Talk:Karma in Buddhism/Archive 1

April 2007

This article contained a fair amount of nonsense, and hardly anything is sourced. For the monent I've altered it to agree with Theravada doctrine, except where it specifically refers to Mahayana. I hope people who know about other schools can note any differences. Peter jackson 14:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed External Link: karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group

karma-Buddhism Yahoo Group with researched posts Dhammapal 12:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Errors in the article?

I'm note sure how the following quote from the page makes sense: "In Buddhism, Karma is simply there as a guide and an indication of what the reason for your present state is and how one's future can be made better by self effort. Fatalism and pre-determinism is the anti-thesis of the notion of perfection or self-conquest -- which is the primary aim of Buddhism." In particular, Buddhism never advocates any "self effort" as there is no "self" to excert the effort, and an enlightened being only observes (hence, generating no karma). There are no goals of "perfection or self-conquest" in Buddhism, only the idea of realizing the truth (since an elightened being has no clinging, it can't possibly have goals). It seems as the entire passage is wrong, but I don't feel I have sufficient knowledge to modify the article.

I'm not sure that the revisions improve the article. This article lacks citations for assertions such as Karma only refers to "cause" -- and this is important because if you look at the way Karma is generally used everywhere, nobody uses such a definition in practice. This might be a place where one should talk about the different views of Karma within Buddhism rather than adding a sectarian view and not citing the source other than a personality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.48.74.203 (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Universal karma

• [1] Seems to be important, but maybe it does not match with wikipedia's linklines.

Austerlitz -- 88.75.71.123 (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

the article has the word arhaticide, can someone please explain what that is, word is not found in any online dictionaries, is it spelled correctly?

someone needs to explain the meaning of "arhaticide" please. thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.114.107 (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a neologism for sure, but it seems like the most concise way to spell it out - it means just what it appears to mean: killing an arhat. The meaning should be clear from both the construction and the context.Sylvain1972 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Killing an arhat" would probably be a more straightforward way of doing this than a neologism. Human fella —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

AN.5.110?

This sutta is given as a source for a claim which is controversial in some circles about whether or not karma is the supreme natural law. The Theravada position seems to be that it is just one of several laws, but I'm trying to clarify my understanding. However, I can't find this sutta online; or else I did find it but didn't see how it supported the claim -- see http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara3/5-pancakanipata/011-phasuviharavaggo-e.html linked from http://www.suttacentral.net/disp_sutta.php?subdivision_id=63&subdivision_name=Pañcaka%20Nipāta&collection_name=Pali&division=AN&acronym=5&type=Subdivision Paxfeline (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the only public English translation of it is the Pali text society edition. The sutta you linked is AN 5.11 not AN 5.110, unfortunately. You could ask User:Peter jackson for more about this. He has the PTS translation I believe, and I think he knows Pali anyway, so he could look at the Pali source too, which is online. Mitsube (talk) 08:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I also noticed that the text is labeled "011" instead of "110" but wasn't sure if I was just missing something else. I suppose I should email suttacentral.net to let them know their link is incorrect. Thanks for the pointers on where to look. Paxfeline (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious justification for claim of non-determinism

In the section on "Karmic action & karmic results vs. general causes and general results", we find the following text: "The theory of karma is not deterministic, in part because past karma is not viewed as the only causal mechanism causing the present. In the case of diseases, for instance, he gives a list of other causes which may result in disease in addition to karma (AN.5.110)"

This reasoning is fallacious. If a given type of event can be brought about by multiple types of causes, it doesn't either: A) Imply that causation by a given type of cause (here, karma) is non-deterministic (i.e. that that type of cause "could have" failed to bring about that effect in any given case), or B) That there is not deterministic causation by the whole list of possible types of causes.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here whereby "the doctrine of karma is deterministic" is confused with "the doctrine of karma holds that karma is the only type of cause." I'm not expert enough to correct this confidently, but I would be pleased if someone who was took care of this. Human fella (talk) 07:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's first define determinism. American Heritage Dictionary has the following: "n. The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs." The Online Etymology Dictionary has "in theology (lack of free will); in general sense of 'doctrine that everything happens by a necessary causation.'" Maybe the sentence in question should read, "The theory of karma is not comprehensively deterministic"? Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm. Not sure I see how that helps. The point is that the text in question implicitly presents itself ("karma is not deterministic... because..." etc.) as offering some point against the view that the karma doctrine is deterministic (the definitions you present seem perfectly workable), but in fact it does no such thing. Asserting that there are other types of causes fails altogether to bear on the question of whether the actions of karma are deterministic, or indeed whether the world view that it forms a part of is deterministic. Imagine if I were to say "The doctrine of people falling off a cliff because they slip on a banana peel is not deterministic, because people are caused to fall off of cliffs by events other than slipping on banana peels." You can see that this makes no sense, because the existence of other causes of falls off of cliffs bears neither on the question of whether banana-peel induced cliff falls are deterministic (ie brought about inevitably by antecedent events), nor on whether falls off of cliffs in general are deterministic (in that same sense). Human fella (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that what the article is trying to say is that there seems to be a sense that in theories of determinism, particularly theological determinism, everything is said to happen by a necessary causation and furthermore the agent of necessary causation is ultimately singular--an omnipotent deity. In which case, a model whereby causation can be attributed to multiple factors cannot be properly called determinism.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

