This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
First of all, I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between the the different views of karma as seen by the different religions/philosophical systems. Buddhism is an inherently atheistic religion and does not require the existence of a creator god for its definition of karma to function.
Karma as relating to Buddhism is simply natural law. There is no judgement placed and there is no sin or attonement thereof. Every thought or action taken by a person is a seed which can come to fruition at some point later in this life or another. Although there is no judgement placed on karma, according to the Buddha, there are 3 types: action which results in positive circumstances, action which results in negative circumstances, and action which results in neutral circumstances. The important point behind this is INTENT. Your karma will be substantially less for accidentally taking a life than it would be for purposely taking one. Moreover, if you feel remorseful and strive to avoid those kinds of unwholesome actions, you will reduce your chances of negative circumstances for the future.
The state of Arahat (enlightenment, but not complete enlightenment like that of a Buddha) is the state where your actions are not tied to karma. At this point, al of your past karma will catch up to you in order to burn it off in this lifetime. The goal for humans is to accumulate enough merit and burn off all karma (negative) to enable us to be freed from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. I hope this has helped those who are genuinely troubled by other notions of karma gain a clearer understanding of what it means.
In Buddhism, Hinduism and also Jainism, all beings, including gods are subject to karma. It is a natural law that is above the will of any god. However, in Hinduism, room is left for the will of god, and generally more emphasis is placed on his will than natural karma. But of course hinduism is so varied between practitioners that it's almost pointless to try and assign a fixed viewpoint. Ledgohan 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to first understand what is 'thought'. It is not an act of mind as the article projects! May I suggest the reader to have a look at this article on 'Karma'? < http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfTheMysteriouskarma> 122.162.237.136 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Cdr Varma.
Darkconis ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)==Nomination for Worst-Written Article on Wikipedia== It's astonishing that an article of this length has so little merit. What a disappointment. From the first sentence to the last, this article needs an encyclopedic rewrite. Anyone willing to work with me to take it on as a mercy project? TheEditrix2 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
{{ sofixit}} -- not a single source is cited, so it is fair to remove all the clutter with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. Karma has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is but one of the four objectives of human living in hinduism, which it was really created. Dharma, which means righteous living. Karma, which means satisfaction. Arta, which means wealth. And finally Moksha, which means liberation. And Moksha is always above the other three. Depending on the tradition depends on the order of the other three. It has nothing to do with the new age ideal of it. This information comes from Dr. Julius Lipner from the University of Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkconis ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say but the page fails to grasp the concept of Karma entirely. How would you possibly understand a spiritual term only with intelligence and without wisdom? Did ANYONE of the authors actually knowingly work with karma? MetaByte 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The theory of karma ... became a rational explanation for the caste system and provided much needed solace for those who were disadvantaged by it. The exercise of caste rights became obligatory but only ephemeral, in this present life, with better prospects in the life hereafter, if these obligations are met without complaints.
Ref: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/061.htm
That view of Karma is fairly commonly held in the social sciences and often goes further than the above quoted article. The idea that Karma rationalizes the exploitation of the lower classes (untouchables) and has lead to the latter turning to other religions in significant numbers (especially in the northwest of the subcontinent) is a very important idea that I believe has to be included in this wikipedia article. Wikimam 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there are vested interests in this page who suffer from verbal diarrohea when it comes to writing about Karma.
Instead of simple and elegant organization about this subtle concept, the writing is kept hap-hazard, digressive and repetitive. The whole idea behind having sub-topics references is to lessen the congestion in the main page...and yet, some people vomit in details at both places.
I had made considerable clean up which was promptly undone. I would like the support of like-minded individuals to make this page useful to one and all, especially the beginners.
srsly guys... who the hell wrote this crap?
this, in my opinion is utterly wrong... sin in christianity and karma in the dharmic religions are no where near the same and wtf?? compared with the doctrine of salvation? ARE U JOKING????? wow ur dumb. Sadartha 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone write on how Meditation can a) liberate mankind from wheels of re-birth b) eliminate/emancipate one's Karma and c) achieve eternal life ?
