystical Rosicrucians, and others) which were taughting the "mysteries", spoken by the Christ, to a minority prepared to receive them with the mind of a "little child".
And these mainstream churches still expect to acquire "salvation", and preach it to other fellow human beings, through the example of these invious actions! Don't be hypocrite! IT IS TIME things change as we have now a developed mind which can "think", the basic information is available around us and individual freedom is being acquired!
P.S.: Eastern and western religions, all alike, will have to give place to the new world Religion as their Teachings, as sound and deep as they are, stop at one point: the point where the Mission of the Christ becomes "the Way" to all of them and to all of us, human beings in a "vigil" state of consciousness (remember the words of the Christ: "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6; KJV) and "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." (John 16:12)).
Best regards, In Christian Fellowship ("GOD IS LIGHT. If we walk in the Light as He is in the Light we have FELLOWSHIP one with another.")
Below is the most NPOV introduction to the theme, brought to us by user Subramanian, which was sadly deleted: --194.65.22.226 22:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

A large majority of christians belive that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith, and that to think otherwise is offensive. For them, the idea of the Abrahamic God, dispersing decisions through ineffable and omniscient judgements, makes the concept of karma redundant. Therefore, only God through grace can save humans in the afterlife; humankind is usually thought to be too sinful to achieve salvation through its own means. Traditional doctrine on forgiveness and remission of sins is very different from the belief that one is eternally caught in the cycle of cause and effect, in this life and beyond. Most interpretations of christianity do not emphasize the religious importance of intentions or thoughts (called volition), a major point of karma.

A sizable number of Christians, however, have a different view on this, embracing the concepts of Karma and reincarnation fully. Followers of Esoteric Christianity, Spiritism and others believe that grace of God alone offers humankind the possibility to grow, evolve and stand on its own. To them, Karma is considered a learning tool, through an endless number of repeating opportunities that God eternally gives to everyone. The role of grace, here, is creating the world where this learning can occur, and helping every man and woman meticulously along the way, sometimes even in miraculous events, but carefully as if not to spoil the learning of such children as they grow.

Also, karma is thought by some Jesuit theologians to be consistent with the Catholic doctrine of purgatory.

Christian teachings do not usually include the idea of Karma, although some parallels can be made, such as in the Golden Rule and as exemplified by biblical verses:

• God is not mocked (Rom. 3:8)
• Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. (Ga. 6:7)
• "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. And again, “The LORD will judge His people." (Heb. 10:30)

The concept of intervention by grace, very strong in christianism, is not alien to dharma- and karma-based religions, such as Hinduism, but it is not central; grace rather works changing the natural karmic flow^ .

Analogs of Karma - God the judge

It still not going along with Christianity, According to Bible, Job was righteous and certified by God but he was allowed to suffer. Karma is not a synonym for 'Good Works' rather it always inseparable from Reincarnation. Good works in Christianity is an "effect" of salvation not a cause! --Karma2Grace 13:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi thanks for your response. I beg you to read the analogs paragraph again. It does not claim that Karma is a synonym for Good Works, but that there is an analogous relationship with "Karma" and the "God the judge".

The way in which God the Judge is analogous with Karma is to do with the way in which a person is cast into heaven or hell - it is this type of judgement that is being considered here when speaking of God the Judge. The plight of Job actually reinforces (rather than weakens) the analogy - Karma also does not normally affect the same life - we may be righteous but still suffer. Karma's relationship with rebirth is strong - just as is the relationship between the judgement of God and one's future destination at death. The primary doctrinal distinction you appear to make is not to do with karma/judgement at all, but between rebirth and afterlife. As all major religions accept some form of afterlife, I feel that this is a very weak point in your objection.

In brief, "Karma" is analogous to "God-the-Judge-at-Death's" relation to 'good works', on the basis that Ibrahimic religions and dharma religions both accept the tenet that, in the long term, if you do good, good things will come of it, and if you do bad, bad things will come of it.

I guess you maybe still stressing about the specific relation to 'good works' - the phrase is not necessary for the analogy to be sustained: All we need is to accept is some metaphysical mechanism for the destination of one's afterlife according to the faith/actions of one's current life. This mechanism is called "Projecting Karma" by Buddhists, and the same mechanism is enacted by the "God The Judge" in the Ibrahimic faiths. On another note, your statement of "good works as an effect of salvation" also has an analogy in Buddhism, where good works are said to be an effect of a 'good mind'.