9/1 edits

I reverted these because reliably sourced sections were deleted and too many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources. You may not agree with David Loy (and I myself don't), but he is an academic who is published widely and his opinions are valid in the section.Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of my edits were valid, and you should not have mass reverted all of them, just because you disagreed with some of them. If you disagreed with something, you should say why, and discuss it here or re-add that part, not blanket remove everything. I've undone your removal of my edits, and we can discuss each of them here. I'll momentarily discuss each of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A few notes on my edits:

• Tagged sources -- You said "many tags were added to what are clearly reliable sources". No, they were not. Academic publishers and scholarly journals were not tagged. These are "clearly reliable sources". Things like "kalachakranet"[2] were tagged. Could you explain to me how this is a "clearly reliable source" under WP:RS? In general, we should use scholarly sources, per WP:RS, since this topic is widely covered enough in the scholarly literature, that we don't need to resort to less scholarly sources.-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
• Loy -- I did not say that Loy's views were removed because they are not valid. I said that they were given undue weight. See WP:UNDUE. His views on Karma do not warrant 3 or more paragraphs. After hundreds of years of Buddhist studies, why do David Loy's views warrant such enormous weight? (Especially when there are plenty of higher-quality scholarly sources on the subject)

This not even close to an undue weight problem. We're talking about three short paragraphs in a relatively small section of a long article. In this particular section ("Modern interpretations and controversies") most of the hundreds of years of Buddhist studies are not relevant--they were already given a thorough airing in the balance of the article. Aside from his academic credentials, Loy is widely published and read by the general Buddhist audience and is one of the most most prominent voices on the subject.Sylvain1972 (talk) 19:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyhow, I don't know if there is anything else you disagreed with, but that's because you didn't say what you disagreed with and why. If you have any other problems, please let me know, and we'll discuss them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that if you can't recognize Lamotte's translation of the Karmasiddhiprakarana as a reliable source, then you don't have sufficient familiarity with the field to be weighing in on what is and isn't a reliable source. You are tagging Numen, which is easily verifiable as a leading academic journal by anyone remotely familiar with Buddhist Studies, as not being a reliable source? Seriously? And to add an RS tag to a book by a tenured professor of Buddhist studies and published by a leading Buddhist publisher? That's just ridiculous. The RS tag isn't something to be added indiscriminately to articles when you have zero familiarity with what is and isn't a reliable source on the topic in question and can barely be bothered to find out.Sylvain1972 (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Shoot for FA?

This article is amazingly thorough. Perhaps we should aim to get some recognition for this. Credit goes mostly to Sylvain! Mitsube (talk) 05:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the sections on East Asian and vajrayana needs substantial improvement before it could deserve any recognition. but some parts are definately good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guttormng (talk • contribs) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanissaro Bhikkhu quote

The article, directly under the Mahayana heading, contains this quote without any context:

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, a Theravādin monk, speculates that the development of the karma doctrine in the direction of determinism necessitated the development of the Mahāyāna concepts of Buddha-nature and savior Buddhas (see Pure land):

[I]n later centuries, when the principle of freedom was

forgotten ... Past bad kamma was seen as so totally deterministic that there seemed no way around it unless you assumed either an innate Buddha in the mind that could overpower it, or an external Buddha who would save you from it.

- Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "Freedom from Buddha-nature", page 4. Available online: [3].

Now, I do not know exactly why Thanissaro Bhikkhu is being used as an expert on Mahayana, because he is certainly not a specialist in this area. He is widely respected in Theravada Buddhism, but there should be no illusions that he is NPOV regarding Mahayana. His writings often contain tinges of spite and derision regarding Mahayana or bodhisattvas, or subtle attempts to write them off as being spurious inventions. In this case, Mahayana belongs to the dark "later days" of Indian Buddhism when "freedom" had been forgotten, and all the ignorant Buddhists could do was cling to nonsensical whims about savior buddhas. Frankly, this sort of quote isn't even on the NPOV radar, so I have removed it from the article. Tengu800 (talk) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

AN 5.292

I can´t find this sutta online. Can you please offer a link or cite the original (English) quotation? Actually I am not sure if it is a good thing to cite this specific sutta at all. I think it is too fatalistic for an introductory text to karma without further explanation. Pilgrim72 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is cited in a secondary source - I've now provided the citation. Whether or not it would be perceived as "too fatalistic" by some readers, besides being entirely subjective, is not something that is a legitimate consideration in editing wikipedia articles. They are intended to be accurate and NPOV as possible, not edited to make their subject maximally appealing to the imagined sensibilities of the readership.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

DN 3.217

This does not seem to be a correct reference to sutta 3 in the Digha Nikaya (DN). In a commonly used English translation (Maurice Walshe) there is no subsection 217 to DN 3. Konetidy (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is more than one convention used in citing Pali scriptures. I'll dig up the secondary source where this reference was given. But from what I can tell from the Walshe this occurs on pg 484.Sylvain1972 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