I agree with the comparative saying “What goes around, comes around.”
"As you sow so shall you reap" maybe
“For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” i don't think are as useful because they are more restrictive in meaning. As i understand Karma in the Buddha Dharma, (although i'm no expert) it may come back at you in a different way than it went out. In particular "eye for an eye" is a proverb directing the action of people, rather than reporting on a law of nature or God.
Exodus 21:12-25 The Law concerning Violence
12 Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.
[cut]
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
bible.oremus.org
David Woodward
13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I just went into this page to try to fix the long line of [edit] boxes under Other Niyama Dharmas. As I did so, I started to tidy up a bit, as is my wont. I got to a paragraph that made no sense, so, being bold (for the first time) I removed it completely.
I continued reading and realised that the article is full of what appears to be simply various people's understandings of what "karma" is. In an encyclopedia, we don't really need wishy-washy views - we need fully referenced definitions and explanations of a concept.
This is not to say that western ideas of karma should not be included. Quite the contrary. However, the explanation needs to be from a reputable source. I know what I mean when I say "that was karma", but I'm sure it is of no interest to the world at large, and even less to future generations.
Kitty Davis ( talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It is important to notice for example, that the views on karma adopted by the “modern” Christian faith or any other denomination promoting fear as a way to understand God, are difficult to understand. Karma is very simple to understand: an action brings a reaction. At the same time, karma is also extremely intricate in it's application. This is neither good nor bad, it simply brings to the foreground the element of choice that we all have. Having a look at the daily news will bring an understanding of the laws of karma as they are plainly exhibited for all to see. As spiritual beings, we presently experience in this world the reactions of our thinking process. Today’s Christian faith embraces the: "you shall burn in hell eternally" model if one deviates from the prescribed "laws" of God. Well... There is a point to be made here. This "you shall burn in hell eternally" model was put in place to control people by means of fear and does not reflect in any way the teachings of Christ whatsoever. Love of God is developed through free will, never by fear. This world is simply and only but a karma laboratory meant to conduct the experience of reconnecting to love of God, and all of us, being a part and parcel of God, can do so by practicing with each other. The moment we can love, and love here is used in it's most profound meaning of the ultimate experience of giving and receiving unconditionally, then we have made use of the 'laboratory' in an efficient way. Karma is neither good or bad but rather an indicator to show us if the strategies we use to meet our needs are promoting life as a wonderful experience of not. Life itself is simple; we all share the same needs behind the cloak of 'modern' life. Karma is an ally to help us see how close we are to achieve our ultimate goal in this world; love.
The above paragraph was recently added to the main article. It is unwikified and unsourced, but it may be that certain elements are useful and informative? I'm moving it here for now where anyone interested in keeping parts of it can provide sources and copyedit the text before re-inserting into the main page. Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The correct definition of Karma is "因果", not "業" as corrected by user O not.
Definition in English-Chinese dictionary ( http://www.tigernt.com/dict.shtml):
karma ['ka:m/&/ ] 名 因缘;因果报应;宿命
More reference: http://www.buddhism.com.cn/jingtu/ygjs.htm.
Please discuss before changing the definition.
Joelee.org ( talk) 11:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
jak sie robi karme -------karme sie robi w taki sposob ze zawiesza sie slonine na nitce lub na druciee i sie gdzies wiesz \ \\\\\\\\\\\pisala PAULA ZIMOLĄG KLAsa 6 b podstawowa numer 3 w gostyninie '
Just my humble opinion - Red1 D Oon ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
...and flakey and ought to go! Redheylin ( talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a Buddhist, but the Japanese word Koan means public case. As We have in Stones explanations not read yet. It might also be inseresting for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.199.15 ( talk) 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
While this section is pretty reasonable it contains no sources except for a single primary source. It needs notable 3rd party sources that have compared karam to other religious concepts to avoid being chopped altogether. Ashmoo ( talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
in christianity and judaism, karma is referred to as ,cautiousness, circumspection or prudence ( http://www.woxikon.com/dut/voorzichtigheid.php) I read it in Religion for dummies.
