Doesn't the notion of karma..

[meritocrat]

rely on the concept of an absolute morality?

Wouldn't the 'bad' actions have to be clearly defined in order for a person to suffer the 'bad' consequences??

[Yeshi]

I think its exactly the other way around:

The absolute morality develops according to your understanding of what effects which actions have causally. Karma = action (in Sanskrit i think).

You suffer the consequences of your deliberate actions all the time, you're just not AWARE of it.

[Vajradhara]

Namaste meritocrat,

thank you for the post.

The Buddha said:

"I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought." (Anguttara Nikaya)

what our intentions in our innermost being are when we perform an action is what generates karma. karma can be positive, negative or neutral and it is the result of the intentions behind the actions that we take.

if our intentions are to help others, then we generate positive karma. if our intention is to harm others, we generate negative karma and if our intentions are rather muddled, we'll generate neutral karma (or both positive and negative karma, depending on one's tradition).

further, karma is but one of 24 other psychological factors that determine ones rebirth.

Karma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction. Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As Karma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, - the fruit – is good or bad. As Karma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the Karma seed. Anisamsa are the concomitant advantages – material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they are known as Adinaya, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in his life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

Now, it should be said that this isn't fixed... we can change our karma at this very moment! this isn't the same thing as "fate" or "predestination"... the Buddhist doctrine of Karma doesn't espouse such fatalistic views. Though we are bound to reap the fruit of what we have sown, we are not bound to perpetuate the planting of the seeds. we can pull the weeds from the garden and plant new, positive seeds, in the here and now to effectively change or mitigate our karma.

[andy_d]

Originally posted by meritocrat
rely on the concept of an absolute morality?

Wouldn't the 'bad' actions have to be clearly defined in order for a person to suffer the 'bad' consequences??

To a degree, yes.

I only understand karma from the Buddhist perspective, and I believe there are differences with the Hindu perspective, but I can't speak authoritively on those. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing the Hindu take on it :cool:

But to address your question, Buddhism does hold to a few absolutes. In particular that actions which work to the benefit of (ie: empower, educate and uplift) beings are considered essentially positive. Those actions which oppress and harm are considered inherantly negative.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that this is a fundamentally humanist viewpoint. Buddhist morality is entirely humanistic.

It may also be worth mentioning that karma isn't considered a system of reward or punishment for adhering to a moral code. It's considered that positive and negative thoughts and actions, are their own punishment and reward. Positive activity stems from and reinforces a positive mindstate, and negative activity vice versa. Our mindstate at any time is inherantly dependant on past thoughts and actions, and these determine the choices we make in the future. Many beneficial impressions help lead to a more positive outlook, for example, which means we make better decisions and live more happily. Thus past positive actions reward us by enabling us to be better people. Past negative actions will punish us by causing us to remain in a misguided and confused mindset.

Additionally, not everything that occurs is karmic. Shit really does just happen :)

[hinduwoman]

According to what I understood in Hinduism morality is context dependent. So the same karma would not bring same reward or punishment.
There is no absolute morality as such.

[lenrek]

rely on the concept of an absolute morality?

Wouldn't the 'bad' actions have to be clearly defined in order for a person to suffer the 'bad' consequences??

In Buddhism, bad or unwholesome, good or wholesome kamma is defined.

Basically, if an action (either mental or physically) is done associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a bad kamma.

If it is done not associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a good kamma.

[Yeshi]

Basically, if an action (either mental or physically) is done associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a bad kamma.

If it is done not associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a good kamma.

Actually, your active WILL has to be in to DO the action in order for it to carry the karmic effect onto your mindstream: you conscious decision and will to do it has to be there.

Also, your second sentence indicates neutral karma: it bears no fruit.

Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help.

[lenrek]

Actually, your active WILL has to be in to DO the action in order for it to carry the karmic effect onto your mindstream: you conscious decision and will to do it has to be there.

Also, your second sentence indicates neutral karma: it bears no fruit.

Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help.

Your explanation of kamma is very unique to me. I am not sure where does this understanding of kamma (of yours) based on. However, since I am a student under the Theravada tradition, I can only explain based on this tradition.

First, _only_ enlightened being (Buddhas and Arahants) has so call action that does not bear any kammic effect. All other beings that are unskilled, undeveloped and uncultivated will have action that is either wholesome or unwholesome kamma.