If you wish to demonstrate that there is no analogy, you must show that in Christianity there is no metaphysical mechanism for the destination of one's afterlife based upon the faith/actions of one's current life (a position that is called "nihilism" by asians). You will need to show that in Christianity there is no causal link between this life and the destination of the next. (20040302)

I've added this link: Heaven & Hell: Grace and the Law. It was written by an individual titled Rev. Mark P. Th. Kramer, which I had never heard before. Although the author doesn't recognize the existence of reincarnation (Rebirth), calling it "falsehood" (and as such talks about 'Law of Compensation' instead of 'Law of Karma' or 'Law of Cause and Effect'), it is, nevertheless, a beautiful and deep writing (essay) into the understanding of the relation of Divine Love and the Law (whatever name you give to it) throughout the New Testament. Hope it may be usefull. Friendly, --194.65.22.226 21:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC) GalaazV

Just wondering if there would be room in this section of the article to draw a comparison between karma as a description of cause and effect in the terms of past, present and future action, and the Norse concept of wyrd which is concerned with the same sort of thing. I'll wait and see if there's agreement rather than just insert it straight out! Kantiandream 14:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there is an element of this section fundamentally wrong, but i don't want to simply remove it as i think the original author could reword it and still make his point... karma is NOT A JUDGE, it has no intrinsic capacity to do so. it is merely the description of the link between cause and effect. all other assumptions based on retribution etc are subsequent and not the concept itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.255.254 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I tried to rephrase this part a bit, perhaps this reads more acceptable? While karma is not a 'judge', still the law of karma functions in a way that brings about something resembling rewards and punishments. rudy 12:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

simplistic/modern/slashdot-style interpretations

The word "karma" is of course regularly applied to the explicitly-scored experience or "point" systems implemented in various open, on-line communities, those that attempt to reward good behavior (and punish undesired behavior) in a fair and group-consensual but automatic and impartial way, without the need for godlike administrators to dole out favors or capriciously punish suspected wrongdoers. Slashdot's moderation system is the best-known example, but I'm pretty sure the concept is widespread. The question is, does this usage deserve a section in this article, or a separate article? (This sense is mentioned on the Karma (disambiguation) page, but it points broadly to the slashdot and GameFAQs message boards articles, not specifically to a discussion of karma point systems in general, which I think would be appropriate, somewhere.) Steve Summit (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Karma is Action/Reaction Based

Karma exists throughout the universe. It is simply the law of action and reaction at work. For every action there is a reaction. If the action is bad then the reaction is bad. If the action is good then the reaction will be good. This is a Divine Law in the universe. It has nothing to with religion at all. It is merely a Divine Spiritual Law. Religion has nothing, whatsoever, too do with spirituality. I make this comment simply because it is what I found in my studies on the subject of Karma. --Bumpusmills1 18:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

No Mouse in the House

I have removed the external link *Charred mouse burns house. Not only is the link itself broken, but the story it refers to is irrelevant to the topic, and of dubious origin. See Urban Legends Mouse Fire--Sentience 07:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

20. Mouse Indeed Burns House

OK so the link has died but the story lives on - I don't know where you found that link from (denouncing the story)but this link shows that the story indeed happened as reported. Some people denoounce WWII concentration camps - does that means we remove any refernce to them from the wiki - I think not! The ABC is the Australian Government's TV station, and the story is to be added in as an external link as it is relevant and according to the story it DID happen.http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200601/s1544597.htm

1) Snopes is a website dedicated to looking at urban legends in order to assess whether the stories are valid or not. It classes the mouse burns house story as undecided.

2) Just because it's reported briefly in a paper, that doesn't mean that it's true; other urban legends that I've seen on Snopes (and that have been shown to be false) had been reported in papers.

3) The mouse burning the house story, regardless of its truth (even as a made-up story, it would be instructive as a parable) is a rubbish example of karma in action; it over simplifies the concept and makes it look like a mere reward/punishment system.