Add in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.142.53 ( talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
I am removing the following paragraph:
The reasons are:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can the editor explain why a neutrality tag was put up? Sud Ram ( talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.89.7.82 (
talk •
contribs) 21:24, 20 June 2010
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)
ACCOUNTING OF LIFE is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA. Accounting of Life is a branch of accountancy beside of governmental accounting, cost accounting, auditing, accounting system, financial accounting and so on..... as PETER DRUCKER said: "KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE IMPROVED, CHALLENGED AND INCREASED CONSTANTLY OR IT VANISHES."
Accountancy knowledge is applied to explain Karma Law logically and mathematically. Accounting of Life (AoL) is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA.
The Accounting of Life's basic equation is REWARD = SIN + KARMA. From that equation we can conclude that the more value of REWARD, the more value of KARMA. And the more value of SIN, the less value of KARMA. In other words the less value of REWARD, the less value of KARMA. And the less value of SIN, the more value of KARMA.
If the goal of the company according to Financial Accounting is to increase profits as much as possible and to reduce costs as less as possible, so the goal we live in this world according to Accounting of Life is to do good things as much as possible and to do bad things as less as possible.
The period of Accounting of someone's Life begins when an individual is born and ends when the individual pass away. The next period will be started when the individual is rebirth with its OWN accumulated value of karma brought from the late period.
For more complete info / posts about the Accounting of Life can be found in yahoogroups and facebook under the name of AKUNTANSI KEHIDUPAN group, but it's in Indonesian language.
Huang Ching Fu ( talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Karma is not an Indian word its a Hindu word. so wiki pleas don't post untrue articles. India is not only the country which fallow Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilda ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I would like to very respectfully suggest that the following passage about Spiritism be revised:
Spirits are encouraged to choose how (and when) to suffer retribution for the wrong they did in previous lives. How we know of this without remembering we had the choice is ambiguous.
I'm not sure who wrote it or for what reason, but it seems a little disbelieving. And if that were the case this disbelief should not be shared here at this factual source. The fact is that there are people who have given accounts of memories of 'life before life', most of them seem similar enough to draw certain conclusions from yet these people have had nothing to do with each other or heard each other's stories before (in this life). But, maybe they're all a little crazy. Anything's possible.
My point is, please be sure you're writing down facts (and well researched ones at that), and not opinions, which can be very misleading.
123.2.223.88 ( talk) 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been several points arguing for adding more current interpretations of the word karma to those in ancient traditions.
I think it is a fair point that an encyclopedia should have both...providing those current meanings...and their authors...have fairly widespread recognition. Adding new sections for relative obscure groups simply because they interpret the word differently is putting the cart before the horse. New Age thinking generally tends to fragmented--indeed, the variety is its strength. But from an encyclopedia's view, the best approach for reporting this would simply be to have a section briefly reporting several alternative interpretations to illustrate the variety of thinking.
And I agree: text such as "The modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies ...This view of karma, as a universal and personally impacting emotional constant, correlates with Buddhist and Jungian understanding that volition (or libido, created from personal and cultural biases) is the primary instigator of karma. Any conscious thought, word and/or action, arising from a cognitively unresolved emotion (cognitive dissonance), results in karma.[50]"
Is not the language of encyclopedias and should either be removed or modified. However the criticism of it above, IMHO, could do with some language adjustment as well to bring it in line with moderate tone in discussion.
-- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello you all. Where isn't there any mention that Karma is (regarded by many as) an irrational and superstitious concept, like reincarnation, seven years of bad luck when you break a mirror, astrology, and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.37 ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karma is a Hindu thing, not specific to India. Please correct! thanks. 63.231.145.96 ( talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just read this in the Buddhism section of Karma, it is incorrect
"Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.[citation needed]"
Karma does not liberate one to nirvana - whoever posted this has not completely understood the theory. Here are some quotes by Bodhidharma (1st patriarch of zen buddhism) that will hopefully back this up:
"invoking buddhas brings good karma...but no buddha" "to go from mortal to buddha, you have to put an end to karma" "as long as you're subject to birth and death you'll never attain enlightenment" (source: the zen teachings of bodhidharma) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdougdoug ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article on Hinduism (Hinduism includes a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "daily morality" based on karma, dharma, and societal norms. Hinduism is a categorisation of distinct intellectual or philosophical points of view, rather than a rigid, common set of beliefs.[3]) it seems presumptuous and perhaps misleading to only expound on Vedantic thought or perhaps dogma regarding karma. There's the Samkhya school (no God exists); and Mimamsa (natural laws of causation are enough to explain it).