Unwholesome kamma will bring effect that is associated with suffering. Wholesome kamma will bring effect that is not associated with suffering. However, this does not mean wholesome kamma will always be associated with pleasure feeling. It is possible, the wholesome kamma bring result as in neutral feeling.

For example, a person who fall sick. For him, simple daily task like walking, eating or speaking can be a torturing experience. But a person who is healthy, can do all this action with ease. Sometime, these actions does not bring pleasure feeling at all. Compare this two persons, who has done a better or wholesome kamma to receive this result? Definitely the healthy person.

Another example, blind man walk on a heated floor made of steel. If the bind man walked with bear feet, he will feel painfully feeling. Another blink man walked with heat protection shoes, he can walk with ease on that floor. He won't even know he had walked on it. Now, compare these two persons, who has done a good or wholesome kamma to receive this result? Definitely the blind man with heat proctection shoes.

Kamma gave result, kamma cause rebirth. The purpose of practising The Teaching of The Buddha is to one day be freed from this cycle of rebirth, and break this chain of kamma. If an unenlightened being is capable of achieving action that does not carry kammic effect, then there is no reason for him to practise Buddhism. All he has to do is continuously practise these actions (that does not carry kammic effect), he will one day end his next rebirth and thus free from this world.

The reason why an uncultivated individual unable to act an action that does not carry kammic effect, is due to his or her undeveloped mind. That mind is easily swayed, overwhelmed and corrupted by greed, anger or fear, and delusion. If he can temporary free himself from these unwholesome states, he (at that moment) has done a wholesome kamma.

If a person practise meditation to achieve Jhana, he can temporary suppress these unwholesome states of mind. And with this powerful achievement, his next rebirth will be in the Jhana plane. Live among the gods of brahmas for aeons. There is no intention here to help others, yet he achieved such fortunate wholesome kammic result. Thus the statement: "Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help" is not entirely true.

[Yeshi]

very interesting discussion, thank you for elaborating.

If we leave aside the aspect of the (subjective) suffering, we are left with two original premises that i added the third to.


If a person practise meditation to achieve Jhana, he can temporary suppress these unwholesome states of mind. And with this powerful achievement, his next rebirth will be in the Jhana plane. Live among the gods of brahmas for aeons. There is no intention here to help others, yet he achieved such fortunate wholesome kammic result. Thus the statement: "Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help" is not entirely true.

This i think (i might be wrong) is exactly the differentiation betwen Therawada and Mahayana: reaching the Liberation of Samadhi/Absorption, and getting free of five poisons: although it will grant you a higher rebirth, it is still not the full Enlightenment.

Reaching even the Brahma heavens is not the aim of buddhism: it is still a samsaric realm, bound to rebounce into lower rebirth, even after aeons.

From the step of a Liberated Arhat, or Pratyekabuddha, that is the realization state of Therawada, the Buddha Sakyamuni, already within the reach of full Nirvana turns back and decides to speak: to help the other beings caught in endless suffering for Aeons.

Why does he turn back to teach in following decades?

He returns to teach with the INTENTION to help other sentient beings.

[lenrek]

...
This i think (i might be wrong) is exactly the differentiation betwen Therawada and Mahayana: reaching the Liberation of Samadhi/Absorption, and getting free of five poisons: although it will grant you a higher rebirth, it is still not the full Enlightenment.

Reaching even the Brahma heavens is not the aim of buddhism: it is still a samsaric realm, bound to rebounce into lower rebirth, even after aeons.

From the step of a Liberated Arhat, or Pratyekabuddha, that is the realization state of Therawada, the Buddha Sakyamuni, already within the reach of full Nirvana turns back and decides to speak: to help the other beings caught in endless suffering for Aeons.

Why does he turn back to teach in following decades?

He returns to teach with the INTENTION to help other sentient beings.

Perhaps I was not clear in what I had wrote...

We should start the discussion based on common understanding among the various schools of Buddhism. As any constructive discussion is always built on top of a common ground, before branching to various needs.

Now, what is common among various schools of Buddhism? There are:

1) All conditioned phenomena and existence are impermanent.