'blaming the victim'

The question of the Holocaust also occurs in the Jew in the Lotus: A Poet's Re-Discovery of Jewish Identity in Buddhist India, which describes a group of Jewish religious leaders who meet with the Dalai Lama. They ask one of the Dalai Lama's party, a Buddhist scholar named Geshe Sonam Rinchen, if the Holocaust would be attributed to past karma in the traditional Buddhist view, and he affirms that it would. The author is "shocked and a little outraged," because, like Loy, he felt it "sounded like blaming the victim."[125]

I don't dispute the source of the above, but OTOH it doesn't suggest that there was any opportunity for a rejoinder either. I have no published source, but oral explanations from teachers of the same lineages as Geshe Sonam Rinchen have repeatedly clarified this issue as follows:

• All beings have been generating karma endlessly.
• Until we are very accomplished on the path or if we have purified or previously ripened it, the vast proportion of our negative karma is unripened, waiting for the circumstances under which it may ripen.
• This implies that anyone (not just jews or any other group) in the same circumstances would have undergone the same fate.
• The remarkable thing is regarding those for whom the karma wasn't present (and therefore didn't ripen)
• It gives us an idea of how many people in the world would survive a global disaster of similar proportions - about 9%.
• So, for any given circumstances (such as the holocaust) there is a 9/10 chance that you have the karma for that to ripen in you.

There are also all sorts of other problems about using terms like 'victim blame' - the notion of blame is not present in Buddhism, in that the agent of one's actions is not the person, but the intentions arising in a mental continuum. Instead we are, as Dennett (1992) puts it, “centers of narrative gravity.” That is not to say that persons or their actions do not exist, but rather to say that our mode of existence is merely conventional, merely imputed. (For more on this see Garfield 2006 and Newland 2009). If we are to ascribe agency and responsibility (notions that underpin the idea of both 'victim' and 'blame') then we will be ascribing agency and responsibility to the nominal entity of 'person' only.

Moreover, and this is probably the most central issue in terms of the purpose of Karma in Buddhism, is that it is used as a didactic methodology for establishing a strong grounding in responsibility for one's actions, and it most emphatically is not used for explaining historic events. The entire emphasis of Karma within Buddhism is the inevitability of consequences to one's actions. (20040302 (talk) 11:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

Main Karma article needs attention

Perhaps some of the experts who wrote this article might like to look over the main Karma article? I've tagged it as "needs attention of expert" because it says many things that are not in accord with Buddhist ideas of karma.

First, a minor point, the Karma#Buddhism section says "Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of saṃsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna" - do any Buddhists say this? I thought that nirvana was liberation from cycles of karma - how can karma liberate you from karma?

Then the Karma#Corollaries_and_controversies section attributes difficulties to Buddhist ideas of karma making many false assumptions about what those ideas are.

I don't feel able to correct the article myself. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will review the article. It may take a little while to get to. Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay great! No hurry, it's probably been like that for a fair while :)

I've found out a bit more since then, the issues in the section Karma#Corollaries_and_controversies mainly occur because it is incorrectly positioned and labelled - the source material is a series of articles about an attempt to apply Buddhist and Hindu ideas of Karma to construct a Theodicy (attempt to explain how a just God permits suffering) in theistic religions. Which explains a lot so I've suggested that it should be moved to the Western section and appropriately labelled.

However the short section on Karma#Buddhism I think also needs attention - I suggested adding the four characteristics of Karma from this article as bullet points, to permit easy comparison with the other ideas of karma on that page - just a suggestion - additionally though I think the paras already there need a review and rewrite. See Talk:Karma#Needs_attention_of_expert_in_Buddhist_teachings Robert Walker (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Storing text from the "Buddhism" section in article "Karma"

This presentation of karma looks accurate, but I have not yet found any sources that present karma in the same manner, using similar language. So I am storing this text here so that we can research and determine the source for this presentation--specifically the presentation of karma as "within the group or groups of cause in the chain of cause and effect". I think this explanation is explaining karma with the context of the twelve links, which is important to note, but it is a somewhat advanced explanation, and not how karma is typically presented to beginners.

In Buddhism, karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or "result". Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" (Pali sankhara) and "action" (Pali bhava). Any action is understood as creating "seeds" in the mind that will sprout into the appropriate result (Pāli vipaka) when met with the right conditions.

Karma is one of five categories of causation, known collectively as niyama dhammas, the first being kamma, and the other four being utu (seasons and weather), bīja (heredity, lit. "seed"), chitta (mind) and dhamma (law, in the sense of nature's tendency to perfect). - Dorje108 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Omniscience article

First, thanks so much, Dorje108, for fixing the Karma article.

Just to say - this isn't directly to do with this article like the Karma article, just a mention in the intro. Also, like karma, it is a word that's easily misunderstood by Westerners, and has different shades of interpretation in Buddhism.

So anyway - just drawing attention in case anyone wants to take a look at it. The Omniscience#Omniscience_in_Buddhist_India section is highly technical (I haven't much idea what it is about myself). And I think there are useful things that could be said there to introduce the Buddhist idea of omniscience and especially its special characteristics compared with Western ideas.