Perhaps a link to the article "Karma in Hinduism" would be good. 76.2.130.12 ( talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What about this one, "Taoism" By Eva Wong, Page 193. [2] Capitals00 ( talk) 09:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karma is not only a religious tropic it can fully explain by quantum physics. This explanation based on Double Slit Experiment & human body aura.
Ariyaguru ( talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok until the new edit starting "Another meaning of Karma as per Bhagwad Geeta..." Maybe it's just poor English confusing me. But even before that, the last paragraph starting " In this way, so long as the stock of Sanchita karma lasts," doesn't seem to follow from anything - this is the first mention of Sanchita karma. Looking at the history, it appears some of it was deleted, see [3] although I have no idea if Goyandaka J, The Secret of Karmayoga, Gita Press, Gorakhpur is a WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think if it's necessary to put "
" above the lead, hope someone will throw some light, in this regard. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please give historical Geographic origins of karma, i dont understand why you have not added india as the location to which the concepts of karma is founded and originated from
Also i don't understand why you wrote this bellow:
A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations.
Buddha did not become enlighten by reading his own scriptures, instead he used hindu scriptures and information from indian sages, so potent was this information that he ended his life actually in India.
I just cannot see how you can Put karma came from buddhism and claiming its to be them who are teaching the original form, or as you put it continuations,sounds like you have got a soft spot for buddhism, a hint of favoritism of somekind maybe? 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)veda
This article's issues:
Parts of this article needs a rewrite, some parts need clarification. I plan to edit it, add reliable scholarly sources. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me effort. I am also adding archive bot to this talk page, as some comments above are old and irrelevant to the current version article (if someone wants the old comments, please remove bot code at the top). Kind regards, Mark.muesse ( talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The word "karma" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalised, unless used as the first word in a sentence or in a title. It appears as if at some time in the past someone used a text editor and performed a global find-and-replace to capitalise the word; I've selectively removed the capitalisation where it is inappropriate. — Quicksilver T @ 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The bolded portion in the below text appearing in the article is not factually correct. For Vedanta, the nyAya pramana-s are valid.
"Vedanta school acknowledges karma-rebirth doctrine, but concludes it is a theory that is not derived from reality and cannot be proven, considers it invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality / other observable facts about society, treats it as a convenient fiction to solve practical problems in Upanishadic times, and declares it irrelevant; in the Advaita Vedanta school, actions in current life have moral consequences and liberation is possible within one's life as jivanmukti (self-realized person)."
May kindly initiate necessary changes please.
112.196.141.93 ( talk) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Atanu Banerjee
The ancient Greek concept of Nemesis seems to fit into this section and would help to expand it. She was the goddess of divine retribution against [...] hubris (quotes and other info from Wikipedia page Nemesis_(mythology)), not particularly good or bad (and not an arch-enemy as the word tends to signify now) — something of a 'karma goddess', the punisher of Echo and Narcissus and general balancer of fortunes.
Unfortunately these assertions on Nemesis' own page are not particularly well supported, but if it were included, both the purported original distributor of fortune, neither good nor bad, simply in due proportion and the eventual avenger of crime and the punisher of hubris, tending towards the arch-enemy, should be expressed, if only briefly (to match the rest of the section), to at least hint at both the similarities and differences between Nemesis, karma, and the modern Western concept of it. -- IntelVoid ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
First of all, I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between the the different views of karma as seen by the different religions/philosophical systems. Buddhism is an inherently atheistic religion and does not require the existence of a creator god for its definition of karma to function.
