Talk:Karma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of Karma. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
| Archive 1. |
____
[edit] Thoughts
First of all, I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between the the different views of karma as seen by the different religions/philosophical systems. Buddhism is an inherently atheistic religion and does not require the existence of a creator god for its definition of karma to function.
Karma as relating to Buddhism is simply natural law. There is no judgement placed and there is no sin or attonement thereof. Every thought or action taken by a person is a seed which can come to fruition at some point later in this life or another. Although there is no judgement placed on karma, according to the Buddha, there are 3 types: action which results in positive circumstances, action which results in negative circumstances, and action which results in neutral circumstances. The important point behind this is INTENT. Your karma will be substantially less for accidentally taking a life than it would be for purposely taking one. Moreover, if you feel remorseful and strive to avoid those kinds of unwholesome actions, you will reduce your chances of negative circumstances for the future.
The state of Arahat (enlightenment, but not complete enlightenment like that of a Buddha) is the state where your actions are not tied to karma. At this point, al of your past karma will catch up to you in order to burn it off in this lifetime. The goal for humans is to accumulate enough merit and burn off all karma (negative) to enable us to be freed from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. I hope this has helped those who are genuinely troubled by other notions of karma gain a clearer understanding of what it means.
In Buddhism, Hinduism and also Jainism, all beings, including gods are subject to karma. It is a natural law that is above the will of any god. However, in Hinduism, room is left for the will of god, and generally more emphasis is placed on his will than natural karma. But of course hinduism is so varied between practitioners that it's almost pointless to try and assign a fixed viewpoint.Ledgohan 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I basically agree with your thoughts. What worries me in the article is the whole chapter 4 and it's subparagraphs - according to the Buddhist view, this is pretty much a collection of incorrect statements, and I suspect most of it is not valid for Hinduism also. This whole part reads more like a freely invented New-agey interpretation - that's not bad as such, but it should be clear that this is not Buddhism (or Hinduism as I understand it). rudy 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to first understand what is 'thought'. It is not an act of mind as the article projects! May I suggest the reader to have a look at this article on 'Karma'? <http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfTheMysteriouskarma> 122.162.237.136 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Cdr Varma.
[edit] Nomination for Worst-Written Article on Wikipedia
It's astonishing that an article of this length has so little merit. What a disappointment. From the first sentence to the last, this article needs an encyclopedic rewrite. Anyone willing to work with me to take it on as a mercy project? TheEditrix2 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Sadly enough I have to agree... If I can do anything to help with the Buddhist section, just let me know. rudy 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- It may even be worthwhile someone starting again in a sandbox and working it up from scratch? I'll help out with it where I can. Gouranga(UK) 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
{{sofixit}} -- not a single source is cited, so it is fair to remove all the clutter with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Practical view
Sorry to say but the page fails to grasp the concept of Karma entirely. How would you possibly understand a spiritual term only with intelligence and without wisdom? Did ANYONE of the authors actually knowingly work with karma? MetaByte 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Caste and Karma / Karma and politics
The theory of karma ... became a rational explanation for the caste system and provided much needed solace for those who were disadvantaged by it. The exercise of caste rights became obligatory but only ephemeral, in this present life, with better prospects in the life hereafter, if these obligations are met without complaints.
Ref: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/061.htm
That view of Karma is fairly commonly held in the social sciences and often goes further than the above quoted article. The idea that Karma rationalizes the exploitation of the lower classes (untouchables) and has lead to the latter turning to other religions in significant numbers (especially in the northwest of the subcontinent) is a very important idea that I believe has to be included in this wikipedia article. Wikimam 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Verbal Garbage
It looks like there are vested interests in this page who suffer from verbal diarrohea when it comes to writing about Karma.
Instead of simple and elegant organization about this subtle concept, the writing is kept hap-hazard, digressive and repetitive. The whole idea behind having sub-topics references is to lessen the congestion in the main page...and yet, some people vomit in details at both places.
I had made considerable clean up which was promptly undone. I would like the support of like-minded individuals to make this page useful to one and all, especially the beginners.
- The above unsigned contribution was made in this edit: [1] by User:Jrajesh. When edits are contested, one approach that reduces conflict is to list the individual points in question on the talk page, and then focus on one item at a time. When multiple points are handled in a single edit, it is more difficult to build consensus around the bulk edit. By working one issue at a time, each one can be considered in some detail. It would also be helpful if all editors would comply with WP:CIVIL.
- I would agree that the article contains a great deal of weak material that needs to be redone. However that process can take two types of action: 1. Tagging and subsequent removal of unsourced material (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability, and 2., addition of strongly-sourced material using good inline citation methods (see: WP:CITE. A simple step is to just place fact tags on disputed material, which helps draw the attention of editors to unsourced items that are of particular interest. I will add one or two such tags now, as I agree that the article has many problems. Buddhipriya 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Dear Jrajesh - In your edit you had removed a lot of information and made quite important changes without any kind of discussion or comment being made. After reading it through I wasn't really sure if the changes were improvements or not so I reverted back to the last version. This article was a real mess in the not to distant past, and still needs a lot of improvement. Please don't be put off from making changes, but as Buddhipriya has stated above it is helpful to discuss and make them in a transparent way. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] salvation part???
srsly guys... who the hell wrote this crap?
- "The process of release (moksha) from ego-consciousness (ahamkar) with its inherent karma can be compared with :the doctrine of salvation in mainstream Christianity: Grace given by faith in the suffering, death and :resurrection of Jesus."
this, in my opinion is utterly wrong... sin in christianity and karma in the dharmic religions are no where near the same and wtf?? compared with the doctrine of salvation? ARE U JOKING????? wow ur dumb. Sadartha 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Meditation and Karma
Could anyone write on how Meditation can a) liberate mankind from wheels of re-birth b) eliminate/emancipate one's Karma and c) achieve eternal life ?
