(Source)


Karma is the law of moral causation. The theory of Karma is a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism. This belief was prevalent in India before the advent of the Buddha. Nevertheless, it was the Buddha who explained and formulated this doctrine in the complete form in which we have it today.

What is the cause of the inequality that exists among mankind?
Why should one person be brought up in the lap of luxury, endowed with fine mental, moral and physical qualities, and another in absolute poverty, steeped in misery?
Why should one person be a mental prodigy, and another an idiot?
Why should one person be born with saintly characteristics and another with criminal tendencies?
Why should some be linguistic, artistic, mathematically inclined, or musical from the very cradle?
Why should others be congenitally blind, deaf, or deformed?|
Why should some be blessed, and others cursed from their births?

Either this inequality of mankind has a cause, or it is purely accidental. No sensible person would think of attributing this unevenness, this inequality, and this diversity to blind chance or pure accident.

In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve. Usually, men of ordinary intellect cannot comprehend the actual reason or reasons. The definite invisible cause or causes of the visible effect is not necessarily confined to the present life, they may be traced to a proximate or remote past birth.

According to Buddhism, this inequality is due not only to heredity, environment, "nature and nurture", but also to Karma. In other words, it is the result of our own past actions and our own present doings. We ourselves are responsible for our own happiness and misery. We create our own Heaven. We create our own Hell. We are the architects of our own fate.

Perplexed by the seemingly inexplicable, apparent disparity that existed among humanity, a young truth-seeker approached the Buddha and questioned him regarding this intricate problem of inequality:

"What is the cause, what is the reason, O Lord," questioned he, "that we find amongst mankind the short-lived and long-lived, the healthy and the diseased, the ugly and beautiful, those lacking influence and the powerful, the poor and the rich, the low-born and the high-born, and the ignorant and the wise?"

The Buddha’s reply was:

"All living beings have actions (Karma) as their own, their inheritance, their congenital cause, their kinsman, their refuge. It is Karma that differentiates beings into low and high states."

He then explained the cause of such differences in accordance with the law of cause and effect.

Certainly we are born with hereditary characteristics. At the same time we possess certain innate abilities that science cannot adequately account for. To our parents we are indebted for the gross sperm and ovum that form the nucleus of this so-called being. They remain dormant within each parent until this potential germinal compound is vitalised by the karmic energy needed for the production of the foetus. Karma is therefore the indispensable conceptive cause of this being.

The accumulated karmic tendencies, inherited in the course of previous lives, at times play a far greater role than the hereditary parental cells and genes in the formation of both physical and mental characteristics.

The Buddha, for instance, inherited, like every other person, the reproductive cells and genes from his parents. But physically, morally and intellectually there was none comparable to him in his long line of Royal ancestors. In the Buddha’s own words, he belonged not to the Royal lineage, but to that of the Aryan Buddhas. He was certainly a superman, an extraordinary creation of his own Karma.

According to the Lakkhana Sutta of Digha Nikaya, the Buddha inherited exceptional features, such as the 32 major marks, as the result of his past meritorious deeds. The ethical reason for acquiring each physical feature is clearly explained in the Sutta.

It is obvious from this unique case that karmic tendencies could not only influence our physical organism, but also nullify the potentiality of the parental cells and genes – hence the significance of the Buddha’s enigmatic statement, - "We are the heirs of our own actions." (Continues)





Further Reading:

Karma Yoga

In understanding karma, (in the Buddhist sense, not the Hindu sense) it is necessary to understand what karma is not.

* karma is not the belief that everything is a result of acts in previous lives.
* karma is not the belief that all is the result of creation by a supreme being.
* karma is not predestination.
* karma is not the belief that everything arises without a cause.
* karma is not someone getting their comeuppance for misdeeds done in the past - karma is not a universal justice system.

The word karma simply means "action." Karma is a process. Karma is neither predestination nor determination imposed on us. We are the architects of our karma. Karma has nothing to do with right and wrong, good and bad. In the language of science karma is acknowledged as being the law of cause and effect.

In the eyes of most non-Buddhists karma functions like fate, an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. That's not karma at all. I've often heard people sigh, "Oh, that's just my karma" when bad things strike and they see no alternative to resigned acceptance.

The fatalism implicit in these types of statements is one reason why so many people are repelled by the concept of karma. "He's poor, must be bad karma." "She lost her job, it's because of her bad karma." These misconceptions come from the fact that Buddhism and the concept of karma came to the West at the same time as Hinduism. Hinduism sees karma as linear, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result there is no room for free will within Hindu beliefs. It is this karma that gets confused with the Buddhist notion of karma.

Karma in the Buddhist sense is simply "reaping what you sew." Our actions determine our lives, it's that simple. There's nothing mystical or magical about it, and it certainly has nothing to do with "past lives" or "future lives." Karma also has no effect on anyone else, or anything else but you.

A couple of points of issue. Damn you Batman!:p



This is what creates the mentality that karma is some type of cosmic brownie point system, rather than simply your actions. A way to lay blame for something in your life to an external source. "Dogs always growl at me, I must've kicked a puppy in a past life." In following this line of thinking, actions become attached to the notion of reward and punishment.

Of course this idea of karma also implies that the atman (immortal soul) is true. Buddha taught the doctrine of anatman (no-soul).