Karma as relating to Buddhism is simply natural law. There is no judgement placed and there is no sin or attonement thereof. Every thought or action taken by a person is a seed which can come to fruition at some point later in this life or another. Although there is no judgement placed on karma, according to the Buddha, there are 3 types: action which results in positive circumstances, action which results in negative circumstances, and action which results in neutral circumstances. The important point behind this is INTENT. Your karma will be substantially less for accidentally taking a life than it would be for purposely taking one. Moreover, if you feel remorseful and strive to avoid those kinds of unwholesome actions, you will reduce your chances of negative circumstances for the future.
The state of Arahat (enlightenment, but not complete enlightenment like that of a Buddha) is the state where your actions are not tied to karma. At this point, al of your past karma will catch up to you in order to burn it off in this lifetime. The goal for humans is to accumulate enough merit and burn off all karma (negative) to enable us to be freed from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. I hope this has helped those who are genuinely troubled by other notions of karma gain a clearer understanding of what it means.
In Buddhism, Hinduism and also Jainism, all beings, including gods are subject to karma. It is a natural law that is above the will of any god. However, in Hinduism, room is left for the will of god, and generally more emphasis is placed on his will than natural karma. But of course hinduism is so varied between practitioners that it's almost pointless to try and assign a fixed viewpoint. Ledgohan 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to first understand what is 'thought'. It is not an act of mind as the article projects! May I suggest the reader to have a look at this article on 'Karma'? < http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfTheMysteriouskarma> 122.162.237.136 ( talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Cdr Varma.
Darkconis ( talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)==Nomination for Worst-Written Article on Wikipedia== It's astonishing that an article of this length has so little merit. What a disappointment. From the first sentence to the last, this article needs an encyclopedic rewrite. Anyone willing to work with me to take it on as a mercy project? TheEditrix2 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
{{ sofixit}} -- not a single source is cited, so it is fair to remove all the clutter with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
This is absurd. Karma has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is but one of the four objectives of human living in hinduism, which it was really created. Dharma, which means righteous living. Karma, which means satisfaction. Arta, which means wealth. And finally Moksha, which means liberation. And Moksha is always above the other three. Depending on the tradition depends on the order of the other three. It has nothing to do with the new age ideal of it. This information comes from Dr. Julius Lipner from the University of Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkconis ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to say but the page fails to grasp the concept of Karma entirely. How would you possibly understand a spiritual term only with intelligence and without wisdom? Did ANYONE of the authors actually knowingly work with karma? MetaByte 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
The theory of karma ... became a rational explanation for the caste system and provided much needed solace for those who were disadvantaged by it. The exercise of caste rights became obligatory but only ephemeral, in this present life, with better prospects in the life hereafter, if these obligations are met without complaints.
Ref: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/061.htm
That view of Karma is fairly commonly held in the social sciences and often goes further than the above quoted article. The idea that Karma rationalizes the exploitation of the lower classes (untouchables) and has lead to the latter turning to other religions in significant numbers (especially in the northwest of the subcontinent) is a very important idea that I believe has to be included in this wikipedia article. Wikimam 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like there are vested interests in this page who suffer from verbal diarrohea when it comes to writing about Karma.
Instead of simple and elegant organization about this subtle concept, the writing is kept hap-hazard, digressive and repetitive. The whole idea behind having sub-topics references is to lessen the congestion in the main page...and yet, some people vomit in details at both places.
I had made considerable clean up which was promptly undone. I would like the support of like-minded individuals to make this page useful to one and all, especially the beginners.
srsly guys... who the hell wrote this crap?
this, in my opinion is utterly wrong... sin in christianity and karma in the dharmic religions are no where near the same and wtf?? compared with the doctrine of salvation? ARE U JOKING????? wow ur dumb. Sadartha 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Could anyone write on how Meditation can a) liberate mankind from wheels of re-birth b) eliminate/emancipate one's Karma and c) achieve eternal life ?
I agree with the comparative saying “What goes around, comes around.”
