Talk:Karma

Karma difference between Buddhism/Jainism and Hinduism

I think more should be said in the introduction about different meanings for karma in different religions. E.g the treatment of karma in Hinduism as 'fate' while in Buddhism/Jainism you make your own karma by your thoughts and actions. Jccraig (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Karma in popular culture

Is there any place in this article for references to this, e.g. the TV show "My Name is Earl"?

Dorfird (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps trivialities have no place in an encyclopedia? rudy (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

--unrelated profanity deleted-- Rev. Stephan Bradley (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

triviality is another man's raison d'etre. Thus what may seem a triviality to you does have a place in an encyclopaedia, and even more so in Wikipedia. I do not feel passionately about this issue, but if anyone wishes to include information on "My Name is Earl" in the article I feel it should be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.230 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma and family

• What is Family Karma?
• Family Karma The Hidden Ties That Bind
• Five Buddha-Family Traits in Daily Life: Gelug Anuttarayoga Tantra and Karma Kagyu Mahamudra Presentations

there should be something about this topic within the article's page, I think. Maybe it needs a new section.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, one can write aticles on every social aspect and how it relates to karma. Next would be 'karma and relationships', 'karma and work', 'karma and children', 'karma and politics' etc.; the list would be sheer endless.rudy (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the content of those links. What is family karma?

• "Life is a series of choices. Choices lead to actions. Actions carry consequences. Action plus consequence is what we call karma. The results of many of our actions affect not only us, but others as well. The consequences of many of our grandparents' and our parents' actions reverberate in our lives today. In this book [article] we will use the term "karma" to refer to our ancestors' and our own actions and the consequences that necessarily follow. A lot of karma spans three or more generations. That is why we call it "family karma."

"At one level, nobody questions this truth: If you kick a dog, it will yelp. If you treat people badly, you can expect them to respond in kind. But karma operates at many levels, and the consequences do not always immediately follow your actions. Karma can pass down through a family from generation to generation. That is to say, one generation after another may repeat a pattern of actions and suffer or enjoy the inevitable consequences that follow those actions. Indeed, we are responsible for much of our karma, but we can also inherit karma from our ancestors or from a past life."

"In our clinical experience working with hundreds of patients, we have found three sources of karma that each of us must address in order to reach our fullest and highest soul potential: individual, family, and past-life karma."

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.164 (talk) 11:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

According to my understanding the article as it is refers to personal karma only. It therefore should be expanded.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.82.164 (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC) ==

References

Hi everyone I am deleting footnote 4 in the reference section. It appears to be the product of an earlier version and refers to its source simply by the last name of the author and a page number, no title, no year of publication. As such it is impossible to locate the source. Furthermore, that sentence has multiple footnotes. However, if someone feels this was important material please let me know. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I think it did originally come from somewhere else. Mitsube (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Analogs of karma

In Analogs of Karma, this appears to be a personal statement rather than one based on sound logic, Drinking poison is not a consideration of karma. Karma concerns the cognitive dissonance behind an action which would coerce one to voluntarily drink poison. It is best if this section is deleted or rewritten. Sealpoint33 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Analogs of karma section was unreferenced commentary that had not been sourced for over a year; I have deleted it from the article. I noticed that you have added a new section on Karma and emotions to the article. Unfortunately, it seems that the section is based on synthesis of quotes from various primary sources and it is not clear that those sources are explicitly commenting on Karma and emotion. As such this section may not be appropriate for wikipedia, unless secondary references linking the words of Jung, Mipham, Tagore, and research on emotional intelligence and mindfulness meditation, to the concept of Karma are found. Can you try to find such references and rewrite the section based on their content , so that the new section can be retained ? Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma vs Faith

Should it be "faith" or "fate"? I could understand the comparison between karma and fate but i can't see wath faith has to do with karma.

In the opening paragraphs we see:

  In an academic and "Eastern" philosophical sense, Karma is the concept that "action" or "deed" builds a definite, if not immediate cause of effect. In some Eastern religious dogma, Karma is in contradistinction to some concepts of faith.

