The Cauldron: A Pagan Forum

http://www.dharmawheel.net

Look for "The Way of the Bodhisattva," then "Exploring Buddhism," and the thread title of "Cause, Effect, and Holocaust"if you care to have a read. The responses from David Snyder (of the Vipissana Foundation) and Namdrol are particularly enlightening.

Here's a direct link to the thread: Cause, Effect, & Holocaust

Thanks for posting this. I wish folks like David Snyder and Namdrol could get all the Pagans who have these strange views of Karma and think they are what Buddhists teach and lecture them.

Every now and then a question arises about karma and how it "works."

There's an excellent (IMO) thread over at Dharma Wheel, started by a newbie like myself from what I can tell, discussing the concept of karma as it can/cannot be applied to a situation like the Holocaust. In a nutshell: "So, were all those Jews responsible for their own deaths, because they had bad karma?"

The answer, of course, is "No."

Reading is free and doesn't require registration.

http://www.dharmawheel.net

Look for "The Way of the Bodhisattva," then "Exploring Buddhism," and the thread title of "Cause, Effect, and Holocaust"if you care to have a read. The responses from David Snyder (of the Vipissana Foundation) and Namdrol are particularly enlightening.

 
I really enjoyed reading this. Thank you for sharing.

I find statements like this contradictory (from the other board):



There is a moral framework in Buddhism, though.  And living according to it will move one further along the path of enlightenment.  I find it a little obtuse and/or evasive to dismiss this framework as simply "the way the universe operates".  Christians make this claim about their beliefs too.  What makes Buddhism the more compassionate philosophy?  Is it because compassion is expected per Buddhist spiritual teachings?  Christians teach compassion too, and claim it as a means to attain their higher selves during life and after death.  Is it because in Buddhism the "reward" (enlightenment and freedom from the cycle of rebirth) happens over many lifetimes instead of immediately upon leaving this one?

The layers of woo-woo (change of state, inconstancy/lack of "self" over many lifetimes in Buddhism vs. my entire consciousness and possibly body going to heaven post-mortem) don't really help me see the two belief systems as so utterly distinct.  Nor does the inability to know the roots of karmic suffering (locked as they are in the mists of time) make it any less problematic for me.

Brina

I'm not sure I can clarify at all, but I'll attempt it regardless.

The quote you posted re: "The Dharmic concept of cause-and-effect" (Karma) isn't contradictory, from what I see and know. Cause and effect isn't a moral framework. It's fact. It's science. It's--how the world works. Whack your finger with a hammer, and your finger hurts. Cause and effect. Was it "bad karma" that made you whack your finger? Or did you just have bad aim?
(I vote for bad aim, personally.) What one chooses to do or not do because of the workings of the universe (cause and effect) is where the moral framework comes in. Choosing actions that cause the least harm to others/sentient beings/the land/etc. is part of that moral framework for Tibetan Buddhists (I can't speak for other types, I have no knowledge of them).

As for the "what makes Buddhism more compassionate/better than Christianity," again my answer is "I don't know." What I DO know is, the framework of Buddhism makes a lot more sense to me than Christianity ever did. There's no creator god sitting up there in judgement; there's no intercessor/Christ figure working on my behalf. It's about ME and MY choices, and MY work along the path of the bodhisattva. I either do the work, or I don't. If I do, I progress. If I don't, I don't. Cause and effect. Will I see the fruits of it this time around the wheel? Very unlikely. Will I know when I come back next time? I might, I might not. Whether I know or not honestly doesn't matter to me, nor does the highly likely outcome that I won't be finished after this go-round. If I've done well in making progress, I'll get another human birth next time. If not . . . then not. Cause and effect. No morality, just the way the universe works (according to the Tibetan and other Mahayana Buddhist worldviews).

When I saw HHDL in Chicago in July, he talked about how some businessmen's morning prayers might go along this line: "Thank you, God, for allowing my wholly corrupt business empire to flourish and make me a billionaire." The audience chuckled--but we also had no problem envisioning that scenario. What's wrong with the picture? Those hypothetical businessmen feel they're "good Christians" and they're praying, all right, but their actions and the effects of those actions--the cause and effect, the karma (which means action), is certainly not good for them or anyone connected to them in the long run. Sure, they might be profiting right now (and even for this entire lifetime), but who's to say what will happen tomorrow, next week, next month, next life? The choices are what constitute morality (or immorality, or amorality), not the fact that if you do X, you get Y.

Probably muddy or muddier, but that's what I have for you.

Honestly, this always feels like a diversionary tactic to me when discussing Buddhism.  We're not talking hammers.  We're talking about the operational morality of the universe.  There's nothing scientific about it.



