Questions about Karma

I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum do not have a good understanding of what Karma is and what it is not. I think many people here, who have a Christian background, view Karma as an equivalent to judgment. I would like to clarify what is meant when I write the word Karma.

The following is taken from the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism.

Karma

Potentials in the inner, unconscious realm of life created through one's actions in the past or present that manifest themselves as various results in the present or future.

Karma is a variation of the Sanskrit karman, which means act, action, a former act leading to a future result, or result.

Buddhism interprets karma in two ways: as indicating three categories of action, i.e., mental, verbal, and physical, and as indicating a dormant force thereby produced. That is, one's thought, speech, and behavior, both good and bad, imprint themselves as a latent force or potential in one's life. This latent force, or karma, when activated by an external stimulus, produces a corresponding good or bad effect, i.e., happiness or suffering. There are also neutral acts that produce neither good nor bad results.

According to this concept of karma, one's actions in the past have shaped one's present reality, and one's actions in the present will in turn influence one's future. This law of karmic causality operates in perpetuity, carrying over from one lifetime to the next and remaining with one in the latent state between death and rebirth. It is karma, therefore, that accounts for the circumstances of one's birth, one's individual nature, and in general the differences among all living beings and their environments. It was traditionally viewed as a natural process in which no god or deity could intervene. The Hindu gods, in fact, were subject to the same law of karma as people, having become gods supposedly through the creation of good karma.

The idea of karma predates Buddhism and was already prevalent in Indian society well before the time of Shakyamuni. This pre-Buddhist view of karma, however, had an element of determinism, serving more to explain one's lot in life and compel one to accept it than inspiring hope for change or transformation. The Brahmans, who were at the top of the Indian class structure by birth, may well have emphasized this view to secure their own role. The idea of karma was further developed, however, in the Buddhist teachings. Shakyamuni maintained that what makes a person noble or humble is not birth but one's actions. Therefore the Buddhist doctrine of karma is not fatalistic. Rather, karma is viewed not only as a means to explain the present, but also as the potential force through which to influence one's future.

Mahayana Buddhism holds that the sum of actions and experiences of the present and previous lifetimes are accumulated and stored as karma in the depths of life and will form the framework of individual existence in the next lifetime. Buddhism therefore encourages people to create the best possible karma in the present in order to ensure the best possible outcome in the future. In terms of time, some types of karma produce effects in the present lifetime, others in the next lifetime, and still others in subsequent lifetimes. This depends on the nature, intensity, and repetitiveness of the acts that caused them. Only those types of karma that are extremely good or bad will last into future existences. The other, more minor, types will produce results in this lifetime. Those that are neither good nor bad will bring about no results.

Karma is broadly divided into two types: fixed and unfixed. Fixed karma is said to produce a fixed result—that is, for any given fixed karma there is a specific effect that will become manifest at a specific time. In the case of unfixed karma, any of various results or general outcomes might arise at an indeterminate time. Irrespective of these differences, the Buddhist philosophy of karma, particularly that of Mahayana Buddhism, is not fatalistic. No ill effect is so fixed or predetermined that good karma from Buddhist practice in the present cannot transform it for the better. Moreover, any type of karma needs interaction with the corresponding conditions to become manifest.

Fixed karma

Also, immutable karma, the opposite of unfixed karma. Karma that inevitably produces a fixed or set result, whether negative or positive. The Dharma Analysis Treasury lists the four causes of fixed karma. They are (1) actions motivated by exceptionally strong earthly desires or by a profoundly pure mind; (2) actions, whether good or evil, done habitually; (3) actions, whether good or evil, performed in relation to such sources of benefit as the three treasures of Buddhism; and (4) actions causing harm to one's parents.

Fixed karma may also be interpreted as karma whose effects are destined to appear at a fixed time. In this case, fixed karma may be of three types depending on when its effects will appear: (1) karma whose effects are destined to appear in the same lifetime; (2) karma whose effects are destined to appear in the next lifetime; and (3) karma whose effects are destined to appear in a third or even later lifetime. As a general rule, lighter karma is said to manifest itself in the same lifetime that it was created, while exceptionally good or bad karma will be carried over into subsequent lifetimes. Fixed karma was traditionally considered unchangeable, but Nichiren states in his writing On Prolonging One's Life Span, "Karma also may be divided into two categories: fixed and unfixed. Sincere repentance will eradicate even fixed karma, to say nothing of karma that is unfixed" (954).