See Talk:Omniscience#Omniscience_in_Buddhism_-_needs_more_work. Though once again I don't feel at all qualified to do that myself.

So - I just wondered if you Dorje108 or anyone else would like to have a look at it also.

Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I agree the Omniscience section could use work, preferable a separate article for "Omniscience (Buddhism)". I hope to get to this, but again it may really take a while for me to get to it. I also plan to make further changes to the article on Karma. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I have started a research page for Omniscience here: User:Dorje108/Omniscience_research. If anyone comes across good sources for this term, please add the source to the research page (preferably with the relevant quote). Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dorje, that's great! Just spotted your reply. Robert Walker (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also had a chance today to look at your Omniscience research page. Lots of good stuff there. And just to upvote your suggestion of a separate article on Omniscience (Buddhism) - I'll look forward to reading it. Robert Walker (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Transfer of merit

I've moved (...) "Transfer of merit" to Merit (Buddhism). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Popular Buddhism

This article contains the same mass of popular notions as does/did the article on the four truths. Not "action", but "intention" is central to the Buddhist notion of karma. The emphasis on "action" is the Jain/Hindu understanding. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Have no idea what you are saying here - Karma involves both action and intention. Doesn't make sense to make either central surely?

To take a simple example. If you stop someone from murdering someone, forcefully, or by misdirection, or hiding their intended victim etc - then they don't experience the negative effects of completing their action, even though they may still have the intention, at least temporarily, to carry it out. The Buddha did this, for instance, when he stopped Angulimala from killing his own mother by presenting himself as a target instead. So that's an example from the Sutras where preventing the action was of great importance. How can you deny this element of the Buddhist teachings?

But on the other side, then obviously an action is coloured by the intention. E.g. whether you make a gift out of pure generosity, or do it in order to entrap someone.

To be clear, I'm not an editor of the article. I'm just someone who has found it useful, and am sad that you have deleted so much of it, to accord with your own concepts about what Karma means in Buddhism.

And now say something that seems to me to make no sense at all in your talk page comment. And as someone who has just deleted a lot of work by other editors whose editing I respect and who say things that make a lot of sense.

No citation given. This brief comment explains your reason for removing more than half the article? Robert Walker (talk) 04:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of clean-up

10:22, 25 November 2014 compared to 23:31, 3 November 2014

• Lead: shortened, to give a short summary
• "Meaning of karma": "specific level"-defintion merged into "Buddhist understanding of karma"
• "Centrality to Buddhist thought": selective reading; see "Development of the concept#Early Buddhism", which makes clear that "karma" may not have been so central to early Buddhism. Also: "all of one's actions will have a corresponding result"; the notion of intention is missing here, which gives a wrong impression. It's kind of WP:SYNTHESIS
• "Karmic action and result (Karmphala)": karmaphala is an obscure term; the list with expressions is overdone
• "Interdependent origination": mere mentioning is enough; it's now mentioned in "Rebirth and intention"
• "Whatever we do has a result": one line, long quote
• "Multiple causes and conditions": idem, plus primary sources
• "Seed and fruit": Harvey is moved to "Rebirth and intention"
• "Positive and negative actions": primary sources, interpretations, generalisations ("From the Buddhist point of view")
• "Overcoming habitual tendencies": primary sources, long quotations
• "Right view (understanding action and result)": primary sources, long quotations
• "Rebirth": ""Rebirth and intention""; rest are primary sources and long quotations
• "Characteristics": essay-like; long quotations; generalisations
• "Twelve Nidanas ": part of "Rebirth and intention"
• "Three types of misunderstanding": WP:UNDUE
• "Buddha's realization of": part of "Development of the concept"
• "Within the Buddhist discourses": too long; primary sources; unsourced parts
• "Within Buddhist traditions": retained, though shortened: specific information, instead of the previous generalisations
• "Dedication of merit and rejoicing": moved to Merit (Buddhism)
• "Modern interpretations and controversies": too long; shortened
• "Contemporary glosses": WP:UNDUE
• "Etymology": moved upward; standard to place this at the start

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

These are far too many changes for a single editor to make for a scholarly article like this with numerous citations without discussion on the talk page first.

I recommend that you back up your current version to your user space, to save your work.

Then restore the last version before your edits, as edited by Dorje108. Then discuss the proposed changes one at a time here on the talk page. And give other editors an opportunity to comment on your suggestions. And in case of disputes about interpretation of Karma, or about the validity of the citations, to permit other editors to post additional citations and sources or edit the existing text for clarity.

Quite possibly some of your changes would be seen as uncontroversial improvements that can be applied right away. Others may be disputed. The best way to find out is to suggest them one at a time. It's not easy for editors to comment on a large scale edit resulting in what is essentially a new article, when there are some changes they may approve and others they may not approve.

If talk page discussion doesn't resolve the issue about whether to apply some of your proposed changes, the next stage after that, according to normal Wikipedia procedure, would be, to post to the Buddhist project pag. You can also ask for a third opinion if it is a dispute involving only two editors or two editors mainly.

