Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:11, 23 November 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karma article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Yoga This article is within the scope of WikiProject Yoga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Yoga, Hatha yoga, Yoga as exercise and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YogaWikipedia:WikiProject YogaTemplate:WikiProject YogaYoga ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Hinduism: Philosophy Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HinduismWikipedia:WikiProject HinduismTemplate:WikiProject HinduismHinduism Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Philosophy task force (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Spirituality High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jainism Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style – Naming conventionsJainismWikipedia:WikiProject JainismTemplate:WikiProject JainismJainism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Buddhism High‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Religion / Eastern High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of religion Eastern philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Needs attention of Buddhist scholar

Quite a few statements here seem dubious or not in accord with the Buddhist teachings.

I'm not a Buddhist scholar. The Buddhist sutras are vast, few Buddhists have read them all (unlike the koran or the bible). And they also come with many commentaries by later writers - and you can spend your life studying just one sutra.

So - I'm not speaking as a scholar. But have been taught by teachers well versed in the Buddhist sutras. I have had the good fortune to receive many teachings in the Tibetan tradition (mainly the Nyingmapa tradition but also heard teachngs from prominent teachers in the Kagyu and Gelugpa traditions, including a series of teachings by the Dalai Lama in London also long ago), as well as also been to at least a few teachings in other traditions also including Korean Zen, and the monks of Amaravati (Therevadhan Thai).

So one way and another seems I've heard some teachings in many (though not all) of the main Buddhist traditions. And none of them taught like this.

Example: Access to wonderful teachings and inspiring examples to follow is a result of karma, decision to follow either of those is not

And that is a case in point in fact. Anyone reading this has access to many wonderful teachings in many different traditions (of course not just Buddhism). And more importantly, the opportunity to put those teachings into practice in your life.

According to the Buddhist teachings, those opportunities results from past karma. But the decisions a practioner may make to listen to teachings - and to reflect on them - and then to put them into practice in their lives - those actions are not the result of karma.

Same applies if anyone decides to devote their lives to helping others, in whatever way. You have the good karma to be born in a world with many inspiring examples of others in this world to show such a life is possible. But your decision to dedicate your own life in the same way is not a result of karma. To suppose any of this results from karma is to misunderstand the notion of karma.

In all this I am of course talking about karma as it is explained in Buddhist teachings.

And indeed the Buddhist teachings, specifically the four noble truths, are incompatible with predestination. Because they teach a path that leads to freedom from the cycle of karma and rebirth.

karma that will "liberate one to nirvana"??

"Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of saṃsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna."

I don't think there are karmas that liberate you to nirvana, at any rate never heard a teacher say this in the teachings I've been to. Are karma connections that can connect you to the teachings, and help you find your way out of samsara if you make the decision to listen to the teachings, reflect on them, and put them into practice. But the teachings, and the good karma to encounter those teachings will not liberate you by themselves.

In the sutras some of the Buddha's disciples became liberated almost instantly as a result of hearing just a few words of the dharma. But still, I don't think you can say that the karma of hearing those words is what liberated them,. They had to listen and reflect on what was said, so they were putting the teachings into practice in their lives even if that also happened very quickly in their cases.

One thing the teachers say is that no Buddha and no teaching can forcibly liberate anyone. You have to find your own way to freedom from the binds of karma. All Buddhas can do is to point the way, hint at the path. And there is an inspiration you can access, which is beyond what we normally think of as our confined selves, or it would be impossible. But that inspiration also can't free you by itself, or you would already be free from samsara.

Here is an example, someone who had the good karma to meet the Buddha right after he was enlightened, the first person he met afterwards:

"Who are you friend? Your face is so clear and bright, your manner is awesome and serene. Surely you must have discovered some great truth - who is your teacher, friend and what is it that you have discovered?"

The newly-awakened Buddha replied: "I am an All- transcender, an All-knower. I have no teacher. In all the world I alone am fully enlightened. There is none who taught me this - I came to it through my own efforts."

"Do you mean to say that you claim to have won victory over birth and death?"

"Indeed friend I am a Victorious One; and now, in this world of the spiritually blind, I go to Benares to beat the drum of Deathlessness."