4) Godwin's Law :D Kantiandream 13:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Godwin, indeed

Who cares about the mouse? This article is a great example of one the underlying problems w/ Wikipedia: 15 or 20 ppl have seen fit to edit in their ideas about what 'karma' is or isn't, and reoughly 3 of them seem to have a) any clue about the technical meaning(s) of the word, or b) any clue about 'reference' or 'encyclopedic'. There is so much wrong with this article now.

• The intro para still doesn't clarify that the word is a hindu word, originally (and still commonly) used technically in hindu religions.

• What the heck is that 'Theory of Karma' section, introduced in toto on 25 May by one User:Sheborg12??? It is unrelated, unreferenced, and pretty unconventional. A purely psychological explanation for the karmic mechanism? Gimme a break.

• The 'dharma-based religions' section is turgid, and too short to be useful.

• The 'Analogs' section, which ya'll have so "lovingly" crafted over the months, is completely unreferenced, and (with apologies) worthless. Anytime you start by saying "If we accept [proposition x]..." and you're not quoting someone else's research, then you're probably doing original research yourself.

• The phrase 'what Bhudda is asking them to believe' smacks of evanglism to me, and the bullet points that follow make no damn sense at all (also smacking of evanglism ;/ ).

• The whole 'omniverse karma' thing is also unreferenced. I've never heard of it, have you?

• And last but not least, there's far too little consideration of the actual common usages of the word in English speaking countries today. For a word to go from obscure foreign-language religious technical term to common American slang deserves a bit more exploration. And the very common 'net usage (such as slashdot's) should definately be referenced.

And why, you quite correctly ask, have I not stopped whining and did something about it? Dunno, exactly, except I got distracted with a pleasant little reworking of the article on Kardecism, and now I'm tired. We shall see how the karmic threads weave themselves around my spirit tomorrow... Eaglizard 11:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Reading this article on 24 September 2006: this article makes less and less sense the further into it one reads. Grammatical and spelling errors are one thing; incoherent sentence structure and bad programming analogies that make no sense and have no citation whatsoever are a problem. I'm not a wikipedian, but if this article doesn't need cleanup I don't know what does.

Douglas?

'Karma means "(the result of) action", generally taken as a term that comprises the entire cycle douglas of cause and effect.'

What, may I ask, is a cycle douglas? --Nickinuu 02:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

MORE vandalism:

I find, in the intro paragraph: "Karma is a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. Individuals go through certain processes and accompanying experiences poop throughout their lives which they have chosen, and those would be based on the results of their own creations: "karma"." POOP? Surely, this isnot what the original author intended. I know not what to change it to, however, this reference needs to be changed...it may work if you think enough about it, but frankly, this is nowhere near a professional standard of work. 64.241.37.140 19:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Even more ... The main paragraph begins with *Karma is stupid and i hate it!!!!* And there seems to be no way of editing it away.

poorly written

this article displays a lack of understanding of the concept of karma in buddhist and hindu religion, is poorly written, and has almost no references.

Seeming contradiction

The following paragraphs seem to contradict one another (the first stating that only the Moksha state prevents karma from accumulating, the second stating that the Turiya state also does so even before achievement of the Moksha state). I do not know enough on the subject to fix this properly, hopefully someone will though. Seraphimblade 19:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actions do not create karma (good or bad) only when the actions are performed by an individual in the state of Moksha. Such a person is called "Stithaprajna". Adi Sankara gave the dictum of "Akarmaiva Moksha" which means "Moksha can be attained only by doing, not by a process of effort". All actions performed by one in the state of Moksha are termed as Dharma.

The Hindus believe that everything in the Universe is in the state of creation, maintenance or destruction. The Hindu trinity of Gods Brahma (creator), Vishnu (maintainer) and Shiva (Destroyer) correspond to the states of creation, maintenance and destruction. At the thought level, the mind creates a thought, maintains (follows) it for some time and the thought ultimately dies down (perhaps to be replaced by another thought). The Hindus believe there is a fourth state of being (called Turiya) where the mind is not engaged in thinking but just observes the thoughts. Actions in the Turiya state do not create karma. The practice of meditation is aimed at giving individuals the experience of being in the Turiya state. An individual who is constantly in the Turiya state is said to have attained Moksha. In such an individual, actions happen as a response to events (and not because of thought process); such actions do not result in accumulation of Karma.