2) Since all phenomena is impermanent, therefore 'self' (which also a conditioned phenomena or existence), is also impermanent. Clinging to whatever that impermanent will only result in suffering. Since existence is impermanent, it will one day disappear. He who cling on things that does not last forever, will experience suffering when it disappeared.

3) The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to free from suffering. Free from clinging to any impermanent phenomena or existence. This will include freeing from clinging to this very 'self'. The only way to achieve this, is by gaining the ultimate goal of Enlightenment,which is Nibbana.

Therefore, the ultimate goal of Theravada tradition is also toward Nibbana. Under Theravada tradition, there is no different in the establishment of Nibbana between Buddhas and Arahants.

Thus, the establishment of jhana (though praiseworthy) is not the ultimate goal. I use this example of achieving jhana as a way to show the following statement:

Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help

Is not entirely true. When a person striving for jhana, he or she does so without the intention to help other beings. That individual is striving for his own achievement. And this striving of jhana is a wholesome action (one that is not associating with greed, hatred and delusion). This achievement or result is a wholesome or good kammic result. In fact, if we review this statement more carefully, questions will arise, how should we define "good deed"? How should we also define (good) "intention"? This will go back to what I have been trying to say. Which is:

If an action is done, with intention, that is associating or rooted in greed, hatred (In Buddhism, anger and fear can be grouped and termed as hatred), or delusion, then that deed, kamma, or intention will not be wholesome.

If an action is done, with intention, that is not associating nor rooted in greed, hatred or delusion (or ignorant), then that deed, kamma, intention will be good or wholesome.

The problem with this statement is that it suggest good kamma is generated when we do good deed toward "other" beings. What about this "self"? This self is also a being. Unfortunately it has been neglected. We should change it to "all beings" as this will include ourselves. Therefore the statement should be changed (based on discussion above) as:

Good kamma is generated when we do good deeds towards all beings with good intention.

Perhaps, you should refer to this book: The Roots of Good and Evil by the late Great Venerable Nyanaponika Thera. This may help in understanding how Theravada Buddhism define wholesome and unwholesome kamma.

If we trace the steps of Enlightenment of The Buddha, we notice, His initial intention was towards "inaction". It is after surveying the world with the eye of Buddha, He notice, there are individuals who have the potential to gain enlightenment. It is based on this understanding, that He taught the Dhamma. You can read more about The Enlightenment of The Buddha in The Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima Nikaya), sutta no 26, title: The Noble Search.

Now, If a Buddha, after surveying the world and realised there is no one that has potential to gain enlightenment, he will remain "inaction" or silent. That Buddha will become a Paccekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha). It is not that Paccekabuddha has no compassion to all beings, is just that there no one that he can teach.

And yes, all enlightened beings (arahant or buddha) have good intention. If an enlightened being does not have good intention, then he or she is not enlightened. There is no dispute in this.

However, there is a need to repeat one thing. Actions of enlightened beings will never carry any kammic effect or result. All unenlightened beings, when action or volition occurred, there will always be kammic effect. And they will be either wholesome or unwholesome.

PS: I cannot comprehend what you trying to say:


If we leave aside the aspect of the (subjective) suffering, we are left with two original premises that i added the third to.
...


Perhaps you wish to clarify, if it is important...

[Dylan]

Question for those who are Buddhists:

Do you believe in karma in the sense that when you commit bad actions, they will psychologically make you a person who suffers more and therefore has more bad things happen to them

or

Do you believe in karma in the sense that there is some supernatural force which determines what will happen to you based on your actions?


Sorry if I am being unclear, especially with the former question.

[Answerer]

Question for those who are Buddhists:

Do you believe in karma in the sense that when you commit bad actions, they will psychologically make you a person who suffers more and therefore has more bad things happen to them

or

Do you believe in karma in the sense that there is some supernatural force which determines what will happen to you based on your actions?


Sorry if I am being unclear, especially with the former question.


Both actually since I don't have a full understanding of what karma is. If you are more observant, you will probably notice that two cases are inter-connected to each other in some situations.

[andy_d]

Well, I think the inclusion of the word "supernatural" sort of precludes any rational person from choosing the second option.

[Yeshi]

Lenrek: no, it's ok - i just meant that leaving out the "suffering" as longer descriptive result of bad karma is probably making the thread more readable.

Dylan: i am no great scholar or philosopher, but my understanding (as mahayana buddhist) is that karmic causal law is a natural law, or if you want a psychic mechanism.