"Well, good for you friend," said Upaka and, shaking his

head as he went, he left by a different path.

The Buddha's first encounter after enlightenment

The good karma of meeting the Buddha didn't liberate him.

As I said, I'm not a scholar, may be some subtle nuance or point I'm missing here. But if so, what is the sutra support for this, and in what sense can it be considered true? How can karma liberate you from the cycle of karma and rebirth?

• Thanks for the interest; Absolutely your argument is not unfair. You can find a pundit here is Sri Lanka & in Burma. At the moment your quotation did not included in the main article Karma. To my best of knowledge Saṅkhāra is what related to Karma. So you have to overcome Karma by reducing ignorance &migrating with 8-fold path, Finally understanding Anitya,_Dukkha,_Anatma.Kalakannija (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this was fixed by Dorje108 a while back. He rewrote the Karma#Buddhism section of this page which is where this statement was. Robert Walker (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

devoid of free will, wicked victims, necessary punishment

"A person who kills, rapes or commits any other unjust act, can claim all his bad actions were a product of his karma, he is devoid of free will, he can not make a choice, he is an agent of karma, and that he merely delivering necessary punishments his "wicked" victims deserved for their own karma in past lives"

All these are incompatible with the Buddhist teachings.

This just isn't a Buddhist way of thinking about things. No Buddhist would say that he or she is delivering necessary punishments and the idea of a wicked victim who deserves punishment is a Western one not in Eastern religions. Not ever heard a Buddhist teacher or indeed any of the Buddhist practioners, even Westerners listening to the teachings and discussing them as practitioners, in my experience nobody has ever said this. It's a purely Western obsession and perspective AFAIK.

Blaming oneself for suffering caused by past bad karma

" Does a person who suffers from the unnatural death of a loved one, or rape or any other unjust act, assume a moral agent, gratuitous harm and seek justice? Or, should one blame oneself for bad karma over past lives, assume that the unjust suffering is fate?"

Blame is irrelevant. Word just isn't used in the teachings, I don't think you'll find the word anywhere in the Buddhist sutras, at least not in this Western sense. I'd be surprised anyway certainly none of the teachers I've been to ever used the word in its western sense. Except in the sense of talking about it as an issue or foible that Western practitioners have to deal with.

You just don't think about karma like that. Everyone has mixed karma from endless past lives. And the Buddha taught in his example of the Parable of the Poisoned Arrow not to try to trace back through past karma to try to see where your situation came from. Kind of the opposite of psychoanalysis in a way.

All that agonizing again is a purely Western thing, not in the Buddhist teachings and not an issue for its practitioners following the path - except - as one of the many hangups some Westerners have and have to deal with as they meditate, not from the teachings, but from outside of them, things they can use the teachings to address.

Idea that karma undermines moral education because all suffering is deserved and the result of past wickedness

"Does the karma doctrine undermine the incentive for moral-education because all suffering is deserved and consequence of past lives, why learn anything when the balance sheet of karma from past lives will determine one's action and sufferings?"

Again question doesn't even arise in context of Buddhist teachings. You don't have the idea of whether suffering is deserved or not. It's just suffering. Yes was caused by things you did in the past, but that doesn't make it either deserved or undeserved. Any more than, e.g. that you deserve to stub your toe if you don't notice a stone on the path as you walk. If you stub your toe, your toe hurts, end of story :).

In Buddhist teaching the root cause of all suffering is ignorance or confusion (variously translated). Not wickedness.

An example here would be the story of Angulimala who murdered many people in his lifetime in the same lifetime he met the Buddha - and he tried to murder the Buddha also. Interestingly he did it out of ignorance because his previous teacher had told him he had to do this so he did it out of respect and faith in the teachings of his previous teacher. And after his encounter, he became one of the Buddhas disciples. And never murdered anyone after he met the Buddha. And was attributed with healing powers because of the purity with which he kept his vow of not killing after he met the Buddha.

So that was a big thing for him such a turn around of his actions from a serial killer who killed 999 people, individually, one after another, to a healer who was able to help a woman in childbirth. Pretty clear that "deserve" in its Western sense has no relevance here.