CUT: "espoused by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human dramas as the will of God as opposed to present - and past - life actions."

Further definition can be found within the Wikipedia article and is not appropriate as a summation.

I see people here attempting to defend Christianity's take, as one example of how many definitions of this word (faith) could be applied from a biased perspective, thus confusing the matter being discussed, rather than helping one understand all the different takes on a term which the reader may or may not want to get into. If they do, then they will continue on down into the article.

A better example (from a traditional and historical basis), would be the incorrect assumption that Islam "is" opposed to the concept of Karma. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age and you will see how one common view within Islam today, does not represent all Islamic belief and cannot be traditionally or historically supported. The allowance of fundamental bias within Islam did not even begin to find an ear until The Crusades, ironically. It certainly was not supported by Saladin (see the section "Decline" in that article). The current level of influence was not even present until the late 20th Century. (If Islamic comparison is included in a discussion of Karma, a reference to these points should be included.)

In Christianity, the difference is (and should be mentioned if further explanation is included) that free will is considered A GIFT from God and whatever EFFECT one's action/cause has, COULD BE altered if an amused God felt inclined, which by definition would itself be a JUST effect and the WISE reaction to that action of free will. Otherwise, examples of cause and effect are countless in both the Hebrew and Greek text. Rigid, fundamental influence in Judeo-Christian faith has the same result as it does in Islamic application, this being a chosen selection to oppose logic- which is also not supported by religious text.

The reflexive response to someone within an Eastern religion is to first think in a broad, wide-perspective of a more academic philosophical application, THEN to possibly apply a refined individual religious bias. Within a Western culture, or more specifically an American- especially so in Southern States- culture, the reflexive response is a limited-view application and THEN perhaps the wider view may be considered, for the sake of respect. So, when asked, Karma is something someone in Texas, for example would likely say they generally believed in unless they were aware of a discord in the finer points of their faith.

Kingwoodguy (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

More about how the "will of God" is distinct from present/past life actions would be nice here as it isn't clear what "will of God" means in the general context of "Abrahamic religions." Perhaps there are other pages which could be referenced that cover that topic?

What keeps the sentence from being reworded as:

  'Karma' ... refers specifically to present - and past - life actions in contrast with 'faith' espoused by Abrahamic religions which couples the will of God with those actions.

Either ways more references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.250.81 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Faith" is not the converse of "Karma." Faith :) is a concept that exists in all religions at some level as they all contain concepts that are not empirically verifiable. Hindus, for example, take the existence of karma as an article of faith. What the first paragraph is attempting to address is the concept of predestination/determinism vs free will. This is a complex subject and there are differing theories among the sects of the Abrahamic faiths. Most believe there is some level of free will in human action and in the inevitability of facing the consequences of our actions at some point. Calvinism rejects free will. Where there is a clear difference between the eastern (Hindu/Bhuddist) and Abrahamic faiths is in how the consequences of our actions are believed (as a matter of faith) to affect the spiritual progress of the soul after death. The Abrahamic faiths do not include the option of reincarnating and reexperiencing the physical world. See wikipedia "predestination" AShipway (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Karma is not only defined by our thoughts and actions but also by the attitude that accompanies our actions. The reason why we are acting. Even if one does a good action with a bad attitude, the end result is bad karam. The best form of action is nishkama karma where in one just does ones best in every situation irrespective of what the outcome is. It is not important to win every battle but it is important to try your best to win it.

---

Karma is not to be treated as tit for tat. What intentions you have when you do something will also affect your mind. A person's physical and mental state is in constant change. When you are angry, everyone is seen as a potential threat. When you want to hurt someone, the obsession also torments you, to the point that you cannot notice the finer things life has to offer you anymore. Hell and heaven are created by your thoughts. Karmic retribution does not have to be physical. People who do 'bad' things are seldom happy people. Even the gleeful ones will have to fear their back constantly.Joseph Yiin (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

However you slice it, the characterization of the Abrahamic faiths in the opening paragraph is a load of bullshit. That's not what "faith" means at all. It needs to be changed by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.

