perfectbite

Could such exist? What would its basis be?

Barney

My understanding is that ALL karma is "communal"..........Suzuki states in his book "Outlines of Mahayana Buddhism"................."Deeds once committed, good or evil, leave permanent effects on the general system of sentient beings, of which the actor is merely a component part; and it is not the actor himself only, but everybody constituting a grand psychic community called "dharmadhatu" that suffers or enjoys the outcome of a moral deed"

This is in line with the dharma teachings of "non-atman" - no self.

Suzuki repudiates the so called individualistic view of karma..........which he states "mars the true interpretation of Buddhism".............that good or evil acts committed by a person effects only their own fate.........

Barefoot Bree

Hi, Barney, and welcome to II!

You might want to consider losing the ....'s, they can clutter up your post. Just a hint.

*****

I usually don't contribute these types of threads, since I know next to nothing about Buddhism, et al, but:

I believe in Karma to the extent of "what goes around, comes around", as in how you interact with the world will greatly affect how the world interacts with you.

And I think that same principle can apply to groups. If a group as a whole has characteristics of dealing with others in "good, honest" ways, then they will largely see the same kind of treatment in return. And ditto for those who are nasty.

My overly simplistic one-and-a-half cents.

badger3k

Karma is cause and effect - our actions have consequences, so in that way, you could say that a community (as in a group of individuals) can have a sort of "collective karma" made up of the individuals. Not quite correct, but it may get one point across.

In another sense, a group or community (say a state) that allows certain actions to occur (such as redefining science in schools to include the supernatural) will encounter the results of that action, as a community (such as out-of-state students avoiding their universities, or biotech companies avoiding the state, thus causing a loss of jobs and revenue for the state). Such actions by the group could constitute a sort of "communal karma".

Of course, if you think of the interdependance of everything, you can say that the karma of one "individual" really is "communal karma" since one's actions can affect the group through the connections.

Maybe not what you are looking for, but it's a few ideas.

Barney

Barefoot Bree,

Thanks for the welcome!

(Please excuse my ignorance, but just what are the "....'s"?)

Barefoot Bree

The ellipses, or repeated dots - in red above.

Please come down to the Lounge and start an introductory thread, so we can get to know you!

Barney

Barefoot Bree,

Thanks for the invitation.

P.S. I will attempt to elliminate the "..............................'s". Its just a style - or habit - I have dropped into on various other forum's over the years.

Philippe*

I for one believe such thing exists, and the basis would be :

*Interdependance between all things and living beings
*the casual law, a cause triggers an effect

On the other hand, I don't buy in common beliefs about karma in general (nor in inerrancy of any scriptures and authorities), I think it is a simplist interpretation of phenomenons that exist but are especially twisted since they are seen from the human condition. In this vision, compassion can grow and the problem of everyone can be seen as the problem of all.

Philippe

perfectbite

Thank you for your replies. They have given me much food for thought. Karma is deceptively simple in its complexity and one of the things that has struck me is that a while back I stated that it behooved lay Buddhists to be responsible to their communities and to cast a well informed vote and I am wondering if such involvement with the body politic is one of those karmic choices that can be dispensed with but the more I think about it the responsibility of citizenship confers karma whether one votes or not (one has to assume that one vote could make a difference) and paying taxes, even if one only pays the occassional sales tax, seems to definitely incur a karmic reponsibility. For instance, I would much rather my tax money went to support a decent quality of life for the infirm and elderly than go to building bunker buster nuclear weapons and because I don't live in Chicago where the motto used to be 'vote early and vote often' through my one vote I can influence, no matter how marginally, my community's action and the communal karma.

The next step, for me anyway, is to look at Buddhist involvement in political issues. Karma aside, there are no guarantees that protracted political involvement would stay pure so I suppose that individual Buddhist politicians would be acceptable but a Buddhist platform wouldn't be acceptable unless it were a single issue platform, i.e. 'Save the Amazon rainforest.' and even then even if everyone in the voting bloc was a practicing Buddhist I would be reluctant to associate Buddhism with a political stance. Which leads to the question would cultural stances (freedom of worship) be as equally susceptible to political distortion and in reading this I wonder how much of my 'resistance' to organized Buddhist involvement in any political process is a reluctance for Buddhism to invariably make enemies.

Which bring up a further question. What about Buddhist political involvement
in homogenously Buddhist societies, i.e. Myanmar where the generals are becoming obscenely rich in such a poor country through the plundering sale of a national resource, old growth hardwoods? Did Indonesian Buddhists protest the Indonesian government's atrocities in East Timor. (another military junta based on greed, anger and ignorance) Should they have if they didn't. Should Buddhists have the view of 'full speed ahead and damn the karma.' and become tree hugging, pro choice, equality of education for all, save the whales activists or do Buddhists already tend toward this image?

badger3k

I'm not sure of the other parts, I'd have to think more than I am willing at this moment, but for this one the simple answer is neither. Both are extremes that should be stayed away from. Remember the middle-path idea avoids both ends of the spectrum (even though both "ends" sometimes wrap together into a circle). I think that anyone who basically says "damn the karma" is not quite a Buddhist, although in some cases I feel that it is necessary to do things that may result in harmful/negative karma, so long as I am willing to bear the cost of that. But then, I don't consider myself a Buddhist, so I may be wrong.

One interesting article I found dealing with some of the topics is "Facing the Future", close to the middle of this page: http://www.buddhanet.net/ebooks_g.htm

edit - another area for discussions of this kind is the "engaged Buddhism" section of E-Sangha (http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/ind...?showforum=36), although I don't post a lot there, so I can't say how good the discussions are.