And the aim is to free from the cycle of samsara and suffering. And your actions are not determined by your past lives. The Buddhist idea of karma is much more flexible than that, that's a misunderstanding of some Westerners. Your situation is, things about your personality, maybe even things like tendency to anger or whatever. But you can work on that and do something about it - that's the whole point in the Buddha's teachings.

Idea that a Buddhist practioners is psychologically unclear what if anything he or she can do now to shape the future, be more happy, reduce suffering

"Another issue with the theory of karma is that it is psychologically indeterminate, suggests Obeyesekere. That is, (1) if no one can know what their karma was in previous lives, and (2) if the karma from past lives can determine one's future, then the individual is psychologically unclear what if anything he or she can do now to shape the future, be more happy, reduce suffering. If something goes wrong - such as sickness or failure at work - the individual is unclear if karma from past lives was the cause, or the sickness was caused by curable infection and the failure was caused by something correctable."

Again that is just not applicable to Buddhist teachings as I've been taught them. Far from being pysychologically unclear about what you can do to shape the future, the teaching is about a path that leads you to freedom from suffering and all the chains of samsara. Could hardly be further away from each other those two views.

God's plan

"This psychological indeterminacy problem is also not unique to the theory of karma; it is found in every religion with the premise that God has a plan, or in some way influences human events. "

Buddhism doesn't have the idea that God has a plan for humanity. It doesn't even have the question "is there a God"?

Buddhist cosmology does inherit Hindu ideas of devas - which are long lived beings that are sometimes called gods. But they die like everyone else, just have enormously long lives, at least as they are represented in the Buddhist teachings. And the Buddhas, they are no longer bound by space and time, in some of the traditions, freed from those bounds along with everything else - but that doesn't make them able to shape or plan out things for others. In some of the Buddhist teachings we are all Buddhas if only we knew it. And we all have the same power as a Buddha in a sense - they can't shape our lives because we are as powerful as them, in a sense - can draw from the same sources - the same well in a way - but we turn all that our power back on itself to preserve our comfortable delusions (with all their painful consequences).

Seriously flawed if meant to present ideas of karma as understood in Buddhism

I could go on. But is enough to show - that this article is seriously flawed if it is meant to present ideas of karma as understood in Buddhism. I can't speak to Hindu teachings, only been to one teaching in the Hindu tradition so don't know much about that, but given how far off the mark it is for Buddhist teachings, I doubt if the Hindu is any better.

This article may be a reasonable account of issues that Westerners have with trying to reconcile their ideas with Eastern ideas of karma. If so perhaps if it was rephrased like that - as issues for Westerners who want to incorporate ideas of karma, say into Christian or Muslim tradiations - if presented like that it might be a valuable article as is.

But not as an account of karma as it is understood within those traditions themselves.

Many excellent articles here. See the article "Karma in Buddhism" for the Buddhist ideas about karma

There are many excellent articles here in wikipedia about the Buddhist teachings.

Also there is an excellent article Karma in Buddhism which presents ideas correctly AFAIK. See the sections Overcoming habitual tendencies and Characteristics e.g. the section Karma does not imply predestination saying some of the same things I've been saying here.

Suggestion - to put the existing arguments into the Western section under "Western reinterpretations of Buddhism and Hinduism"

Perhaps the current Karma#Corollaries and controversies section could be retained but put into the Western section as "Corollaries and controversies in Western reinterpretations of Buddhism and Hinduism" or some such, and just a thought?

Needs attention of expert in Buddhist teachings

I think there may be good Buddhist scholars here who can sort out these issues, as there are so many excellent articles that show good Buddhist scholarship.

I've added a "need attention of expert" tag. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I can help with some or all, from where would you like to start? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Great! Well first is just a suggestion but one idea is to expand the Buddhism section. Hopefully, that would be reasonably straightforward for someone with the necessary background. The Hindu section is far longer and seems reasonable to have an equal length section on the Buddhist ideas, if the basics of Karma in Buddhism can be distilled down to a screen page or so.