Unfixed karma

Also, mutable karma. The opposite of fixed karma. Karma that does not necessarily produce a specific kind of result or reward, or yields an effect that is not destined to appear at or within a certain fixed time. It is regarded as lighter and unhindered wisdom easier to change than fixed karma.

Cause and effect

(1) Buddhism expounds the law of cause and effect that operates in life, ranging over past, present, and future existences. This causality underlies the doctrine of karma. From this view-point, causes formed in the past are manifested as effects in the present. Causes formed in the present will be manifested as effects in the future. Buddhism emphasizes the causes one creates and accumulates in the present, because these will determine one's future.

(2) From the viewpoint of Buddhist practice, cause represents the bodhisattva practice for attaining Buddhahood and effect represents the benefit of Buddhahood. Based on the doctrine that the ordinary person and the Buddha are essentially the same, it is taught that cause (the nine worlds, or practice) and effect (Buddhahood, or the result of practice) are non-dual and simultaneous. Nichiren (1222-1282) wrote, "Shakyamuni's practices and the virtues he consequently attained are all contained within the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. If we believe in these five characters, we will naturally be granted the same benefits as he was" (365).

(3) From the viewpoint that, among the Ten Worlds, cause represents the nine worlds and effect represents Buddhahood, Nichiren refers to two kinds of teachings: those that view things from the standpoint of "cause to effect" ( Jpn juin-shika ) and those that approach things from the standpoint of "effect to cause" (juka-koin ). The former indicates Shakyamuni's teaching, by which ordinary persons carry out Buddhist practice (cause) aiming at the goal of Buddhahood (effect). In contrast, the latter indicates Nichiren's teaching, in which ordinary persons manifest their innate Buddhahood (effect) through faith and practice, and then, based on Buddhahood, go out among the people of the nine worlds (cause) in order to lead them to Buddhahood.

Simultaneity of cause and effect

(1) The principle that both cause and effect exist together simultaneously in a single moment of life. It contrasts with the concept of non-simultaneity of cause and effect, or cause and effect as they appear in the phenomenal world, where there inevitably seems to be a time gap between an action and its result. From the viewpoint that all phenomena exist in a single moment of life, there can be no distinction between cause and effect; in other words, cause and effect are simultaneous.

(2) Cause (the nine worlds) and effect (Buddhahood) simultaneously exist in one's life. In this sense, the simultaneity of cause and effect is revealed in the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds and the three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Nichiren's work The Entity of the Mystic Law discusses the simultaneity of cause and effect as an attribute of the Mystic Law. It states: "He [the Buddha] perceived that there is this wonderful single Law [myoho] that simultaneously possesses both cause and effect [renge], and he named it Myoho-renge. This single Law that is Myoho-renge encompasses within it all the phenomena comprising the Ten Worlds and the three thousand realms, and is lacking in none of them. Anyone who practices this Law will obtain both the cause and the effect of Buddhahood simultaneously" (421). Because the Law of Myoho-renge encompasses all phenomena comprising the Ten Worlds, it simultaneously possesses both the cause, or the nine worlds characterized by delusion, and the effect, the world of Buddhahood. To "obtain both the cause and the effect of Buddhahood simultaneously" means that by practicing this Law one will obtain both the cause (or practice) for attaining Buddhahood and the effect of actualizing Buddhahood simultaneously within oneself. Specifically, Nichiren is referring here to the practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Any Questions?

i thought karma was the name of a Hindu deity and what you listed above are the attributes and characteristics of that Deity or the society of that Deity. sometimes, i like these circular arguments and that everything goes round and round, nothing has it's own distinction and even if it does, it feeds the outcome b/c it's existence and therefore, should have it's proper place...sometimes, that kind of thinking works well for my views in life, but other times, it upsets me, and i don't know why yet.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have noticed that a lot of people on this forum do not have a good understanding of what Karma is and what it is not. I think many people here, who have a Christian background, view Karma as an equivalent to judgment. I would like to clarify what is meant when I write the word Karma.

The following is taken from the The Soka Gakkai Dictionary of Buddhism.

Karma

Potentials in the inner, unconscious realm of life created through one's actions in the past or present that manifest themselves as various results in the present or future.