"As you sow so shall you reap" maybe
“For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” i don't think are as useful because they are more restrictive in meaning. As i understand Karma in the Buddha Dharma, (although i'm no expert) it may come back at you in a different way than it went out. In particular "eye for an eye" is a proverb directing the action of people, rather than reporting on a law of nature or God.
Exodus 21:12-25 The Law concerning Violence
12 Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.
[cut]
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
bible.oremus.org
David Woodward
13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I just went into this page to try to fix the long line of [edit] boxes under Other Niyama Dharmas. As I did so, I started to tidy up a bit, as is my wont. I got to a paragraph that made no sense, so, being bold (for the first time) I removed it completely.
I continued reading and realised that the article is full of what appears to be simply various people's understandings of what "karma" is. In an encyclopedia, we don't really need wishy-washy views - we need fully referenced definitions and explanations of a concept.
This is not to say that western ideas of karma should not be included. Quite the contrary. However, the explanation needs to be from a reputable source. I know what I mean when I say "that was karma", but I'm sure it is of no interest to the world at large, and even less to future generations.
Kitty Davis ( talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
It is important to notice for example, that the views on karma adopted by the “modern” Christian faith or any other denomination promoting fear as a way to understand God, are difficult to understand. Karma is very simple to understand: an action brings a reaction. At the same time, karma is also extremely intricate in it's application. This is neither good nor bad, it simply brings to the foreground the element of choice that we all have. Having a look at the daily news will bring an understanding of the laws of karma as they are plainly exhibited for all to see. As spiritual beings, we presently experience in this world the reactions of our thinking process. Today’s Christian faith embraces the: "you shall burn in hell eternally" model if one deviates from the prescribed "laws" of God. Well... There is a point to be made here. This "you shall burn in hell eternally" model was put in place to control people by means of fear and does not reflect in any way the teachings of Christ whatsoever. Love of God is developed through free will, never by fear. This world is simply and only but a karma laboratory meant to conduct the experience of reconnecting to love of God, and all of us, being a part and parcel of God, can do so by practicing with each other. The moment we can love, and love here is used in it's most profound meaning of the ultimate experience of giving and receiving unconditionally, then we have made use of the 'laboratory' in an efficient way. Karma is neither good or bad but rather an indicator to show us if the strategies we use to meet our needs are promoting life as a wonderful experience of not. Life itself is simple; we all share the same needs behind the cloak of 'modern' life. Karma is an ally to help us see how close we are to achieve our ultimate goal in this world; love.
The above paragraph was recently added to the main article. It is unwikified and unsourced, but it may be that certain elements are useful and informative? I'm moving it here for now where anyone interested in keeping parts of it can provide sources and copyedit the text before re-inserting into the main page. Regards, Gouranga(UK) ( talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
The correct definition of Karma is "因果", not "業" as corrected by user O not.
Definition in English-Chinese dictionary ( http://www.tigernt.com/dict.shtml):
karma ['ka:m/&/ ] 名 因缘;因果报应;宿命
More reference: http://www.buddhism.com.cn/jingtu/ygjs.htm.
Please discuss before changing the definition.
Joelee.org ( talk) 11:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
jak sie robi karme -------karme sie robi w taki sposob ze zawiesza sie slonine na nitce lub na druciee i sie gdzies wiesz \ \\\\\\\\\\\pisala PAULA ZIMOLĄG KLAsa 6 b podstawowa numer 3 w gostyninie '
Just my humble opinion - Red1 D Oon ( talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
...and flakey and ought to go! Redheylin ( talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a Buddhist, but the Japanese word Koan means public case. As We have in Stones explanations not read yet. It might also be inseresting for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.199.15 ( talk) 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
While this section is pretty reasonable it contains no sources except for a single primary source. It needs notable 3rd party sources that have compared karam to other religious concepts to avoid being chopped altogether. Ashmoo ( talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
in christianity and judaism, karma is referred to as ,cautiousness, circumspection or prudence ( http://www.woxikon.com/dut/voorzichtigheid.php) I read it in Religion for dummies.
