meritocrat

rely on the concept of an absolute morality?

Wouldn't the 'bad' actions have to be clearly defined in order for a person to suffer the 'bad' consequences??

Yeshi

I think its exactly the other way around:

The absolute morality develops according to your understanding of what effects which actions have causally. Karma = action (in Sanskrit i think).

You suffer the consequences of your deliberate actions all the time, you're just not AWARE of it.

Vajradhara

Namaste meritocrat,

thank you for the post.

The Buddha said:

"I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition is Karma. Having willed one acts by body, speech, and thought." (Anguttara Nikaya)

what our intentions in our innermost being are when we perform an action is what generates karma. karma can be positive, negative or neutral and it is the result of the intentions behind the actions that we take.

if our intentions are to help others, then we generate positive karma. if our intention is to harm others, we generate negative karma and if our intentions are rather muddled, we'll generate neutral karma (or both positive and negative karma, depending on one's tradition).

further, karma is but one of 24 other psychological factors that determine ones rebirth.

Karma is action, and Vipaka, fruit or result, is its reaction. Just as every object is accompanied by a shadow, even so every volitional activity is inevitably accompanied by its due effect. Karma is like potential seed: Vipaka could be likened to the fruit arising from the tree – the effect or result. Anisamsa and Adinaya are the leaves, flowers and so forth that correspond to external differences such as health, sickness and poverty – these are inevitable consequences, which happen at the same time. Strictly speaking, both Karma and Vipaka pertain to the mind.

As Karma may be good or bad, so may Vipaka, - the fruit – is good or bad. As Karma is mental so Vipaka is mental (of the mind). It is experienced as happiness, bliss, unhappiness or misery, according to the nature of the Karma seed. Anisamsa are the concomitant advantages – material things such as prosperity, health and longevity. When Vipaka’s concomitant material things are disadvantageous, they are known as Adinaya, full of wretchedness, and appear as poverty, ugliness, disease, short life-span and so forth.

As we sow, we reap somewhere and sometime, in his life or in a future birth. What we reap today is what we have sown either in the present or in the past.

Now, it should be said that this isn't fixed... we can change our karma at this very moment! this isn't the same thing as "fate" or "predestination"... the Buddhist doctrine of Karma doesn't espouse such fatalistic views. Though we are bound to reap the fruit of what we have sown, we are not bound to perpetuate the planting of the seeds. we can pull the weeds from the garden and plant new, positive seeds, in the here and now to effectively change or mitigate our karma.

andy_d

To a degree, yes.

I only understand karma from the Buddhist perspective, and I believe there are differences with the Hindu perspective, but I can't speak authoritively on those. I'd actually be quite interested in hearing the Hindu take on it

But to address your question, Buddhism does hold to a few absolutes. In particular that actions which work to the benefit of (ie: empower, educate and uplift) beings are considered essentially positive. Those actions which oppress and harm are considered inherantly negative.

I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that this is a fundamentally humanist viewpoint. Buddhist morality is entirely humanistic.

It may also be worth mentioning that karma isn't considered a system of reward or punishment for adhering to a moral code. It's considered that positive and negative thoughts and actions, are their own punishment and reward. Positive activity stems from and reinforces a positive mindstate, and negative activity vice versa. Our mindstate at any time is inherantly dependant on past thoughts and actions, and these determine the choices we make in the future. Many beneficial impressions help lead to a more positive outlook, for example, which means we make better decisions and live more happily. Thus past positive actions reward us by enabling us to be better people. Past negative actions will punish us by causing us to remain in a misguided and confused mindset.

Additionally, not everything that occurs is karmic. Shit really does just happen

hinduwoman

According to what I understood in Hinduism morality is context dependent. So the same karma would not bring same reward or punishment.
There is no absolute morality as such.

lenrek

In Buddhism, bad or unwholesome, good or wholesome kamma is defined.

Basically, if an action (either mental or physically) is done associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a bad kamma.

If it is done not associate with greed, anger, fear or ignorant, then it is a good kamma.

Yeshi

Actually, your active WILL has to be in to DO the action in order for it to carry the karmic effect onto your mindstream: you conscious decision and will to do it has to be there.

Also, your second sentence indicates neutral karma: it bears no fruit.

Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help.

lenrek

Your explanation of kamma is very unique to me. I am not sure where does this understanding of kamma (of yours) based on. However, since I am a student under the Theravada tradition, I can only explain based on this tradition.

First, _only_ enlightened being (Buddhas and Arahants) has so call action that does not bear any kammic effect. All other beings that are unskilled, undeveloped and uncultivated will have action that is either wholesome or unwholesome kamma.

Unwholesome kamma will bring effect that is associated with suffering. Wholesome kamma will bring effect that is not associated with suffering. However, this does not mean wholesome kamma will always be associated with pleasure feeling. It is possible, the wholesome kamma bring result as in neutral feeling.

For example, a person who fall sick. For him, simple daily task like walking, eating or speaking can be a torturing experience. But a person who is healthy, can do all this action with ease. Sometime, these actions does not bring pleasure feeling at all. Compare this two persons, who has done a better or wholesome kamma to receive this result? Definitely the healthy person.

Another example, blind man walk on a heated floor made of steel. If the bind man walked with bear feet, he will feel painfully feeling. Another blink man walked with heat protection shoes, he can walk with ease on that floor. He won't even know he had walked on it. Now, compare these two persons, who has done a good or wholesome kamma to receive this result? Definitely the blind man with heat proctection shoes.