Karma is a variation of the Sanskrit karman, which means act, action, a former act leading to a future result, or result.

Buddhism interprets karma in two ways: as indicating three categories of action, i.e., mental, verbal, and physical, and as indicating a dormant force thereby produced. That is, one's thought, speech, and behavior, both good and bad, imprint themselves as a latent force or potential in one's life. This latent force, or karma, when activated by an external stimulus, produces a corresponding good or bad effect, i.e., happiness or suffering. There are also neutral acts that produce neither good nor bad results.

According to this concept of karma, one's actions in the past have shaped one's present reality, and one's actions in the present will in turn influence one's future. This law of karmic causality operates in perpetuity, carrying over from one lifetime to the next and remaining with one in the latent state between death and rebirth. It is karma, therefore, that accounts for the circumstances of one's birth, one's individual nature, and in general the differences among all living beings and their environments. It was traditionally viewed as a natural process in which no god or deity could intervene. The Hindu gods, in fact, were subject to the same law of karma as people, having become gods supposedly through the creation of good karma.

The idea of karma predates Buddhism and was already prevalent in Indian society well before the time of Shakyamuni. This pre-Buddhist view of karma, however, had an element of determinism, serving more to explain one's lot in life and compel one to accept it than inspiring hope for change or transformation. The Brahmans, who were at the top of the Indian class structure by birth, may well have emphasized this view to secure their own role. The idea of karma was further developed, however, in the Buddhist teachings. Shakyamuni maintained that what makes a person noble or humble is not birth but one's actions. Therefore the Buddhist doctrine of karma is not fatalistic. Rather, karma is viewed not only as a means to explain the present, but also as the potential force through which to influence one's future.

Mahayana Buddhism holds that the sum of actions and experiences of the present and previous lifetimes are accumulated and stored as karma in the depths of life and will form the framework of individual existence in the next lifetime. Buddhism therefore encourages people to create the best possible karma in the present in order to ensure the best possible outcome in the future. In terms of time, some types of karma produce effects in the present lifetime, others in the next lifetime, and still others in subsequent lifetimes. This depends on the nature, intensity, and repetitiveness of the acts that caused them. Only those types of karma that are extremely good or bad will last into future existences. The other, more minor, types will produce results in this lifetime. Those that are neither good nor bad will bring about no results.

Karma is broadly divided into two types: fixed and unfixed. Fixed karma is said to produce a fixed result—that is, for any given fixed karma there is a specific effect that will become manifest at a specific time. In the case of unfixed karma, any of various results or general outcomes might arise at an indeterminate time. Irrespective of these differences, the Buddhist philosophy of karma, particularly that of Mahayana Buddhism, is not fatalistic. No ill effect is so fixed or predetermined that good karma from Buddhist practice in the present cannot transform it for the better. Moreover, any type of karma needs interaction with the corresponding conditions to become manifest.

Fixed karma

Also, immutable karma, the opposite of unfixed karma. Karma that inevitably produces a fixed or set result, whether negative or positive. The Dharma Analysis Treasury lists the four causes of fixed karma. They are (1) actions motivated by exceptionally strong earthly desires or by a profoundly pure mind; (2) actions, whether good or evil, done habitually; (3) actions, whether good or evil, performed in relation to such sources of benefit as the three treasures of Buddhism; and (4) actions causing harm to one's parents.

Fixed karma may also be interpreted as karma whose effects are destined to appear at a fixed time. In this case, fixed karma may be of three types depending on when its effects will appear: (1) karma whose effects are destined to appear in the same lifetime; (2) karma whose effects are destined to appear in the next lifetime; and (3) karma whose effects are destined to appear in a third or even later lifetime. As a general rule, lighter karma is said to manifest itself in the same lifetime that it was created, while exceptionally good or bad karma will be carried over into subsequent lifetimes. Fixed karma was traditionally considered unchangeable, but Nichiren states in his writing On Prolonging One's Life Span, "Karma also may be divided into two categories: fixed and unfixed. Sincere repentance will eradicate even fixed karma, to say nothing of karma that is unfixed" (954).

Unfixed karma

Also, mutable karma. The opposite of fixed karma. Karma that does not necessarily produce a specific kind of result or reward, or yields an effect that is not destined to appear at or within a certain fixed time. It is regarded as lighter and unhindered wisdom easier to change than fixed karma.