Best think of it as a mirror: when you impart dirt onto it (your view), the image gets distorted, so you comprehend less of what is true, which leads you to more distorted/partial actions. It is almost as if the actions you do (or choose) change your lenses (through which you view the world) and so the view, or understanding of the world around you. As there is no true self (or soul), the carried actions do not stain the recipient, but the actuator and carry on the inevitable results that will happen to it sometime in the future.

"By tending the flowers, their fragrance permeats your robes" - or similar, old japanese saying. What you do is what you become. (i.e. Use it or lose it ? :P )

It goes so far that some schools think that the very material body we are endowed with is the result of "coagulated" or manifest karma: this very body-mind we have now carries the actual limitations we have imposed upon ourselves:

"When a squirrel and a human being see a tent, although both have the eyes, each sees an utterly different object in its scope, usability, etc".

[lenrek]

To Dylan:

A venerable by the name K. Sri Dhammananda once said the following:

Kamma is an impersonal, natural law that operates in accordance with our actions. It is a law in itself and does not have any lawgiver. Kamma operates in its own fields without the intervention of an external, independent or ruling agent.

Therefore, kamma is just another natural phenomena. Its law is simple, do good deeds, and good result will follow. Do bad deeds, bad result will follow.

The law kamma is simple, but we need to take note: Good result does not mean it will lead to good deed. Bad result does not mean it will cause bad deed.

For example, if a person was born in a poor family, yet he does not steal nor rob due to his poverty, he always share what he earned with his family. He treat his family members and friends with respect. Thus he is not (greatly) affected by his poverty due to this attitude.

Another example, if a person is born in a rich family, yet he does not show generosity, and unwilling to share. He look down and show no respect to others. Though he had a fortunate rebirth, he did not use it for creating more good kamma.

Therefore, it is not always the case where bad result will bring more bad kamma to a person.

The Buddha said:

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

Thus. kamma can be done by way of action within the mind. For example:

A person thinking about stealing money from someone. He plan how to steal, how to escape as well as how to use the stolen money. Even though he have yet to commit this act physically, there already kamma being generated.

You had asked:


...
when you commit bad actions, they will psychologically make you a person who suffers more and therefore has more bad things happen to them.
...


I actually asked this similar question to a senior monk before. His answer was brief, but the meaning is something like this:

When someone done an unwholesome deed, and remembering or reliving it as the way it occurred, he experience the guilt and unpleasant feeling in his mind. This mind is actively thinking about the event, and thus generate a volition in the mind. This mean, this is actually a new action in the mind. This also mean, if a person continue to feel regret and guilt to what he had done wrong, he is actually adding more bad kamma.

Therefore, it is our training to forgive ourselves if we had done something wrong. This is like self confession to the mistake you had done, and promise yourself to put in effort so that not repeat it again. By doing so, we can break this chain of guilt and regret in the mind.

[lenrek]

To Dylan...

I remember, a Buddhist nun once said, if an unestablished person wants to understand kamma (in details), that person may goes crazy (due to this attempt). This shows the underlying difficulties for a person in trying to understand kamma in details.

If a person decides to share his fortune or wealth with another, does this action generate good kamma? Does a person who kill hundreds will have more bad kamma than a person who kill only one? What kind of kamma had a person done in order for him to be born in the way he is? What kind of rebirth will a person be, if he died at this moment?

If a person share his wealth with another, for the purpose of fame or self pride, then this action (though sharing is generally a good action) has been corrupted by greed.

If a person plan a scheme to kill another, and after successfully killing him, he mutilated the body, done so with great intensity of hate. Then this person has done a kamma that is worse then a soldier who kill hundreds for the purpose of protecting his country and his loved ones.

Thus, without the knowing a person state mind when he act, we can never be sure how good or how bad of the generated kamma . Since we are also not capable to go back to his previous lives to see all his actions, as well as not able to know all the deeds that he had done, it is impossible for us to be exactly sure why he had this rebirth, as well as where he will be going for his next rebirth.

However, we do know one simple rule: Good kamma (action) brings good result. Bad kamma brings bad result. Therefore, it is our training to always do or practise good kamma for the benefit of all beings.