I'm not so sure about the "Controversies and Corollaries" Perhaps move to a sub-section of Western Interpretation? It would need to be edited to make clear it is not about the Buddhist and Hindu ideas as such but rather Western interpretations of those ideas. With that it would be good to have feedback from editors knowledgeable about those interpretations and the context of the debates there. I've never encountered any of those ideas about karma myself and don't know the context. Does anyone else here know more about it?

Or maybe that should be opened as a discussion for other editors to voice their views for a while, what to do about that section, in case anyone has better ideas about what to do. Do you have any thoughts about that? Robert Walker (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

People who visit this page, they try to find more references or explanations that are supporting and backing this concept. There are many scriptures belonging to Hinduism, they have relevant theories about this concept. Now because Hinduism has so many scriptures talking about Karma, obviously the section of Hinduism would be bigger than others.

Controversies and Corollaries can be moved to western interpretation, but have you got any better title for the new subsection? Bladesmulti (talk) 14:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh surprised to hear you say that. Karma of course is central to Buddhism also. Buddhism also has a vast set of scriptures - with the Tripiṭaka and Pāli Canon running to many volumes. As I'm not a scholar, I have no idea how many of those are devoted to teachings about karma. On the other hand I suppose Buddhism is a smaller religion world wide, with 360 million compared to 900 million in this table, don't know if that is a consideration for the length of the section..

At any rate however long it is, the Buddhism section should be accurate and clear, and address the main distinguishing points of Buddhist ideas of karma enough for the reader to have some idea what they are. I think it needs attention of a Buddhist scholar. The current version briefly mentions some Therevadha ideas which I hadn't heard of, and doesn't say much at all. For instance I think it should say at least a bit about the Characteristics of Karma in the Buddhist teachings, even if it is just a one paragraph summary of what those characteristics are. That may help the reader have a clearer idea of the Buddhist teachings on Karma enough to compare with the other ideas of Karma on this page.

Or, as a place holder - maybe we could just add those as a bulleted list at the end of that subsection? Just a thought.

* Karma does not imply predestination

* Karmic results are not a judgement

* Karmic results are nearly impossible to predict with precision

* Karmic results can manifest quickly or be delayed for lifetimes

Perhaps if we just added that after the existing paras it would help? Seem to be amongst the main points needed to make a comparison with other ideas of karma on this page. I think the existing para should also be rewritten but I am not up to that.

Yes, I think that's a good idea to move the corollaries and controversies. I had never come across those particular ways of thinking about karma until yesterday when I read that section. So this is just a result of following up the references.

It refers for instance to Karma, Rebirth and the Problem of Evil and a google search turned up this response also: Karma and the Problem of Evil: A Response to Kaufman

As far as I can gather these papers attempt to use ideas from Hindu and Buddhist notions of Karma to construct a Theodicy. Wkipedia defines a Theodicy as "the attempt to answer the question of why a good God permits the manifestation of evil".

So perhaps have a section "Use of ideas from Hindu and Buddhist notions of Karma to construct a Theodicy in Theist religions" and have this as a subsection of that? What do you think, might that work? Maybe put it after Christianity and before Other religions? Robert Walker (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to say, Dorje108 has offered to help clarify the Buddhism section of this page when he has time - I said there is no hurry surely. See Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Main_Karma_article_needs_attention I notice he has already removed the sentence that I flagged above as apparently incompatible with the Buddhist teaching. Thanks!

As you see below Ozanyarman has an issue with the corollaries and controversies section. He thinks it should remain as a section criticizing Hindu and Buddhist ideas of Karma. So probably that needs to be discussed. I've given my reply - if anyone else has thoughts on this do comment! Robert Walker (talk) 01:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Buddhist bias should be avoided

Arguments put forth on how karma has been misrepresented according to the core tenets of Buddhism is not a fundamental issue here. The protest is mainly by Robert Walker whom I know to adhere to the Mahayana sect of Buddhism rushing in defense of karma as a key article of his faith given its mentioned rational consequences on section 4: "Corollaries and controversies". The section in question need not reflect the views of Buddhism when addressing obvious contradictions that accompany the adoption of samsaric karma as the driving mechanism behind the conditions, situations and destinations of all living beings anywhere and anywhen throughout reality. This is no more different than when a Muslim Asharite viewpoint should not dominate a subject on evident contradictions regarding how the justness of Allah cannot possibly harmonize with occasionalist predestination which suggests that all human actions (good and evil) are dependent in their origination on the Will of Allah. (E.g. why should the heathen be punished in hell-fire if his actions were dictated to him by Allah and he could thus not be held accountable for them?)