Cause and effect

(1) Buddhism expounds the law of cause and effect that operates in life, ranging over past, present, and future existences. This causality underlies the doctrine of karma. From this view-point, causes formed in the past are manifested as effects in the present. Causes formed in the present will be manifested as effects in the future. Buddhism emphasizes the causes one creates and accumulates in the present, because these will determine one's future.

(2) From the viewpoint of Buddhist practice, cause represents the bodhisattva practice for attaining Buddhahood and effect represents the benefit of Buddhahood. Based on the doctrine that the ordinary person and the Buddha are essentially the same, it is taught that cause (the nine worlds, or practice) and effect (Buddhahood, or the result of practice) are non-dual and simultaneous. Nichiren (1222-1282) wrote, "Shakyamuni's practices and the virtues he consequently attained are all contained within the five characters of Myoho-renge-kyo. If we believe in these five characters, we will naturally be granted the same benefits as he was" (365).

(3) From the viewpoint that, among the Ten Worlds, cause represents the nine worlds and effect represents Buddhahood, Nichiren refers to two kinds of teachings: those that view things from the standpoint of "cause to effect" ( Jpn juin-shika ) and those that approach things from the standpoint of "effect to cause" (juka-koin ). The former indicates Shakyamuni's teaching, by which ordinary persons carry out Buddhist practice (cause) aiming at the goal of Buddhahood (effect). In contrast, the latter indicates Nichiren's teaching, in which ordinary persons manifest their innate Buddhahood (effect) through faith and practice, and then, based on Buddhahood, go out among the people of the nine worlds (cause) in order to lead them to Buddhahood.

Simultaneity of cause and effect

(1) The principle that both cause and effect exist together simultaneously in a single moment of life. It contrasts with the concept of non-simultaneity of cause and effect, or cause and effect as they appear in the phenomenal world, where there inevitably seems to be a time gap between an action and its result. From the viewpoint that all phenomena exist in a single moment of life, there can be no distinction between cause and effect; in other words, cause and effect are simultaneous.

(2) Cause (the nine worlds) and effect (Buddhahood) simultaneously exist in one's life. In this sense, the simultaneity of cause and effect is revealed in the mutual possession of the Ten Worlds and the three thousand realms in a single moment of life. Nichiren's work The Entity of the Mystic Law discusses the simultaneity of cause and effect as an attribute of the Mystic Law. It states: "He [the Buddha] perceived that there is this wonderful single Law [myoho] that simultaneously possesses both cause and effect [renge], and he named it Myoho-renge. This single Law that is Myoho-renge encompasses within it all the phenomena comprising the Ten Worlds and the three thousand realms, and is lacking in none of them. Anyone who practices this Law will obtain both the cause and the effect of Buddhahood simultaneously" (421). Because the Law of Myoho-renge encompasses all phenomena comprising the Ten Worlds, it simultaneously possesses both the cause, or the nine worlds characterized by delusion, and the effect, the world of Buddhahood. To "obtain both the cause and the effect of Buddhahood simultaneously" means that by practicing this Law one will obtain both the cause (or practice) for attaining Buddhahood and the effect of actualizing Buddhahood simultaneously within oneself. Specifically, Nichiren is referring here to the practice of chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo.

Any Questions?

Isn't Karma just rubbish made up by a bunch of randoms?
(See, I can do it too! 😛)

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Isn't Karma just rubbish made up by a bunch of randoms?
(See, I can do it too! 😛)

So, after doing all that reading, you still have that opinion?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, after doing all that reading, you still have that opinion?

Well...wheres the proof that these people weren't just really high?

http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/deity/KarmaAsDeity.html

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well...wheres the proof that these people weren't just really high?

Please take your point elsewhere.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Please take your point elsewhere.

Its really irritating isn't it. Wait until people start saying Sigmund Freud proved you wrong...