Why?



No muddier than it already was, honestly.  I appreciate the effort, but it's pretty obvious I'm never going to grok this stuff.  :confused:

Brina

I can't be more clear than saying "Karma is not morality. It's cause and effect." Karma means "action," not "morality." There's nothing diversionary about defining the term. IMO the Western misuse of "karma" to mean far more than it actually does is a huge problem in coming to "right understanding" of the term. Karma is action. Period. Not "operational morality." Morality is not karma, and karma is not morality. They're two different concepts. A moral framework should lead one to improved karma (actions).



Why do I vote for bad aim, if I whack my finger with a hammer, instead of blaming it on "bad karma"? Because it makes a whole lot more sense to say I'm a klutz with bad aim, than that I whacked my finger because in a previous incarnation I whacked someone else's finger and now I'm experiencing "karmic payback." It's not a one-for-one situation. If I have bad aim, I'll miss and hit my finger. My karma might be immaculate (highly doubtful, but hypothesizing here), and my aim could still suck.

::shrugs:: I've noticed a lot of Western folks have problems grokking Buddhist concepts, for what seem to be cultural reasons (instead of religious or scientific, as two examples of other possibilities). We're so grounded in Judeo-Christian backstory, even if we're neither Jewish nor Christian, that it sets up barriers to understanding Eastern philosophy/religion. IMO, anyway. Just one more thing that makes me wonder--no, makes me feel--that I was probably NOT Western in a few previous lives. I don't have the same degree of confusion that some folks do. (I have confusion, yes . . . but in some areas, what I read/learn just clicks.)

But what constitutes 'improvement,' and what separates that distinction from morality?

At its simplest, "improved" action (karma) would stem from what's also called "right action" in Buddhism. For Tibetan Buddhists, that means choosing the action(s) that are least harmful to the most sentient beings. That does NOT make action equal to morality. It makes action action, and the choosing of which action to perform is, I suppose, a moral choice. Intention counts an awful lot toward a moral/amoral/immoral choice, at least in Buddhism. Doing something that ends up being harmful without INTENTION is said to have less karmic effect in a negative way than PURPOSEFULLY performing a harmful action; however, even the Buddha himself is said to have killed a man in order to save the lives of the hundreds of people the man was planning to kill on his own. (Lucky for the Buddha, he had knowledge of the man's plan and was able to make an informed decision. I don't have that kind of precognition.)

Karma means action. Period. Karma is not morality. That's really annoying to a lot of Westerners, but that's how it is. Likewise, "improved actions" aren't morality, either; the method of choosing which actions to perform is, I think, morality. Improved actions are just that--improved actions. Action is not morality. It's action. (In the Buddhist framework, of course.)

Trying to shoehorn Buddhist thought into a JCI framework fails, most of the time, IME. It's like the poster over at the Buddhist forum who kept railing about the lack of God in Buddhism. ::sigh:: No matter how hard s/he tried to find something, *anything* in Buddhism that could equate to God, s/he was shown that it wouldn't work. There is no God in Buddhism. (That's rather the point, actually . . .) But I digress.

If you want to read about Buddhist thought and morality, I'll point you to Buddhanet's online materials. They will explain things far better than I ever could, as a mere student. (However, you'll find that even there, karma isn't morality. :-) ) The concept of karma has been misused and ill-defined by Westerners for centuries, and sadly, John Lennon didn't do it any favors.

 
You're very welcome. It's entirely possible to adhere to certain Buddhist practices without having any belief whatsoever in deity of any kind, so have at it. :-) (In fact, the lama at the center nearest to me began his very first discussion with one of the now-nuns there by saying, before she even asked, "Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion." Talk about cutting to the chase. She was all smiles when she told me that.)

Interesting! I have always instinctively believed this way. I feel that whatever I choose to do, I alone am responsible for my actions. If I choose to do something because I do not feel it is wrong to do that thing, then for me, it is not wrong. If I choose to do something despite feeling that the thing IS wrong -- even if everyone else on the planet disagrees with me - then for me that action is wrong.

 Slightly off subject, but I have to ask a question (playing devil's advocate here).... Wouldn't there be a fine line between what IS right or wrong and what is PERCEIVED to be right or wrong by an individual?

What about the rapist who doesn't think he did anything wrong? Does that mean for him, committing rape is OK? Where do you draw the line?

I'm not disagreeing with you completely, because I feel the same way about my own "morality." I make decisions for myself based on what I feel to be right, wrong, or indifferent; not necessarily on what society deems to be correct. But then again I'm not a rapist, murderer, (insert "wrongdoer" here).