It's amazing how the Eastern religions alone are permitted to present the tenets of their faith as if they were plain facts. Just try that in an article on a Christian topic and see what you get. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

== Western theory of Karma == the introduction should read fate not faith - faith according to Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is loyalty.

I was just reading the page on Karma. I was surprised to find that there was a whole paragraph on karma and its western interpretation. I am wondering now if this is strange. The word itself is of Sanskrit origin. and a eastern Hindu Buddhist origin and its associated religions like Jainism and Sikhism.

So I am very shocked to see some westerner give a western interpretation? If I try to place the distinction between a personal and an opinion on arising from cultural philosophy, There is a difference. Any individual is free to have an opinion. But if the culture and civilization of the region does not have a philosophy as such in the subject. The individuals opinion cant be construed as a philosophy of the civilization. In western religions like Christianity and Islam. The soul lives just once. I do not understand the role of Karma in such a situation, and neither is it mentioned in religious books of the west.

I find that as western spiritualists get familiar with eastern philosophy , there is a tendency to usurp this knowledge if it appeals to them and rebrand it as theirs, Maybe to feel comfortable while accepting such philosophies.

I can understand this feeling. But please don't pervert history to accommodate such feelings.

Anyone is welcome to subscribe to the Karma philosophy as we consider it a universal law of nature. But please don't give it a western tag. It never was a western concept.

Christanity had a simple concept. If you did wrong, God dispensed punishment or forgave you. There was no Karma involved in this, and any law of cause and effect. The entire Catholic Church was built on this belief. They interpreted Gods will and interceded on his behalf. Hence confessions for mitigation of sin, as god forgave.

Please don't corrupt knowledge, Wikipedia must stand for dissemination of genuine knowledge

I am open to corrections on my observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.114.120 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Karma has become a term that is now part of the Western lexicon, such as many other religious and non-religious words, so I don't see a problem with discussing the cultural impact and use in Western civilization. However, I have two major concerns about this article: (1) There is no "criticisim" section about Karma, (2) there is not a comparative analysis with other Western and Eastern phylosophical points of view.

For instance, in a Dilbert strip (a comic strip) Dogbert says something like 'I like Karma because that means that I can hit anybody, and that would be okay, because he or she did something in the past that made them to deserve it.' This is a popular Western culture use of the term, and a criticism from the author. Furthermore, what happens if an individual is born without reincarnating anybody, and then he is hit by a stray bullet and becames paraplegic, what would be role of "Karma" here? Luiscolorado (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That Dilbert cartoon smacks more of Christian antinomianism - karma does not care if others do bad works because they believe it is justified - a bad act is just that, karma has no regard for the why - the ends never justify the means in human action karma-wise. Warriors rely on dharma to balance out the karma aspects of their actions 173.74.8.158 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate text with no citation

I am removing the following paragraph:

'Karma' is an Indian religious concept in contradistinction to 'faith' espoused by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human dramas as the will of God as opposed to present—and past—life actions. In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose their own actions, which require only the will of God to implement karma's consequences. Buddhism and Jainism do not accord any role to a supreme God or Gods, but the principal belief is the same. In Indian beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala.

The reasons are:

1. The citation at the end of the paragraph only applies to the last sentence of the paragraph (which is accurate as far as I know).
2. The rest of the text is not clear and has no citation. There are differences in Eastern and Western thought that are worth discussing, but this paragraph contains inaccuracies. For example, it assumes that faith and karma are in contradistinction; they are not. Hindu's have faith in their gods, yet they also believe in karma. Buddhists also have faith in the Buddha, though they do not think of him as a "god".
3. I suggest the this type of discussion could eventually be added as a separate section within the article, and that it should be well-sourced.

Neutrality tag?