Maybe you will just reap what you sowed in the Adam and Eve thread.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well...wheres the proof that these people weren't just really high?

good point, i do some research on medicinal plants/herbs, for canary as well as medicinal reasons, i don't know much about the herbs that people smoke in order to meditate, this stuff about karma could be from a bad herb or a good one, who knows, but if the herb was bad, it doesn't matter b/c bad eventually become good...right??? 😬

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
good point, i do some research on medicinal plants/herbs, for canary as well as medicinal reasons, i don't know much about the herbs that people smoke in order to meditate, this stuff about karma could be from a bad herb or a good one, who knows, but if the herb was bad, it doesn't matter b/c bad eventually become good...right??? 😬

Exactly, it's amazing, Christianity doesn't stand up to scrutiny on these boards, and neither does Buddhism.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Its really irritating isn't it. Wait until people start saying Sigmund Freud proved you wrong...

Maybe you will just reap what you sowed in the Adam and Eve thread.

I will report for for trolling if you continue.

shakyamu, are KARMA and action intertwined and mutually complementing in buddhism as u see it or are there distinct differences between the two.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
shakyamu, are KARMA and action intertwined and mutually complementing in buddhism as u see it or are there distinct differences between the two.

They are mutual. In order to explain why, I would have to explain the ten worlds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I will report for for trolling if you continue.

Go for it, fact is, Karma is about as believable as the great flood. The fact that it insults you to answer to the possibility that Karma is all rubbish is your fault not mine. I can't help you have this confrontational attitude when someone criticise your faith.

Any Moderator who reads this will realise I have acted as you would act in many of the other Christianity related threads.

JIA handles criticism better.

Now, becasuse I feel you understand what I meant in the PMs I will ask the questions you feel appropriate, never again will I question if its all true.

{i think some people dont understand the fact that buddhism [form what i know about it which is limited] is a philosophy of spirituality and finding the purest, truest mental or spiritual path. it does NOT like christianity or other relegions attempt to bring in the generally followed practices of humans or logical debates as it does not mix materialism in its teachings. nor does it pass judgement on certain practices the way other organised relegions do and as such is not plagued by the self contradictory nature of the amalgamation of spirituality and practice/realism/materialism/judgement. also because of this it cannot be criticised on the same grounds the other are. even an atheist or agnostic{given he is logical} can at best say{as i do} that it is merely a differnt and not necessarily more incorrect way of looking at the world as compared to mine and at the very least, its humane teachings are logical and its spiritual teachings soothing and loving. ofcourse one might wanna humbly argue that its chant's or unselfishness{to a more extreme extent then is normally human as we takke it} make one forget their soul, but that is a very dodgy and inconclusive topic as far as the open ended teachings are concerned.

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Go for it, fact is, Karma is about as believable as the great flood. The fact that it insults you to answer to the possibility that Karma is all rubbish is your fault not mine. I can't help you have this confrontational attitude when someone criticise your faith.

Any Moderator who reads this will realise I have acted as you would act in many of the other Christianity related threads.

JIA handles criticism better.

No, you are being spiteful because you feel like you were mistreated in another thread. I am not complaining about your disbelief in Karma; I am complaining about your attempt to derail this threat because of a lesson you wish in impart onto me.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are being spiteful because you feel like you were mistreated in another thread. I am not complaining about your disbelief in Karma; I am complaining about your attempt to derail this threat because of a lesson you wish in impart onto me.

You understand it can be annoying yes? I have no intention of continuing, its just a point- relevant to Karma! What goes around comes around!

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You understand it can be annoying yes? I have no intention of continuing, its just a point- relevant to Karma! What goes around comes around!

I understood your point yesterday.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, you are being spiteful because you feel like you were mistreated in another thread. I am not complaining about your disbelief in Karma; I am complaining about your attempt to derail this threat because of a lesson you wish in impart onto me.

i am actually speaking as your friend, isn't this viewed as a lesson b/c you believe in karma? and if there aren't distinctions in negative and positive, if they are mutual, then doesn't the negative have just as much right as the positive, and if this is true, and you view this experience with Grand as negative, won't it come out positive since neither one really exists or they are the same so they cancel each other out? sorry for the sarcasm.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I understood your point yesterday.

I am glad.

Originally posted by Czarina_Czarina
i am actually speaking as your friend, isn't this viewed as a lesson b/c you believe in karma? and if there aren't distinctions in negative and positive, if they are mutual, then doesn't the negative have just as much right as the positive, and if this is true, and you view this experience with Grand as negative, won't it come out positive since neither one really exists or they are the same so they cancel each other out? sorry for the sarcasm.

Question Time

How do you personally implement your belief in Karma in your daily life?