Without getting lost in subtleties that pertain to a belief or non-belief in karma as seperate from the main purpose of this article, or being distracted by how the seeding and fruition of karma can best be described as ignorance or confusion instead of suffering, evil, judgement, reward or punishment (which I think is engaging in mere word-play at this stage), it is straightforward to demonstrate that, even under the strictest Buddhist understanding of karma in all its non-trivial jargon, a limitless (perpetually extending) number of karmic seeds ripening every instant of now implies (as per the logical outcome of the preposition of samsara) full causality and determinism to the preclusion of free will. One is hence burdened to explain the means by which the chain of karmic causality can be broken before one could even begin to talk of a person's ability to choose an action as independent of the fruition of past karmic seeds, and ergo, attain responsibility or practice morality.

The seperate notion of a causality of nature running alongside the causality of karma enacted by countless past deliberate acts by innumerable living beings may not be used to explain how human volition can arise either. The two roads of causality ("nature" versus "intentional karma") still does not make free will. Since karma is all-governing by default based on the notion of eternally re-occuring infinite number of life-times, their influence would eventually leak into the causality of nature based on countless past interactions with matter (including the "supernatural"). Therefore, the conclusion is yet another paradox that karma means no karma, given that it turns out to be not anymore "intentional", but "materialistic" in origin (a vicious circle). In other words, all of the material world is also the result of karma, or vice versa, karma is a result of the material world. Even so, Buddhists avoid to explain how choice can happen, all the while claiming that it can co-exist with karma without being sufficiently clear on the subject. They are furthermore discouraged by their belief to ponder upon the extent of karmic results and thus the boundaries of free will, which adds to the ambiguity. When in peril, the line between karma and accident (meaningless happenstance) is held flexible to sidestep the apparent contradictions outlined in the section.

"Karma in Buddhism" already covers the details on karma that can satisfy Buddhists. The editors should be wary of attempts trying to introduce Buddhist bias into the contradictions section of this topic, and perhaps furthermore expand it using logical arguments given here based on additional paradoxical problems with karma. Ozanyarman (talk 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Original reply since it's been broken up below to the extent it becomes unreadable

Just to say, AFAIK Kaufmann in his article was not attempting a criticism of the Buddhist and Hindu faiths.

Yes, I am a Buddhist practitioner in the Nyingmapa tradition, that's the first thing I said above. But when it comes to exogesis of Buddhist ideas, then you need to present them as the Buddhists understand them.

If you want to criticize them, then start with the ideas themselves, not a Westernized version of them. As soon as you talk about predestination and just punishment for wickedness, then the ideas are no longer Buddhist.

Ozan claims that both those ideas are an inevitable consequence of Buddhist ideas of karma, and therefore the section is discussing Buddhist ideas of karma after all, even though it is talking about predestination and wickedness.

But AFAIK his reasoning here is original research and not published or peer reviewed. They summarize ideas he put forward in a discussion with me on facebook.

I don't understand why he thinks that Buddhists are forced to accept predestination as a consequence of our ideas about karma. He has repeated his argument several times but I still have no idea what he is saying, although he says it is totally clear in his own mind.

In any case, whatever the merits of his argument, since it is not yet published or peer reviewed, it is not appropriate for wikipedia to include his argument here in the article itself. And without his reasoning, there is no reason to connect these ideas about wickedness and predestination with Buddhist ideas of karma.

And the ideas presented by Kaufmann and the others, if I read the article correctly, were never intended as a direct criticism of Buddhism or Hinduism. Since they discuss a Westernized idea of karma with predestination and wickedness, they belong in the Western section in my view.

Other editors - your comments are welcome on this - either way!

Robert Walker (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Since Robert Walker misconceived the intent behind the broken-up style of writing, I re-arranged my reply hereunder.