If that doesn't sort it out, you can do a Request for Comment which gives opportunity for any interested editors to comment in a discussion that lasts for 30 days, so giving editors plenty of time to consider and discuss the proposed changes. During these discussions, typically the article is kept in its original state, to allow those involved to comment on it in a fixed state rather than in a state of flux,. Finally, if the result is no consensus, then it is left in its original state.

At least, that's how I understand the wikipedia policy guidelines on this anyway :). Robert Walker (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I think Joshua's edits have eliminated problems with WP:LEAD, WP:QUOTEFARM, WP:VERIFY etc. and improved the article. JimRenge (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the diff for the two edits. Whatever anyone's opinion might be of the value of the edits, it's my understanding of the wikipedia guidelines, that such extensive changes should not be done by a single editor, to a scholarly article with numerous citations

The previous main editor worked on for over a year starting in May 2013,and it now has been replaced by an essentially new article in just three weeks, without discussing it on the talk page first. The previous editor has given up editing wikipedia as a result of Joshua Jonathan's actions on this article and the Four Noble Truths article which he also worked on in the same way.

Essentially it's a completely different article now. It might help to get further advice on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma_in_Buddhism&diff=635624203&oldid=632340477

As it stands at present we have two wikipedians in favour of the change and two against it. But whether in favour or not, surely such extensive edits need to be debated one step at a time? It is also inconsiderate of other editors to proceed in this way. He should be given the chance to answer any of the points individually, and to provide extra citations as needed to support his text, or to rewrite it in response to criticisms. There is no way he can defend his version if you just essentially blank it out and replace it with a new one, which is the final result of all these edits.

I think it might be an idea to ask for guidance on this. Robert Walker (talk) 14:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

My own opinion of the present article is that it is very poor, leading out with statements that are treated as a wrong interpretation of the Nibbedhika Sutta by scholars of the Pali Canon - and with these wrong views presented as a "view from nowhere". That's when it says right near the start that "The cause for our rebirth in samsara are our intentions", see my commments below #New "Rebirth and Intention" section - it is just plain wrong!. If I was coming to this article new, never seen it before, I'd stop reading at that point as obviously too low in quality to be worth reading any futher. Robert Walker (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Clean-up

I'm sorry for the effort which was invested in collcting all those quotes - but it was really unreadable, and not encyclopedic. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to protest strongly - not as someone involved in writing this article - but as someone who has used it for reference.

You've removed so much valuable material. It was an excellent article before your recent edits. Others said the same on this talk page. So sad to see such a good article destroyed in this way.

To take just one example, this section Characteristics summarizes some of the most frequent misunderstandings of the Buddhist teachings on Karma and clears them up. Current version doesn't address these points at all as far as I can see.

It was also well written. And the quotes well chosen. I didn't find it at all unreadable.

What particularly were your reasons for removing the Characteristics section, just to take one example? And - wouldn't it have been appropriate to discuss it on the talk page first before making such extensive changes?

You might have found general agreement with your proposed changes, but you might not, and that's why we have talk pages, so we can discuss changes first, especially ones likely to be controversial such as deleting half the content of an article with many citations.

If - to take an example - any of the citations were inadequate - well you add "more citations needed" tags, not delete the whole section. And explain the issue on the talk page and give the original authors the opportunity to find more citations to back up what they wrote. You don't just delete whole sections if you think they are insufficiently supported by citations.

This is exactly the kind of conduct that leads so many good editors to leave Wikipedia. There are many good Eastern scholars, Buddhist and Hindu, but there seem to be hardly any of them contributing here in Wikipedia.

My only contribution as you can check in the history was to fix one broken link. So am not at all personally involved as an editor.

But as a reader, I won't be able to use it any more in it's current form. As Buddhist editors especially tend to be non confrontational - I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them just stop editing wikipedia as a result. Which would be a great shame, in my view anyway - they did an excellent job of editing this article. Summarized a complex and difficult subject in clear, concise language, and well organized. I have backed up the last good version of the article to my user space User:Robertinventor/Karma_In_Buddhism for reference as the current version is no good to me.

Why, why, why didn't you engage with the existing editors first, and ask them to back up what they did with more citations? Or challenge them on whatever the particular issues you have here on the talk page first? Robert Walker (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert, my reasons are clear: too many primary sources, too many quotes. More citations is definitely not the solution. This issue extends over several articles, and I've commented on it before, as have others. To take one example:

"In Buddhist philosophy, karmic results are not considered to be a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process."

"In Buddhist philosophy" - that's an incredible generalisation! Which Buddhist philosophy, which school, which author? To add a couple of quotes does not help here; you can't just throw 2,500 years of Buddhist history together under such a general notice.

The reason that scholars don't contribute to Wikipedia is exactly for this abundancy of popular notions, and a lack of reference to scholarly sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

But you can with Buddhism, because they are the teachings of a single teacher, unlike Hinduism. And what's more, he taught extensively for several decades. And the very extensive Pali Canon which is now well over 2000 years old is accepted by all the schools of Buddhism. That's why general statements like that are possible about Buddhism.