Add in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.142.53 ( talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)
I am removing the following paragraph:
The reasons are:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Can the editor explain why a neutrality tag was put up? Sud Ram ( talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
97.89.7.82 (
talk •
contribs) 21:24, 20 June 2010
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)
ACCOUNTING OF LIFE is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA. Accounting of Life is a branch of accountancy beside of governmental accounting, cost accounting, auditing, accounting system, financial accounting and so on..... as PETER DRUCKER said: "KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE IMPROVED, CHALLENGED AND INCREASED CONSTANTLY OR IT VANISHES."
Accountancy knowledge is applied to explain Karma Law logically and mathematically. Accounting of Life (AoL) is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA.
The Accounting of Life's basic equation is REWARD = SIN + KARMA. From that equation we can conclude that the more value of REWARD, the more value of KARMA. And the more value of SIN, the less value of KARMA. In other words the less value of REWARD, the less value of KARMA. And the less value of SIN, the more value of KARMA.
If the goal of the company according to Financial Accounting is to increase profits as much as possible and to reduce costs as less as possible, so the goal we live in this world according to Accounting of Life is to do good things as much as possible and to do bad things as less as possible.
The period of Accounting of someone's Life begins when an individual is born and ends when the individual pass away. The next period will be started when the individual is rebirth with its OWN accumulated value of karma brought from the late period.
For more complete info / posts about the Accounting of Life can be found in yahoogroups and facebook under the name of AKUNTANSI KEHIDUPAN group, but it's in Indonesian language.
Huang Ching Fu ( talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Karma is not an Indian word its a Hindu word. so wiki pleas don't post untrue articles. India is not only the country which fallow Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilda ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi all,
I would like to very respectfully suggest that the following passage about Spiritism be revised:
Spirits are encouraged to choose how (and when) to suffer retribution for the wrong they did in previous lives. How we know of this without remembering we had the choice is ambiguous.
I'm not sure who wrote it or for what reason, but it seems a little disbelieving. And if that were the case this disbelief should not be shared here at this factual source. The fact is that there are people who have given accounts of memories of 'life before life', most of them seem similar enough to draw certain conclusions from yet these people have had nothing to do with each other or heard each other's stories before (in this life). But, maybe they're all a little crazy. Anything's possible.
My point is, please be sure you're writing down facts (and well researched ones at that), and not opinions, which can be very misleading.
123.2.223.88 ( talk) 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been several points arguing for adding more current interpretations of the word karma to those in ancient traditions.
I think it is a fair point that an encyclopedia should have both...providing those current meanings...and their authors...have fairly widespread recognition. Adding new sections for relative obscure groups simply because they interpret the word differently is putting the cart before the horse. New Age thinking generally tends to fragmented--indeed, the variety is its strength. But from an encyclopedia's view, the best approach for reporting this would simply be to have a section briefly reporting several alternative interpretations to illustrate the variety of thinking.
And I agree: text such as "The modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies ...This view of karma, as a universal and personally impacting emotional constant, correlates with Buddhist and Jungian understanding that volition (or libido, created from personal and cultural biases) is the primary instigator of karma. Any conscious thought, word and/or action, arising from a cognitively unresolved emotion (cognitive dissonance), results in karma.[50]"
Is not the language of encyclopedias and should either be removed or modified. However the criticism of it above, IMHO, could do with some language adjustment as well to bring it in line with moderate tone in discussion.
-- 174.7.29.185 ( talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello you all. Where isn't there any mention that Karma is (regarded by many as) an irrational and superstitious concept, like reincarnation, seven years of bad luck when you break a mirror, astrology, and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.37 ( talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karma is a Hindu thing, not specific to India. Please correct! thanks. 63.231.145.96 ( talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I just read this in the Buddhism section of Karma, it is incorrect
"Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.[citation needed]"
Karma does not liberate one to nirvana - whoever posted this has not completely understood the theory. Here are some quotes by Bodhidharma (1st patriarch of zen buddhism) that will hopefully back this up:
"invoking buddhas brings good karma...but no buddha" "to go from mortal to buddha, you have to put an end to karma" "as long as you're subject to birth and death you'll never attain enlightenment" (source: the zen teachings of bodhidharma) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdougdoug ( talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article on Hinduism (Hinduism includes a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "daily morality" based on karma, dharma, and societal norms. Hinduism is a categorisation of distinct intellectual or philosophical points of view, rather than a rigid, common set of beliefs.[3]) it seems presumptuous and perhaps misleading to only expound on Vedantic thought or perhaps dogma regarding karma. There's the Samkhya school (no God exists); and Mimamsa (natural laws of causation are enough to explain it).