- possibly better off in another article, have you tried following the links from Meditation David Woodward 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”
I agree with the comparative saying “What goes around, comes around.”
"As you sow so shall you reap" maybe
“For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” i don't think are as useful because they are more restrictive in meaning. As i understand Karma in the Buddha Dharma, (although i'm no expert) it may come back at you in a different way than it went out. In particular "eye for an eye" is a proverb directing the action of people, rather than reporting on a law of nature or God.
Exodus 21:12-25 The Law concerning Violence
12 Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.
[cut]
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
bible.oremus.org David Woodward 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Being Bold
I just went into this page to try to fix the long line of [edit] boxes under Other Niyama Dharmas. As I did so, I started to tidy up a bit, as is my wont. I got to a paragraph that made no sense, so, being bold (for the first time) I removed it completely.
I continued reading and realised that the article is full of what appears to be simply various people's understandings of what "karma" is. In an encyclopedia, we don't really need wishy-washy views - we need fully referenced definitions and explanations of a concept.
This is not to say that western ideas of karma should not be included. Quite the contrary. However, the explanation needs to be from a reputable source. I know what I mean when I say "that was karma", but I'm sure it is of no interest to the world at large, and even less to future generations.
Kitty Davis (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Addition
It is important to notice for example, that the views on karma adopted by the “modern” Christian faith or any other denomination promoting fear as a way to understand God, are difficult to understand. Karma is very simple to understand: an action brings a reaction. At the same time, karma is also extremely intricate in it's application. This is neither good nor bad, it simply brings to the foreground the element of choice that we all have. Having a look at the daily news will bring an understanding of the laws of karma as they are plainly exhibited for all to see. As spiritual beings, we presently experience in this world the reactions of our thinking process. Today’s Christian faith embraces the: "you shall burn in hell eternally" model if one deviates from the prescribed "laws" of God. Well... There is a point to be made here. This "you shall burn in hell eternally" model was put in place to control people by means of fear and does not reflect in any way the teachings of Christ whatsoever. Love of God is developed through free will, never by fear. This world is simply and only but a karma laboratory meant to conduct the experience of reconnecting to love of God, and all of us, being a part and parcel of God, can do so by practicing with each other. The moment we can love, and love here is used in it's most profound meaning of the ultimate experience of giving and receiving unconditionally, then we have made use of the 'laboratory' in an efficient way. Karma is neither good or bad but rather an indicator to show us if the strategies we use to meet our needs are promoting life as a wonderful experience of not. Life itself is simple; we all share the same needs behind the cloak of 'modern' life. Karma is an ally to help us see how close we are to achieve our ultimate goal in this world; love.
The above paragraph was recently added to the main article. It is unwikified and unsourced, but it may be that certain elements are useful and informative? I'm moving it here for now where anyone interested in keeping parts of it can provide sources and copyedit the text before re-inserting into the main page. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Chinese Definition
The correct definition of Karma is "因果", not "業" as corrected by user O not.
Definition in English-Chinese dictionary (http://www.tigernt.com/dict.shtml):
karma ['ka:m/&/ ] 名 因缘;因果报应;宿命
More reference: http://www.buddhism.com.cn/jingtu/ygjs.htm.
Please discuss before changing the definition.
Joelee.org (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- The dictionary you used clearly isn't a very good one, but then karma, as a religious term, is a fairly specific concept and inaccuracy isn't surprising. 因果 means "causality" a broader and related concept. The only proper and correct translation of karma is 業, simply because this usage of 業 was invented to translate karma. See the Chinese wiki for zh:業 and zh:因果. o (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, on further reflection, I found the Chinese translation of karma irrelevant to this article. Karma isn't a Chinese-originated concept and there is no reason to include Chinese while leaving out Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, so on and so forth. I'm removing the Chinese translation, anyone interested should just refer to the wiki articles in the other languages. o (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
jak sie robi karme -------karme sie robi w taki sposob ze zawiesza sie slonine na nitce lub na druciee i sie gdzies wiesz \ \\\\\\\\\\\pisala PAULA ZIMOLĄG KLAsa 6 b podstawowa numer 3 w gostyninie '
[edit] Bullcrap
This is almost as bad as believing in Horoscopes or eight-armed gods. Enough said. If you need further explanation to understand the reasoning behind my statement, then you better get your head checked to see if there is a brain in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.32.105 (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I can't understand how people can be so fooled by this absolute garbage and nonsense. It has no rhyme or reason to any of it. It allows for moral equivication. It doesn't answer any of the ral important questions of life, like origins of life, purpose of life and eternal destination of the soul. Please people use the mind God gave you and think.God said seek Me while I might be found. You are barking up the wrong tree with all this garbage. Check Out Commandments one and two in Exodus 20.— —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.235.101 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islam and Other Semitic Faiths
- I wonder why there are no Islamic reference given for this universal philosophy of Karma.
- For example in the Quran there is reference about, "If you help in the way of your Lord, He shall help in your way"
- Further, "Remember Me, and I shall remember you"
- These and many others are karmic references or examples of the dynamics of karma in operation when refering to Godhood as source of creation.
- Such is the underlying theocratic theme in other sister semitic faiths such as Judaism and Christianity. However the later is mentioned somewhat. Thus i feel it can be more encyclopedic to state where it occurs.
Just my humble opinion - Red1 D Oon (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Theosophy and New Age is unreferenced
...and flakey and ought to go! Redheylin (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Koan
I'm not a Buddhist, but the Japanese word Koan means public case. As We have in Stones explanations not read yet. It might also be inseresting for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.199.15 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