I've put rest of this reply into a separate section. The citations you deleted in this section include one of the most notable Buddhist scholars in the Therevadhan tradition.

Nobody knows what this single teacher said exactly - and that's a very broad scholarly concencus. So if you think you can, you don't know what you're talking about. The Pali-canon is only one of at least 18 different canons which have existed, and is definitely NOT accepted by all schools of Buddhism, not in th past, not in the present. They are not ahistorical recording of the Buddha's sayings, but a collection of texts which have been expanded and edited over a couple of centuries, reflecting the understnding and interpretation of only one school of Buddhism, in a specific range of time.

The Buddhist literature is enormous, ranging over more than 2000 years, including several cultural regions, historical areas, and a broad range of languages. Even the western study of Buddhism ranges has a history of over more than 150 years already, and includes several schools of thought, which have produced thousands of studies by hundreds, or thousands, of scholars. Walpoha Rahula is only one of them, who can hardly be treated as a reliable source, since he was first of all a political activist, who transformed Sinhalese Buddhism to use it against the British raj. A noble goal in itself, but not a gaurantee for scholarly neutrality.

So,if you think that "general statements" are possible, yet quoting only a handfull of authors, most of them primary, who coincidentally all agree with each other, suffices, then I think you've no idea what you're talking about, or what a scholarly approach is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:11, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Jonathan, just to be sure that I understand your position correctly, are you asserting that texts by Buddhist writers and teachers (who do not have Western academic training) should be considered primary sources? Dorje108 17:53, 30 November 2014 (previously unsigned cmt)

Yes, I think so. See WP:PRIMARY:

"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on."

This does not mean they can't be used, but with care, and not too much. See also WP:WPNOTRS:

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Even someone like Heinrich Dumoulin, who was an academic scholar on Zen, and a professor, is nowadays regarded as a primary source! So, when possible, secondary should be used. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

This sounds almost as though you are saying that only those who are not scholars in the Buddhist traditions can be used as sources for articles on Buddhism. Do you think that only those who are not scholars in Christian traditions - e.g. Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist or atheist scholars can be used as sources for articles on Christian theology?

Sri Lanka has a long continuous tradition of scholarship. Tibet likewise. I don't agree at all that the likes of Walpola Rahula for instance, which you gave as an example on my talk page, should be regarded as a primary source on the Pali Canon - and that some Western academic should be regarded as a secondary source. What's the sense in that? Robert Walker (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reminder of wikipedia editing policy - Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong"

Improve pages wherever you can, and do not worry about leaving them imperfect. Preserve the value that others add, even if they "did it wrong" (try to fix it rather than delete it).

see: Wikipedia:Editing policy

Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope you don't think that's preserving the value of Dorje's edits, to copy the quotations from his version of this article into Wikiquotes! Robert Walker (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the preservation of these large amount of quotes in WikiQuote is a good solution. Wikipedia is not a collection of quotes.

Thank you Jonathan. JimRenge (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are recommended in footnotes, to help the reader to follow up citations, for books not available to them, or in cases where they need to know which passage the article is referring to inthe source. So, there was no reason at all to remove all his quotes from the footnotes.

And in the article itself, they are recommended in cases where the quotes present the material clearly in a way that can't be improved with a paraphrase. They are also recommended as a way to prevent the article from becoming a "view from nowhere" in cases where there are differings in interpretation. There are many cases where use of quotations in articles is not only acceptable but also recommended. See Wikipedia:Quotations

Also there was a lot more to Dorje's version than quotes. He used more than Joshua Jonathan does. But he also summarized and introduced and explained them as well. It was not at all a "list of quotes". Was proper use of quotes in context of the article following the Wikipedia guidelines on how to use quotes.

All that is now gone as well, replaced by Joshua's own explanations, based on tiny snippets of text from the scholars and sutras, out of context, hard for a reader to assess, or follow up. Robert Walker (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhism without Karma?

I understand that this page is currently going through an agonizing process of consensus making. Still, I would like to divert the attention of the editors involved and point to a view regarding early Buddhism where karma and rebirth is thought to have not existed, and that these concepts were later day introduction. Here is an article which discusses this view point. The fact that it is quite old (from 1966) might mean that there are other such articles out there. But then, it might also be a fringe view. Peace. Manoguru (talk) 06:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Great! Something like this is already mentioned in the article, Karma in Buddhism#Early Buddhism]]. I'll read the link. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert and Dorje108

Stop filling the articles with non-academic material.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Victoria, this is the nub of what I objected to in that sentence:

This is the 2003 translation of the Nibbedhika Sutta with notes by Piya Tan, this is what he says about that passage:

See: http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/6.11-Nibbedhika-Pariyaya-S-a6.63-piya.pdf

"Bhikshus, intention is kamma, I say! Having intended, one creates karma through body, through speech, and through the mind"

This famous statement is often misunderstood. "The Buddha's utterance does not establish a mathematical equivalence between cetanaa [volition] and kamma, such that every instance of volition must be considered kamma. As the second part of his statement shows, his words mean that cetanaais the decisive factor in action, that which motivates action and confers upon action the ethical significance intrinsic to the idea of kamma. This implies that the ethical evaluation of a deed is to be based on the cetanaa from which it springs, so that a deed has no kammic efficacy apart from the cetanaa to which it gives expression. The statement does not imply that cetanaa[volition] (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma."