(Oz.) I don't understand the need for getting obsessed over terms like "deserving punishment" or "justification", "retribution for wickedness", etc..., when the desired neutrality of view can be maintained based on the general thinking that Buddhist karma formulates our current life to be the "consequence" of past karma. The "Theodicy" topic on wikipedia includes a more or less universal definition by Max Weber addressing the same matter of fortunes and misfortunes in the world under the context of theodicy. So it's merely a borrow-term and need not imply theism of any sort here.

(Oz.) Problem of evil being a non-question for Buddhists does not diminish its presence or significance. Just because the concept does not conform to Buddhist sensibilities of subtlety is no reason to classify the rational arguments based on the implications of karma under a Western perspective. Logical analysis of the implications of any proposition is not particular to the West.

(Oz.) This faith-based demagogy adds nothing to the discussion on whether or not to move the rational criticism against karma (also according to Buddhism) as just some Western interpretation. This is nothing other than an emotional attempt to justify faith in karma, not to address the controversies arising from thinking that karma is responsible for our current lives.

(Oz.) One certainly does not need to present one's criticisms against karma based on Buddhist terminology and dogma once one comprehends the fundamental workings of it as revealed by Buddhist notables like those in the wikipedia article titled "Karma in Buddhism". The problems with the karmic-samsaric way of thinking as presented in the section at hand are not Westernized corrupt versions of some mysterious higher realm of thinking. they are rationally understood expositions robbed of the allure of Buddhist doctrines and dogmas. If the implications of believing in the Buddhist karma points to some sort of predestination, so be it. This cannot be categorized as a Western whim just because a Buddhist never applies reasoning on where karma would eventually lead.

(Oz.) I did no such thing. In fact, all I argued was that, there is an undeniable need to define a third kind of property aside from natural causality and karmic causality (which amount to the same thing since all neutral karma since the eternal past mobilizes the entire universe of matter directly or indirectly) to acocunt for free will, which is nowhere to be found in Buddhist teachings I've encountered so far. Without a clear-cut definition on how free will can be exercized within the dominion of karma and physical laws, one cannot present the case of attaining liberation and such. But these are all beside the point. The issue is the stipulated sensibility that we do not "re-interpret" the mishaps of this world as "wickedness" and "evil" from the "Western point of view", but take them at their face value as presented to us by the Buddhist doctrine. How does calling the perpetration of a bad act as "fruition of ignorance" going to help us point out the issue with karma? It simply won't.

(Oz.) I don't understand this demand. Is Robert asking that we remove the section criticizing karma in Buddhism?

(Oz.) I'm not asking that original research be included without resources. I've just tried to demonstrate reasonably the idea of Buddhist karma taken to its extreme limits. On Robert bringing up our discussions on facebook, I can remind him that he wrote his bit on this talk page when I linked the article to his attention in the first place. As for the ridiculous idea that I'm forcing him to accept predestination, it's just ludicrous. He can choose to believe anything he wants. But he and his other Buddhist friends have no right to rampage on a wikipedia article section just because the criticisms presented do not conform to their faith. It's like an Asharite protesting that the criticism of the goodness of Allah as claimed by him based on Allah being the author of all human actions be placed under Western views of Asharism.

(Oz.) I strongly disagree with Robert. Karma according to Buddhism is not some mysterious concept that eludes the intellect. The way it's presented is rather easy to comprehend and the consequences easy to conjecture once dethroned of its lofty Buddhistic garb of incomprehensibility. They are just not satisfied with where the idea leads to, and are thus trying to push the controversies under the Western views section as if to elevate Buddhist ideas as being above universal criticism.