Can the editor explain why a neutrality tag was put up? Sud Ram (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, frankly, this page absolutely disgusts me. Sentences such as "This modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies and attempts to portray karma as a universal psychological phenomenon which behaves predictably, like other physical forces such as gravity." make me want to kill myself. This is Wikipedia, not the New Age chapel. This should be a neutral article about the definitions of Karma, not a pamphlet trying to persuade me to a view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodlegs (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What view are you being persuaded into? Karma has different interpretations as it is a dynamic concept. You may not agree with them but they are still worthy of being brought to light since New Age is a big movement and karma is a big part of it (pun intended). What I do agree on with you is that the particular passage you noted isn't referenced but still within a referenced context. If the article is such a problem for you and you seem to find the time to reply to a talk page, why not edit it according to the guidelines?

Also, what is the issue with original research? Can this be clearly pointed out? Peace Sud Ram

Yes, it has different interpretations, and that is exactly what the issue is here. The writer is stating opinion as objective fact. You don't go onto the article for, say, the Democratic Party and expect to read "but of course, any nation governed by total democracy will devolve into mob rule," or some such mess. Perhaps "this modern view of karma" (which may not even be a modern view or THE modern view except for in the eyes of the writer) does NOT obviate the need for acceptance of the idea of reincarnation in a Christian context. Perhaps I'm a repentant Baptist or something and I think we're doing just fine. Perhaps I'm a detached observer with no association with the New Age or Christianity who doesn't believe in reincarnation. No real matter here. In a nutshell: This article does not need some asshole's opinions being presented as demonstrable fact and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that Wikipedia's standards are upheld and that this page is maintained in a neutral and unbiased manner.

F (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So what do you suggest? :) Sud Ram (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That we at least completely remove the Karma and emotions section. There's simply no place for this on Wikipedia. Alternatively, someone else could edit this section heavily until it's portrayed in a more objective fashion. You can start by removing all connotative adjectives ("Sakyong Mipham eloquently summed this up when he said;" Maybe he didn't sum it up eloquently, and maybe he didn't awkwardly stumble through a clusmy explanation either? All we know for sure is that it's something that he said.) I'll leave this all up to the people who at least know or pretend to know what they're talking about and can find some way to demonstrate this as a belief held by numerous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodlegs (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.7.82 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 June 2010

Not done: The editsemiprotected template requires a request with a 'please change X to Y' level of specificity. Celestra (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the origins section: "The idea the the moral quality..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaam93 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is confusing

I came to the page because I believed that most people misinterpret "Karma" as "Payback".

Then I read this:

In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences, unlike Buddhism or Jainism which do not accord any role to a supreme God or gods.

Huh?!

This is way too complicated for an intro, especially if I'm right about most Americans' misinterpretation. Crasshopper (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Really Consequentialist?

I have taken notice that Karma has been linked with consequentialism at the bottom. This doesn't seem to make sense, if anything Karma is deontological ethics. Anybody might look at the word "consequentialism" and infer that it is making a statement about actions having consequences, but this is not what it is; in fact it means that the ends justify the means. Compare this with the notion that "one reaps what one sows" - a philosophically identical statement. That only good effects come back from good causes, and bad effects come back from bad causes. Is the focus on justification here for what is being reaped, or for what is being sewn? Given that it is the cause (means) that is justifying the effect (ends) of what I get in return, I would argue the deontology of karma. If, indeed, karma was consequentialist then I literally could do anything, and it would be justified, so long as what I get back from it is positive. Dark Observer 04:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Understand that you don't have to agree with any of this.. I'm just defining the term karma better for you.

Many of you hold the belief that karma means what goes around comes around and that the universe somehow recompensates with increase the spirit of any action. While this belief may give comfort to victims and encourage people to do nice things for each other...

The term "karma" is a hindi word, rooted in hinduism.

Hinduism came from Taoism.

The term "Tao" means "Two".

The teaching of the two predates lao tzu the founder of taoism.

The two is a reference to Self and Stuff.

Perceiving the difference between self and stuff is considered attainment of the tao.

Self is formless.

The three are self, mind, and body.

The null is absolute nothingness.

The path of Tao is for the three to become the two, then the two cross over the null, becoming one.

The one is Self manifested in form.

The one can become the two again via misperception of self.

