Talk:Karma

Discussion

I do not think that it is controversial that Karma affects future lives reincarnation cycle(it is said in some school it may extend future lives ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutarfa Nafia (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly in many Buddhist schools that are uncertain of rebirth it is felt unimportant that it affects future lives. See Wake up to Your Life 2001 by Ken McLeod, pp. 127-132. Focusing on future lives (rather than the present moment) can be a distraction in many Buddhist lineages. Geocmoore (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

You said "actions that are performed,arise,or oroginate without any bad intent are considered non existent in karmic impact or neutral " but actions with good intent can have the effect of good Karma so it is "actions without intent" good and bad that are neutral in karmic influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutarfa Nafia (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

From a Buddhist perspective, the generalization that "intent" is required does not seem to be correct. Many Buddhist writers emphasize the the role of "Store Conciousness" (a part of mind) where healthy and unhealthy seeds that produce particular actions/thoughts are nurtured (or not). Then, when the conditioned stimulus or "hook" occurs, the person responds automatically/habitually without (at least) immediate awareness.

See for example:

1) Zen Lineage: Understanding our Mind: 51 Verses on Buddhist Psychology by Thich Nhat Hahn. "Part 1" pp. 23 ff, and particularly "Habit Energies" pp. 49-52.

2) Tibetan Lineage: Wake up to Your Life by Ken Mcleod, "Working with Reactive Emotions", pp. 83-88. Geocmoore (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Hello 185.28.91.57 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Joshua Jonathan: The lead of this article has started for a long time with "Karma means action, work, or deed." That is what it means in Sanskrit (and should be mentioned in the etymology), but in English, that is not what it means; check any English dictionary. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use the English definition. --Macrakis (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a Sanskrit word, and the article has a broader scope than the 'principle of karma'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is a Sanskrit word. But the English Wikipedia is not a Sanskrit dictionary. Along the same lines, we don't start the Croissant article with "Croissant means crescent. In cuisine, the term more specifically refers to a kind of pastry." Moreover, we don't write about terms, but about things or concepts (cf. WP:REFERS). Let's look at a few English definitions of karma:

• OED: Buddhism and Hinduism. The sum of a person's actions, esp. intentional actions, in this and previous states of existence, regarded as determining that person's fate in future states of existence.
• Merriam-Webster: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence

That is, it does not mean "action, work, or deed" divorced from its context. --Macrakis (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Typical, that you refer to dictionaries, while stating that Wikipedia is not a dictionary... Better use revant secondary sources, which place "karma" in a broader context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Even in dictionaries, the definition as "action, work, or deed" is not used. Anyway, the secondary sources currently in the article make it clear that it means "an action and its consequences" in the context of Indian philosophy. I've made a small edit in that direct, though it can certainly be improved. PS The EB11 is a great literary work (I have a paper copy on my bookshelf), but hardly a modern reference (1911!). --Macrakis (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's quite old indeed; I know who added it. That's also why this particular definition opens the article; the editor in question is one of the best on Hinduyism-related topics.

The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion, KARMAN: HINDU AND JAIN CONCEPTS, opens with the Law of Karman, and then gives an elaborate etymological and historical overview of the development of the notion of karma, and the development into the 'Law of Karma'. Anyway, I understand why they opened the lead with this 'etymological definition': to make clear that there is much more to 'karma' than just this 'principle of karma'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Every reference work has its house style. Some systematically start with etymologies, for example. Wikipedia does not. --Macrakis (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Dualistic bias in this article.

The article says things like "Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths."

The following comments are from a Buddhist perspective, but they should affect the general definition as well. IMO.

Trungpa Rinpoche (Kadampa Lineage Buddhist), has written for example that "good and bad, happy and sad, all thoughts vanish into emptiness like the imprint of a bird in the sky" (quoted by Pema Chodron in Start Where you Are p. 22.

Also consider the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra) which discourages such rigid concepts. (See translation and commentary in Awakening of the Heart: Essential Buddhist Sutras and Commentaries Thich Nhat Hahn [A Zen Lineage Buddhist], pp. 313 ff.

First, would "wholesome" or "healthy" offer better alternates for "good" (at least from a Buddhist perspective) in the definition?

Second, perhaps the definition might note that there is a ying/yang at play here. Ignoring (for the moment, future lives) good/right/healthy/wholesome actions produce the least suffering possible in one's self and others. Bad/unhealthy/unwholesome actions produce more (often much more) suffering. So, the result of the action and the action are not separate things; and it is the result that determines whether the action was "good".

Third, perhaps the definition might note that while there are general guidelines for what action is good/right/healthy/wholesome, the context in which the action occurs might change the effect, and thus the "rightness" of the action.

For the second and third points, see The Mindfullness Survival Kit Thich Nhat Hahn, part two "A comparison of Ethical Traditions", pp. 132 ff.; especially "Utilitarianism" pp. 155 ff., and "A Summary of Buddhist Ethics" pp. 193 ff. Geocmoore (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Concerning Nomination for Good Article

This article may be considered for Good Article status. Information on helping or contributing may be located using keyword: Good Article Nomination. Habatchii (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)