You had asked:

...
If people are reborn based on karma

then

does hurting people not make a difference in the amount of suffering in the world? If you don't hurt someone, will their karma make them suffer in other ways?
...


If someone reborn in a state of suffering due to their kamma, we should help them (in whatever way we can) to reduce their suffering. This is the good kamma (action) that we should be doing. In doing so, we will (collectively) have good kamma, and will experience good kammic result in the future. Thus, making this a better world.

If a person already in suffering (due to bad kamma) and you intentionally add more suffering to that person, that is not his kamma (since he already experiencing it). That action (to intentionally add more suffering) is your bad kamma, and you alone shall face its bad kammic result.

I hope this answer your question...

PS: This is actually meant for another thread: lower castes and rebirth, but since I notice it is related to kamma, I figure is better to put it here as well.

[premjan]

I really don't see how causing suffering to another person can give you bad karma or affect your future life in any way. At least, it will not do so unless you are predisposed to be sympathetic to that person in some way. Of course what you have done once, you may be likely to do again. Maybe there is some amount of inbuilt sympathetic character in every person so that we cannot help identifying ourselves with the suffering (and success) of others to some extent or other. However, it at least seems clear that the same action may generate different amounts of karma depending on the mental susceptibility and mental state of the actor in question.

Moreover, it is possible that regular meditation could erase negative karmic effects and permit one to be regularly cruel in an ongoing manner, so I don't see how this is a basis for creating a system of ethics.

[lpetrich]

How are reincarnation and karma supposed to work?

Does it go something like:

If you're bad, you'll get reincarnated as a cockroach

?

[premjan]

if you live like a cockroach, you may end up physically as a cockroach some time later.

if you live like a great man, even if in a deer's body, you may end up as a Buddha (Bodhisattva).

he who has the temperament of a carnivore may be eaten by wolves.

he who is dull like a stone, may live life a little boulder.

[Answerer]

I really don't see how causing suffering to another person can give you bad karma or affect your future life in any way. At least, it will not do so unless you are predisposed to be sympathetic to that person in some way.



Not really, that person you harmed will come back after you and that can be considered as bad karma. I prefer to call it, you reap what you sow.......

[premjan]

I don't think this is usually the case. what if you kill him?

[Hooboy !!]

Moreover, it is possible that regular meditation could erase negative karmic effects and permit one to be regularly cruel in an ongoing manner, so I don't see how this is a basis for creating a system of ethics.
It is impossible to escape the consequences of our actions.

[Answerer]

I don't think this is usually the case. what if you kill him?

Then his loved ones will come after you...........

[lenrek]

All of us as sentient being, share many common attributes. All of us have a body that exhibit similar functions. We all eat, sleep, speak, think and so on...

Yet, why does some experience pain, when some experience joy? Why does some win lottery when some don't? Why some have a violent and painful death? Why some have a peaceful and painless death? Why some born straight into rich and fame, yet some need to struggle for their own survival? Why some was born heir to a kingdom, yet some was born to be poor and live in poverty?

The answer to all this is kamma. It is due to kamma, that this world is diverse with many situations.

As mentioned in the discussion above. Good and bad kamma defined based on the state of the mind at the moment when the action (either mentally or physically) occurred.

Only a mind that is associating with hatred (anger or fear) would harm another. Which is why (based on what we had discussed so far), that action (intentionally harm another) is a bad or unwholesome action. Since it is unwholesome, it is a bad kamma. Since it is bad kamma, it will bring result that associating with suffering.

Whenever a person wants to know his kamma, he just need to look at himself. When he experience things that he not agreeable, dislike, hateful or fearful, that is the result of his bad kamma. When he experience things that he enjoy and delight, that is the result of his good kamma.

Therefore, under this understanding, if he wants to have a good live, he will need to do good kamma. We can say, this established a system of ethics which does not require and an angry nor a fearful god(s).

You have asked:

...
it is possible that regular meditation could erase negative karmic effects and permit one to be regularly cruel in an ongoing manner,
...



The answer is "No". When a kamma has been generated, it is waiting to give its effect whenever the conditions are satisfied. Wholesome meditation generate good kamma that brings good result, but it does not destroy the bad kamma which was previously done. However good kamma may act in a way to reduce or obstruct the effect of bad kamma. For example:

Due to bad kamma, a person lost his legs. However due to good kamma, he live in a time where the doctor able to build a mechanical legs, which allow him to walk again.