Bodhi Bihikku, 1998, "A critical examination of Nanavira Thera's "A note on paticcasumuppada", Budhist studies review, 1998.

What is non academic about that? Do you question Piya Tan the translator, and Bhikkhu Bodhi as valid sources? I just don't understand your objection, sorry!

And in the other direction he hasn't given a citation for his crucial statement

"The basic ideas is that kleshas ("disturbing emotions"), cetanā ("volition"), or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving") create impressions, tendencies or "seeds" in the mind. These impressions, or "seeds", will inevitably ripen into a future result or fruition"

Someone else has added a citation needed tag, no citation was supplied. As usually understood, the seeds or impressions that inevitably ripen are created by volitional actions, not by volitions unaccompanied by actions. Karma is always about action, as Bhikkhu Bodhi says in that quote. The article doesn't even mention that this is how it is usually understood by Buddhists.

And then it just doesn't make sense. It's inconsistent with the stories in the Pali Canon. It would make the ordinary beginner's meditation impossible- if all your intentions inevitably lead to karma and bind you to samsara no matter what you do - why do you meditate? And it doesn't fit with what they say about arhats that they don't produce any karma. Western academics may perhaps have issues with some of these points - but - in an article about Buddhism - well that is the source material, the article should start by saying what Buddhist believe and what the Buddha taught, as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon - not what some Western academics would like to re-interpret his teachings to mean. Western reinterpretations can go later, if that is what this is - as no citation is given I've no idea where it comes from - and should be clearly labelled. Robert Walker (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes I do question Piya Tan and Bhikkhu Bodhi.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Why? What is your criterion for accepting some notable authors as valid sources and others not?

And how do you explain the stories in the Pali canon where intentions are prevented from creating karmic effects, and the intentions of arhats with no karmic effects? And do you think it is possible to be free from Samsara, if so how if intentions inevitably lead to karma?

BTW just wanted to say - I certainly haven't added any non academic material to any of the articles, as I haven't added any material to them at all. Except fixed one broken link on this article as you can see from the history if you do a user search. Added one tag to the Karma article, did some other minor edits to that article but they were all reverted however by another editor and I don't like to edit war so that was that.

So I have at present, no contributions at all in any of the Buddhist articles in Wikipedia in the main space. And as for this article, I wouldn't want to edit it - I recognize Dorje108 as having far superior understanding of Karma in Buddhism than I have :). I can only comment on really obvious things that are wrong here like this one - well seems an obvious, even "beginner's" error to me anyway with the background of the teachings I've received as a Buddhist practitioner. Just saying here how I see it - I find hard to imagine how anyone would think that this is Buddhist teaching. Robert Walker (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Bikkhu Bodhi is definitely a primary source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, Robert: I took the patience to read through the first of your comments in this single thread. The crucial line is "cetanaa is the decisive factor in action". I've added four words: "intentional actions, driven by". So the sentence now reads "The basic ideas is that intentional actions, driven by kleshas ("disturbing emotions"),[web 4] cetanā ("volition"),[3] or taṇhā ("thirst", "craving")[12] create impressions,[web 5][note 7] tendencies[web 5] or "seeds" in the mind." 5 references, one note. Do you really have to make so much fuzz? The valuable remarks get drowned in it; that's a pity.
The statement "The statement does not imply that cetanaa[volition] (in the non-arahant) is always and invariably kamma" is the kind of statement on which the various traditions tend to disagree. I don't expect that kind of nuance from soemone like Piya Tan; "Free Booklets Series - Buddhism For The Millions" says it all. See also [4]; the believers even disagree among themselves. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this statement: "the article should start by saying what Buddhist believe and what the Buddha taught, as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon - not what some Western academics would like to re-interpret his teachings to mean"

• "what "Buddhist believe": have you any idea how many different schools of Buddhism there are, and have been, and how widely divergent they are?
• "what the Buddha taught": if you can tell for sure what the Buddha taught, you'll become famous throughout the academics. No academic dares to say for sure what exactly the Buddha taught.
• "as expounded by Pali scholars expert in the canon" - like Schmithausen, K.R. Norman, Tillman Vetter, David Gombrich, Johannes Bronkhorst? That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Your dear "pali-experts" are believers, who wish to harmonise the texts; "some Western academics" are the kind of people who take a critical look at those texts.
• And, to repeat: the Pali canon is only one of eightteen canons which existed in ancient India. It's not a verbatim report of the Buddha's sayings, but a collection of redactions by a faith-community. As early as the 1960s, Edward Conze already argued that the Theravada and the Mahayana tradition can make equal claims to preserving the "authentic" teaching of the Buddha.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the source-tag: I added that tag, to remind that this piece of info is not sourced yet. Matter of carefull editing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Well what you have in the article for that particular sentence is now correct as best I understand it. But how could you not see this distinction between volitions (cetanaa) and intentional actions in the first place? And how could you in your original statement confuse the seeds that are the imprints of karmic actions with volitions which precede actions and don't necessarily lead to them? And to say this is a minor point that doesn't deserve such a fuss over it - to me this just shows to me how little qualified you are to make such a major change to this article as to totally rewrite the whole thing - that this seems a subtle point to you. You may have impressive scholarship in other areas, how am I to tell, but you don't seem to have much understanding of the Buddhist ideas of Karma to make such a beginner's slip here.