{sidebar: explanation of anatman. Anatman is not a denial of some form of spiritual energy. It is rather a teaching that states that the soul is dependent on the body and the body is dependent on the soul. Consider a person-shaped clear glass bottle filled with air. While the air is inside the bottle it conforms to the shape of the bottle, if the bottle breaks or is emptied (Death) the air escapes and becomes formless. Air can be put into another bottle but the likelyhood of every single molecule of air from the previous bottle is naught. Interestingly enough, prana and qi (chi) are words used by some to indicate some type of "spiritual energy" but literally translate to "breath".}




I don't agree with any sort of treatment of Gautama Buddha as a "superman". To me this implies that the Buddha is the only one who has reached "enlightenment" and that the Way is to chase a shadow.

You realize this is going to get your Bat utility belt and tights, pinched right off ya!?

I don't quite understand your point Rev. This is why. The site I shared that OP from, is the site you PM'd me so that we might further the studies on Buddhism, with our children. So if they are misleading in what Karma is, why would you suggest their website as a excellent resource for learning about Buddhism, as a child?

Cool analogy

Perhaps I should have followed Jun's habit of saying "In my experience...", but I'm not Jun though. I've seen some pictures and there are some similarities, but I digress...

Buddhanet has a lot of good resources. Their explanations of the 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path (the core of the Buddha Dharma) are really good. Recommending it doesn't and shouldn't imply that I agree with everything that is presented there.

The author of the article is from a different tradition of Buddhist thought than I. His experience of the Way is different. I didn't say he was wrong or that he is deliberately misleading potential students of the Way, I just disagree with that line of thinking.

Understood. As said, we are just beginning the studies of Buddhism. So I was not aware that in the tradition of Buddhism there were different understandings of the one Karma theory. I appreciate your clarification on the matter.

One slight problem though. I auctioned the Bat gear on EBay. Hey! Gotta afford that Buddha book eventually ya know. And man tights and a nifty utility belt, pay big bucks! So you have a little draft and nothing to hold up the Bat undies. Problem!?

Glad you liked. Use it as much as you want.



No prob GW. The teachings of the Buddha are meant to be interpreted through individual intellect and understood through individual practice rather than a singular interpretation being passed down as the absolute meaning. Though, if you peruse a bookstore's Buddhism section you may be led to believe that Tibetan Buddhism is the only form.





I think I'll adapt.

As is the case. I appreciate your enlightenment on the subject.

Woo hoo!

I'm trying to get over that hang-up against pontificating (Preaching does kinda come natural to me), gotta watch the barbs though.





Quit ogling my saffron speedo.

I tried. I failed.


Well, the kids are away for the summer, so I started thinking about what you said and figured, since we're early on in that aspect of study, I'd search out more about the different types of Buddhism.

As you said, if one goes to a bookstore one gets the impression there is predominantly one type. So I found this link. Tell me your thoughts, and perhaps it shall also further this over all discussion, here. I'm always looking to learn more, so I can help teach them as we learn together.


Source: Good Questions & Good Answers (**Click the arrow on the top right of that page, to go to the main menu)



Why are there so many different types of Buddhism?
There are many different types of sugar: brown sugar, white sugar, rock sugar, syrup and icing sugar but it is all sugar and it all tastes sweet. It is produced in different forms so that it can be used in different ways. Buddhism is the same: there is Theravada Buddhism, Zen Buddhism, Pure Land Buddhism, Yogacara Buddhism and Vajrayana Buddhism but it is all Buddhism and it all has the same taste - the taste of freedom. Buddhism has evolved into different forms so that it can be relevant to the different cultures in which it exists. It has been reinterpreted over the centuries so that it can remain relevant to each new generation. Outwardly, the types of Buddhism may seem very different but at the centre of all of them is the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. All major religions, Buddhism included, have split into schools and sects. But the different sects of Buddhism have never gone to war with each other and to this day, they go to each other's temples and worship together. Such tolerance and understanding is certainly rare.

If only that were true.



The author has not studied Buddhist history. Buddhism is no different from any other practice. Certainly there have never been any invasions of other lands in the name of Buddhism, but to state that the different sects of Buddhism have never warred with each other is to deny the thousands upon thousands who have died in wars over differences in Buddhist doctrines and practices.

Is that a hint of bitterness Jun my friend?





Why do you suppose this is overlooked?

Bitterness, no. It's just unfortunate. Naturally all around us is subject to our interpretation and adaptation. Sometimes the interpretations of others take certain original teachings and mould them into something other than what they were intended to be, often the reverse of what they were intended for.

I don't know why the wars carried out by Buddhist armies/soldiers in the name of Buddhist doctrine are overlooked. It could be due to the limited amount of historical documentation that is translated into English? It could also be due to idealistic thinking, a wish that somehow the teachings have not been sullied?

But that's why we have guys like you.



I have a gut feeling it may be the second option. One of my co-workers is Indian, so I asked if it was talked about in Indian history. He said, no Buddhists never fought. Interesting, no?

I'm too little to affect anything great.



As an Indian I suppose he wouldn't know. There were no battles fought in the name of Buddhism in India. Only minor arguments which resulted in the schisms we have today.

I was referring to the great Buddhist armies of China and Japan and their rival wars. For an in-depth discussion of the historical situation in Japan and the warrior monks in English see - "The Gates of Power" by Adolphson.

Even a small pebble can spread ripples across a pond.

Indeed. Look at Albert Einstein's history. A petite little man, that as a child was sent home by his elementary school teacher, with a note pinned to his shirt , that said he was "unlearnable".

A small stone, that made a ripple in eternity and taught a teacher a thing or two.