Perhaps a link to the article "Karma in Hinduism" would be good. 76.2.130.12 ( talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
What about this one, "Taoism" By Eva Wong, Page 193. [2] Capitals00 ( talk) 09:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Karma is not only a religious tropic it can fully explain by quantum physics. This explanation based on Double Slit Experiment & human body aura.
Ariyaguru ( talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm ok until the new edit starting "Another meaning of Karma as per Bhagwad Geeta..." Maybe it's just poor English confusing me. But even before that, the last paragraph starting " In this way, so long as the stock of Sanchita karma lasts," doesn't seem to follow from anything - this is the first mention of Sanchita karma. Looking at the history, it appears some of it was deleted, see [3] although I have no idea if Goyandaka J, The Secret of Karmayoga, Gita Press, Gorakhpur is a WP:RS. Dougweller ( talk) 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't really think if it's necessary to put "
" above the lead, hope someone will throw some light, in this regard. Bladesmulti ( talk) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Please give historical Geographic origins of karma, i dont understand why you have not added india as the location to which the concepts of karma is founded and originated from
Also i don't understand why you wrote this bellow:
A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations.
Buddha did not become enlighten by reading his own scriptures, instead he used hindu scriptures and information from indian sages, so potent was this information that he ended his life actually in India.
I just cannot see how you can Put karma came from buddhism and claiming its to be them who are teaching the original form, or as you put it continuations,sounds like you have got a soft spot for buddhism, a hint of favoritism of somekind maybe? 82.38.161.217 ( talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)veda
This article's issues:
Parts of this article needs a rewrite, some parts need clarification. I plan to edit it, add reliable scholarly sources. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me effort. I am also adding archive bot to this talk page, as some comments above are old and irrelevant to the current version article (if someone wants the old comments, please remove bot code at the top). Kind regards, Mark.muesse ( talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
The word "karma" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalised, unless used as the first word in a sentence or in a title. It appears as if at some time in the past someone used a text editor and performed a global find-and-replace to capitalise the word; I've selectively removed the capitalisation where it is inappropriate. — Quicksilver T @ 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The bolded portion in the below text appearing in the article is not factually correct. For Vedanta, the nyAya pramana-s are valid.
"Vedanta school acknowledges karma-rebirth doctrine, but concludes it is a theory that is not derived from reality and cannot be proven, considers it invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality / other observable facts about society, treats it as a convenient fiction to solve practical problems in Upanishadic times, and declares it irrelevant; in the Advaita Vedanta school, actions in current life have moral consequences and liberation is possible within one's life as jivanmukti (self-realized person)."
May kindly initiate necessary changes please.
112.196.141.93 ( talk) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Atanu Banerjee
The ancient Greek concept of Nemesis seems to fit into this section and would help to expand it. She was the goddess of divine retribution against [...] hubris (quotes and other info from Wikipedia page Nemesis_(mythology)), not particularly good or bad (and not an arch-enemy as the word tends to signify now) — something of a 'karma goddess', the punisher of Echo and Narcissus and general balancer of fortunes.
Unfortunately these assertions on Nemesis' own page are not particularly well supported, but if it were included, both the purported original distributor of fortune, neither good nor bad, simply in due proportion and the eventual avenger of crime and the punisher of hubris, tending towards the arch-enemy, should be expressed, if only briefly (to match the rest of the section), to at least hint at both the similarities and differences between Nemesis, karma, and the modern Western concept of it. -- IntelVoid ( talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)