Kamma gave result, kamma cause rebirth. The purpose of practising The Teaching of The Buddha is to one day be freed from this cycle of rebirth, and break this chain of kamma. If an unenlightened being is capable of achieving action that does not carry kammic effect, then there is no reason for him to practise Buddhism. All he has to do is continuously practise these actions (that does not carry kammic effect), he will one day end his next rebirth and thus free from this world.

The reason why an uncultivated individual unable to act an action that does not carry kammic effect, is due to his or her undeveloped mind. That mind is easily swayed, overwhelmed and corrupted by greed, anger or fear, and delusion. If he can temporary free himself from these unwholesome states, he (at that moment) has done a wholesome kamma.

If a person practise meditation to achieve Jhana, he can temporary suppress these unwholesome states of mind. And with this powerful achievement, his next rebirth will be in the Jhana plane. Live among the gods of brahmas for aeons. There is no intention here to help others, yet he achieved such fortunate wholesome kammic result. Thus the statement: "Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help" is not entirely true.

Yeshi

very interesting discussion, thank you for elaborating.

If we leave aside the aspect of the (subjective) suffering, we are left with two original premises that i added the third to.

This i think (i might be wrong) is exactly the differentiation betwen Therawada and Mahayana: reaching the Liberation of Samadhi/Absorption, and getting free of five poisons: although it will grant you a higher rebirth, it is still not the full Enlightenment.

Reaching even the Brahma heavens is not the aim of buddhism: it is still a samsaric realm, bound to rebounce into lower rebirth, even after aeons.

From the step of a Liberated Arhat, or Pratyekabuddha, that is the realization state of Therawada, the Buddha Sakyamuni, already within the reach of full Nirvana turns back and decides to speak: to help the other beings caught in endless suffering for Aeons.

Why does he turn back to teach in following decades?

He returns to teach with the INTENTION to help other sentient beings.

lenrek

Perhaps I was not clear in what I had wrote...

We should start the discussion based on common understanding among the various schools of Buddhism. As any constructive discussion is always built on top of a common ground, before branching to various needs.

Now, what is common among various schools of Buddhism? There are:

1) All conditioned phenomena and existence are impermanent.

2) Since all phenomena is impermanent, therefore 'self' (which also a conditioned phenomena or existence), is also impermanent. Clinging to whatever that impermanent will only result in suffering. Since existence is impermanent, it will one day disappear. He who cling on things that does not last forever, will experience suffering when it disappeared.

3) The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to free from suffering. Free from clinging to any impermanent phenomena or existence. This will include freeing from clinging to this very 'self'. The only way to achieve this, is by gaining the ultimate goal of Enlightenment,which is Nibbana.

Therefore, the ultimate goal of Theravada tradition is also toward Nibbana. Under Theravada tradition, there is no different in the establishment of Nibbana between Buddhas and Arahants.

Thus, the establishment of jhana (though praiseworthy) is not the ultimate goal. I use this example of achieving jhana as a way to show the following statement:

Good karma is generated when you do good deeds towards other beings with the INTENTION to help

Is not entirely true. When a person striving for jhana, he or she does so without the intention to help other beings. That individual is striving for his own achievement. And this striving of jhana is a wholesome action (one that is not associating with greed, hatred and delusion). This achievement or result is a wholesome or good kammic result. In fact, if we review this statement more carefully, questions will arise, how should we define "good deed"? How should we also define (good) "intention"? This will go back to what I have been trying to say. Which is:

If an action is done, with intention, that is associating or rooted in greed, hatred (In Buddhism, anger and fear can be grouped and termed as hatred), or delusion, then that deed, kamma, or intention will not be wholesome.

If an action is done, with intention, that is not associating nor rooted in greed, hatred or delusion (or ignorant), then that deed, kamma, intention will be good or wholesome.

The problem with this statement is that it suggest good kamma is generated when we do good deed toward "other" beings. What about this "self"? This self is also a being. Unfortunately it has been neglected. We should change it to "all beings" as this will include ourselves. Therefore the statement should be changed (based on discussion above) as:

Good kamma is generated when we do good deeds towards all beings with good intention.

Perhaps, you should refer to this book: The Roots of Good and Evil by the late Great Venerable Nyanaponika Thera. This may help in understanding how Theravada Buddhism define wholesome and unwholesome kamma.

If we trace the steps of Enlightenment of The Buddha, we notice, His initial intention was towards "inaction". It is after surveying the world with the eye of Buddha, He notice, there are individuals who have the potential to gain enlightenment. It is based on this understanding, that He taught the Dhamma. You can read more about The Enlightenment of The Buddha in The Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima Nikaya), sutta no 26, title: The Noble Search.

Now, If a Buddha, after surveying the world and realised there is no one that has potential to gain enlightenment, he will remain "inaction" or silent. That Buddha will become a Paccekabuddha (Pratyekabuddha). It is not that Paccekabuddha has no compassion to all beings, is just that there no one that he can teach.

And yes, all enlightened beings (arahant or buddha) have good intention. If an enlightened being does not have good intention, then he or she is not enlightened. There is no dispute in this.

However, there is a need to repeat one thing. Actions of enlightened beings will never carry any kammic effect or result. All unenlightened beings, when action or volition occurred, there will always be kammic effect. And they will be either wholesome or unwholesome.

PS: I cannot comprehend what you trying to say:

Perhaps you wish to clarify, if it is important...