As I said before, I'm not going to go through the entire article correcting misunderstandings like this. Which I'm not qualified to do anyway except for really really obvious things like this one. I think we should roll back to Dorje108's version.

As for your comments saying no famous scholar would dare to say what the Buddha taught - have you forgotten that Walpola Rahula wrote a book called precisely this: What the Buddha Taught? One of the most famous books in Buddhism.

This is how Walpola Rahula puts it

"I have discussed in this book almost everything which is commonly accepted as the essential and fundamental teaching of Buddha. These are the doctrines of the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, the Five Aggregates, Karma, Rebirth, Conditioned Genesis (Paticcasamuppāda), the doctrine of No-Soul (Anatta), Satipatthāna (the Setting-up of Mindfulness)....

The term Theravāda-Hinayāna or 'Small Vehicle' is no longer used in informed circles- could be translated as 'the School of the Elders' (theras), and Mahāyāna as 'Great Vehicle'. They are used of the two main forms of Buddhism known in the world today. Theravāda, which is regarded as the original orthodox Buddhism, is followed in Ceylon, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Chittagong in East Pakistan. Mahāyāna, which developed relatively later, is followed in other Buddhist countries like China, Japan, Tibet, Mongolia, etc. There are certain differences, mainly with regard to some beliefs, practices and observances between these two schools, but on the most important teachings of the Buddha, such as those discussed here, Theravāda and Mahāyāna are unanimously agreed."

I'm not saying at all that you shouldn't edit this article. I'm sure you could contribute and add value to it. Just saying, you don't inspire confidence as the person to totally rewrite it when you make these "beginner's" slips in your edits. Also it doesn't inspire confidence, in me anyway, to do so, so quickly, without discussion first and without consideration for Dorje108's patient edits on this article for the last eighteen months. And it's no wonder that Dorje108 gave up editing wikipedia as a result. I haven't followed the discussions on the Four Noble Truths article, but if this is a sample of them I am not at all surprised he stopped.

Robert Walker (talk)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Hans Wolfgang Schumann (1997), Boeddhisme. Stichter, scholen, systemen (Buddhismus. Stifter, Schule und systeme (1973)), Uitgeverij Asoka, p.84:

"Zelfs als iemand door uiterlijke omstandigheden van de uitvoering van een bedoelde daad afgehouden wordt, zelfs dan is de bestaande bedoeling alleen al voldoende om het corresponderende karmische effect teweeg te brengen."

In translation:

"Even if someone is withheld by outward circumstances of the performance of an intended act, even than the existing intention alone is sufficient to trigger the corresponding karmic effect."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay so you have a source now. But that's surely a minority view amongst Buddhist scholars. How does that make sense of the Angulimala story where it's said clearly that he had the intention of killing the Buddha but did not experience the karmic effect of doing so because he failed to do it? What also about the Jataka tale story of the merchants where the Buddha kills a merchant before he has a chance to kill the other merchants, in order to prevent him from experiencing the negative karma caused by his action? There are many stories like that in the Buddhist tradition. What is the point in mindfulness and taking the lay vows if your intentions by themselves have karmic effects even if you don't do anything? How can meditation possibly work? Are there intentions that don't have karmic effects? What is his sutra support for what he says? Are there other authors who discuss his comments and what do they say? It just raises so many questions which he would need to answer, does he answer these points? And what do other scholars think of his answers if he does? Robert Walker (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gombrich:

"The full statement in which the Buddha defines kamma (AN III, 415) has two parts and runs as follows: ‘Monks, it is intention that I call karma. By intending one performs karma through body, word or thought.’ The two parts of the statement are virtually synonymous, for the second merely provides a slight amplification. This is the Sautrantika view and I am sure it is true to the original meaning of the text. But the Vaibhasikas read more into the amplification. They separated the intention from the act, with the intention coming first. So karma became divided into two parts: intention and what happens next. Bodily and verbal action manifested one’s intention to others and therefore were called vijñapti, ‘information’.

The first part of the Vaibhasika karma corresponds to my ‘dogmatic’ karma; they regarded it as karma proper, because of the force of the first half of the Buddha’s statement. The ‘information’ of the bodily or verbal action corresponds to my ‘typical’ karma." (Gombrich, How Buddhism began, p.54-55)

This is why we need scholars. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment on reliable secondary sources for articles on Buddhism

The RfC by Dorje108 states that:

"I propose that texts written by Buddhist writers and teachers that explain basic Buddhist concepts should be considered secondary sources as long as they meet the criteria specified in the guidelines (regardless of whether or not the writer has Western academic training). Do you support this?"

Please see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism

Robert Walker (talk) 07:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

This RfC makes little sense.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)