I've said my say above, don't have any more to add, just that nothing you've said makes wickedness and predestination appropriate concepts to use in a criticism of Buddhist ideas of karma since karma in Buddhism is not predestined. So how can a criticism of an idea of karma combined with predestination be a criticism of Buddhist ideas of karma? But will see what other editors say. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has become a vicious circle of discussion so far. Suffice it to say that one needs not conform to the Buddhist idea of no-predestination if it can be reasonably shown that karma does indeed imply predestination as it is presented and when carried to its full implications. It's not a Western thing, it's just applying logical thinking to the task at hand. END. Ozan Yarman (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Applying "logical thinking to the task at hand" is WP:OR and is not permitted. Misplaced Pages articles do not use the personal conclusions or the opinions of editors to dictate content, they use reliable sources. Do you have sources that support what you're saying? That would be much more persuasive and help get your point across. Also as an aside, when making comments on talk pages less is more. Editors are less likely to read through massive walls of text, so any persuasive points you make may very well be overlooked. - Aoidh (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's how, we may remain unaware of the logic if no source has been provided. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To cut this very short, the section should stay where it is, since the criticisms given there do not stem from any fundamental Western misunderstanding of Buddhist mysteries of karma. --Ozan Yarman (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support this? That is what matters. - Aoidh (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Updating section on Buddhism

I am going to update the section on Buddhism, based on the article Karma in Buddhism--this article is well-researched and well-sourced.

I am copying the current text in the Buddhism section to the "Karma in Buddhism" talk page, here: Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Storing_text_from_the_.22Buddhism.22_section_in_article_.22Karma.22

The current text is presenting karma in the context of the twelve nidanas, which is a somewhat advanced presentation; all of the sources I have researched (which can be found in the article "Karma in Buddhism") present karma in simpler terms when introducing the topic.

Note: since we already have a separate article on "Karma in Buddhism", my intention here is to keep the section in this article as brief as possible, while summarizing the main points. - Dorje108 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note on language

Please note the following guidelines from this page: WP:NOTHOWTO

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Misplaced Pages articles should not read like:

2. Scientific journals and research papers. A Misplaced Pages article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Misplaced Pages without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

The section on Buddhism in this article is an "introduction" to the Buddhist understanding of karma. Hence, as per the guidelines, it should be written "plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Misplaced Pages..." - Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is meant to address me on my fixing up some sentences on Karma under the section Buddhism with the intent to elucidate certain left-out points (like karma being positive, neutral or negative), it is rather unwarranted. Cordially, --Ozan Yarman (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ozan, thank you for your comment and your efforts to improve the section on Buddhism. Yes, my comment above was aimed partly to address your edits, but I don't think it came off the way I intended. The use of academic language (within introductory sections) is a problem (in my opinion) that I see with many editors. I think it just requires more awareness on the part of editors. Regarding your point about "karma being positive, neutral or negative": that is a perfectly valid point, but my question is: Is it the most appropriate point to make for a reader who is new to this topic? Is this one of the points that is going to most helpful to a new reader in gaining an understanding of the Buddhist view of karma? And how do we determine which points are most appropriate to include and which are not? I think the answer to my last question is that we due some research and find the best reliable sources we can find--sources that are presenting this material on an introductory level--and see how they introduce the topic. I think this is only "neutral" way to determine which information is most pertinent for an introduction and which is not. This has been my approach anyway.

Regarding your edits, they are much appreciated. You will notice that I have left some of your edits as they are, and modified others. I think the result of our combined edits is an improved section. The point of my comments here is to explain my rationale for my editing. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminders Dorje. However, Buddhists themselves are obscure and often contradictory in their ideas on karmic cause and effect, particularly with their acceptance of non-self as the initiator and receptacle of karma. Truly, how does one go about it without scaring away the reader? Thereby the issue on which source to actually take seriously arises. Here is one pointed out to me by Robert Walker which demonstrates my point: http://web.archive.org/web/20131004214153/http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm. Specifically, regard the following section:

"However, if we speak in terms of reality, we can speak of the essence in its entirety, referring to it as a process of events. For example, we could say that within the operation of this set of five khandhas, a mind state based on anger arose. There followed the mental proliferation in accord with that anger, leading to physical action. Conceiving in this way habitually, the mind began to assume those tendencies. Physical repercussions from external sources were experienced, adding to the unpleasant feeling, and so on.

Speaking according to the conditions in this way, we have all the necessary information without the need for reference to Mr. Brown or any kind of self. The process contains in itself natural elements of various kinds arising and reacting with each other to produce actions and reactions, without the need for a doer or a receiver of results."