Meditation makes or train the person to reduce and effect of greed, hatred and ignorant on him, and increase the compassion and love in him. The more he meditate, the more he reduce his greed, hatred and ignorant. Until one day all the greed, hatred and ignorant are completely destroyed. The more he meditate, the more he will be compassionate and gender, which resulting him incapable of acting in cruelty.

[lenrek]

How are reincarnation and karma supposed to work?
...


I suggest you try to read through the discussion so far to understand kamma. If after reading, you have some doubts and queries, please ask more specificly. Otherwise, we will explaining the same thing all over again...

Of couse, you should do this if you are really serious to know about kamma...

[premjan]

very interesting. I think the mind is more of a biological system like the immune system in that case, moreover spanning seamlessly multiple human bodies and multiple lifetimes. in that case, reincarnation would be quite a natural consequence, and so would the notion of karma too. it does make sense, in a way, since the mind is a plastic record of biochemicalphysical occurrences. So whatever happens is recorded and remains as an influencer of the future course of intentions.

[premjan]

I don't think this is at all a sensible idea. people lose their legs due to accidents, or the predation of wild animals, or other such natural causes.

[lenrek]

I don't think this is at all a sensible idea. people lose their legs due to accidents, or the predation of wild animals, or other such natural causes.

Why is it that person is in the accident? Why is it that animal attack? Why is it happened to him and not someone else?

There are reasons why that person land himself in such a wrong place at the wrong time. And all these accumulative reasons (actions and results) are what we term as kamma.

Come to think of it... some people also call it "luck".

[premjan]

I think the question of why things happen only make sense in the context of reproducible cause-and-effect relationships. It is nice to believe that there is a cosmic order that influences even minute actions, but there is no evidence to show that it is actually so. Most of the time, things are just happening randomly (stochastically). Some things do not, there is a persistent and reliable pattern to them. Just because we are capable of wondering why every single thing happened, does not mean that there is a good reason for each and every thing that happens.

[andy_d]

I've never heard any teacher expound the therory that [i]all[i] occurences are karmic. The doctrine of karma still leaves plenty room for randomness.

[premjan]

so exactly which things that happen to me are karmic, and which are merely random? if the answer to this is only possible through extensive Buddhist study, is it at least possible to get all Buddhist masters to agree on the answer, in specific case-by-case circumstances?

[lenrek]

I've never heard any teacher expound the therory that [i]all[i] occurences are karmic. The doctrine of karma still leaves plenty room for randomness.

Yes... you are right... Think I should clarify...

Quote from Venerable K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera in his book What Buddhist Believe:


Other Factors Which Support Kamma

Although Buddhism says that man can eventually control his karmic force, it does not state that everything is due to kamma. Buddhism does not ignore the role played by other forces of nature. According to Buddhism there are five orders or processes of natural laws(niyama) which operate in the physical and mental worlds:

- seasonal laws (utu niyama): physical inorganic order e.g., seasonal phenomena of winds and rains, etc.
- the biological laws (bija niyama): relating to seasonal changes etc.,
- the kammic law (kamma niyama): relating to moral causation or the order of act and result,
- natural phenomena (dhamma niyama): relating to electrical forces, movement of tides etc., and
- psychological laws (citta niyama): which govern the processes of consciousness.

Thus kamma is considered only as one of the five natural laws that account for the diversity in this world.


What I should say is kamma is one of the cause, but not the cause.

Sorry, I coz any confusion...

[lenrek]

For those who are interested in more details about Kamma (including types of kamma), I suggest to read the following link:

Theory of Kamma (http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha101.htm)

Kamma is actually a difficult subject explain... :banghead:

[hinduwoman]

An interesting snippet about karma:
Gandhi believed that British conquest of India occured because of negative karma accumulated by Hindu upper castes. The upper castes had treated the untouchables, as well untouchables; therefore they are punished by having rulers who treat them like dogs.

A few theologians before him also believed that we got foreign rulers because we had strayed from the path of dharma.

So far as I know British period is the first time karma is extended to cover a whole race than individuals.

[premjan]

I agree with this sort of karmic effects and, I suppose even smaller ones can be seen as karmic. Probably all social studies are based to some extent on an underlying law of karma.