The one is always connected to the two and begins to perceive the many.

The many refers to all aspects of personality.. westerners that understood the many called the aspects archtypes.

In hinduism, the three are called brahma, visnu, and shiva.

The one is called krisna.

The many are the manifold deities.

and the two are called "karma"

Karma means cause and effect.

Karma means self and stuff.

Self is the cause of effect.

However, if stuff is perceived by self as the cause, then self will be perceived as the effect.

This is Taoism and Hinduism in their purest form.

Off topic, Buddhism came from Hinduism, and these three religions have been greatly bastardised over time.. originally only proven science was added to these religions, then superstition, dogma, philosophy, etc.. until the core was hidden and the religions mainly used to control masses of people.

Perhaps such is the fate of all earthly teachings.

and if you liked this one, you should read my book, it's free, currently called, "The Occult Magizian Handbook" you can get it off my website ( currently http://magizian.dyndns.org:20080 ), torrent, or elsewhere since it's all over the web.

Hunter Reon Barnes

"Magizian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.208.226 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bck2hell, 29 May 2011

Word karma Is Mostly used in mostly used in the south Asia,countries like Nepal,India,Pakistan,Bangladesh....In India,it is pronounced as karam whereas in Nepal,its karma.... Bck2hell (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some citations for each part of this, that meet the guidelines in the Header box at the top of this page. BTW, the word 'karma' is wisely used in the USA since WWII. Lentower (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done, for now. If you address the above concerns, feel free to reopen this request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole article on Karma suffers from a lack of sufficient Emic viewpoints

The whole article on Karma suffers from a lack of sufficient Emic viewpoints.

Why is that the majority of the scholars who are quoted in this article are Western scholars practicing and professing Abrahamic faiths based in western universities while their research is focused on santahana dharma and its geographical and historical contemporaries Jainism Buddhism ?? I find this highly suspicious since there are few corroborating opinions in the article for the claims of western scholars from Hindu , Buddhist or Jain Scholars from Indian universities who are practicing Hindus or Buddhists or Jains themselves .

Such a bias is blatantly clear in origins section where the article suddenly diverges to make assertions (that too with great pains) that brahmins (in implication vedic Hinduism ?) is not connected with the origin of the idea of karma. Presently the idea of caste as a permanent social structure in pre-british india is loosing its ground by recent research on the subject. Caste as a permanent social structure was ossified in india with the advent of the British (before their advent caste was a fluid social structure) thus viewing the origin of the idea of karma in caste framework in ancient india is nothing less than laughable. Further even the idea of Aryan invasion is long past its sell by date and is being increasingly questioned by emic scholars in India and as well as in western scholarship too - so the matter of aryan or non aryan traditions becomes moot. Further it makes little sense in ascribing the ideas of ancient india like karma , samsara , yoga etc to particular castes or religions - i would better serve rationality if those ideas are ascribed to philosophical innovations of particular individuals in the long tradition of indian philosophy. Such an individual may be brahmin jaina , kshatriya buddhist , Hindu sudra or any of the permutations and combinations possible.

It is unanimously acknowledged in social science research that a major flaw in uncorroborated etic research is that the whole exercise is often akin to blindmen feeling up an elephant or even worse such scholars may be influenced to make such unqualified assertions since they have no real stake in the traditions themselves.

Therefore the article in my opinion needs a complete review keeping in mind the concerns i have raised. And should dwell more on the philosophical implications and nuances of the meaning of karma as expounded in various hindu , buddhist , Jaina texts instead of trying to ascribe a sense that "karma" is an inherent concept to even abrahamic religions. Until they are satisfactorily addressed a POV or non-neutrality tag has to be added at the top. I will wait for replies till tomorrow before putting up a tag.

Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove "Islam" section. Karma is a technical term strictly restricted to Indian religions; articulating parallel themes in Islam is unsolicited and unencyclopedic. 117.204.86.62 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree Snowcream (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moral Action and Quantum Physics

The author appears to take liberty in the minds and opinions of quantum physicists without a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.200.209 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)