Given such arbitrary notions trying to harmonize free will of choice by a "non-self" with naturalistic cause and effect, which are plainly incompatible by definition, how do we explain to the reader the understanding of karma by Buddhists? Which points must we emphasize and which others neglect? --Ozan Yarman (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ozan. The section that you quoted above is actually speaking on a very subtle level. Regarding your question of how to explain the topic of karma--I think the answer is that you explain it in the same you as you explain any topic. You start with broad strokes, describing it on the coarser level, and then you work your way into the more subtle and subtle levels. By analogy, if you are describing the human body to someone, you would most likely start on the coarse level of the parts of the body: the head, the arms, the legs, etc. And then you describe the internal organs: brain, heart, stomach, and so forth. Then you can describe the systems: digestive, skeletal, nervous, etc. Then down to the molecular level, etc. Describing the body on the molecular level is going to sound very different than describing the head, neck and chest, etc. But there is no contradiction there; you are just describing the concept of the body from different points of view. I think it is the same with a topic such as karma: there are many ways to explain it, or many different points of view, but they are not necessarily contradictory or arbitrary, they are just looking at different aspects of the topic. This is my understanding, anyway. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the academic approach you criticize me of committing, Dorje, and also pertaining to a physical system (body, lungs, cells, etc...) subject to physical laws, which doesn't apply here because karma is metaphysical and is therefore not tangible - or else it is a fully physical causality as Buddhists attempt to describe, which entails that it should be treated in a more skeptical manner and not in a story-telling fashion. Anyway, I'm good with the section the way it is for now. --Ozan Yarman (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Given Karma in Buddhism article, and WP:SUMMARY guidelines, a summary here is sufficient. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Karma compared to other religious beleifs

I am not logged in, but I accept credit/blame for my post. My name is Steve Suttles. My email is 67.202.145.242 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)stevelutzen@gmail.com.

It occurs to me that the parallel between major religions is not mentioned. Catholoicism has the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hinduism (sorry, previous posters) has the version of: Do unto others as you would have done unto you later, perhaps quite some time later. There is also the cheesecloth theory. New age philosophers talk about a common conciousness that every one of us can affect, either for the good or for the bad -- the "new magic". Tibetans follow their path to find enlightenment, because the path of others essentially dictates what they will find. I am not qualified to write this section, but it is still missing.

Please note that I am not considering "karma" (with a lowercase k) to "Christianity" (with an uppercase C) as competing religions. My point is that the CONCEPT of karma is a common precept to many religions, although it always has a different name.

Again, I take responsibility for this post. Feedback of any kind can be addressed to stevelutzen@gmail.com, and will be welcomed; responses can be expected. In the same spirit of WikiPedia, I seek further knowledge for myelf and others. BTW, does anybody else use the "random article" button for enjoyment? I highly reccomend it.

Section ordering

I have reverted to older section ordering because,

1. The new order was misleading. The free will and fate debate is not limited to "western understanding", it has been a historic discussion in the east and remains so.
2. The old section sequence flows better, and respects WP:MOS.

Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the thing is - that it is simply a non issue in Buddhist teachings.

Take for instance the second sentence "The controversy is not unique to karma doctrine, but found in some form in all theistic systems." - Buddhism is not a theistic system.

" A person who kills, rapes or commits any other unjust act, can claim all his bad actions were a product of his karma, he is devoid of free will, he can not make a choice" - no Buddhist can claim this.

This is based on a misunderstanding - karma as explained in Buddhism no more implies predestination than - e.g. Freudian psychology does in Western psychology. It's not meant to be a "Theory of Everything" and extended to describe the whole of physics, as some Westerners seem to think.

I think the confusion here possibly arises because karma has effects in the world. So they conclude that it totally forms the world and determines the motion of all the atoms and the workings of everything that happens. To see how that is not true, imagine a world with no beings in it, if such were possible. There would be atoms, molecules, storms, many things going on - but no karma. Indeed - if everyone was enlightened then also, there would be no karma. The karma is no more than a kind of patterning and structuring amongst many other complex processes going on such as those we nowadays investigate in physics.

". If intent and act can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, new karma can be proven, and the process of justice can proceed against this new karma." - what process of justice? You don't have a process of justice in Buddhist teachings - except of course ordinary criminal justice as we have in all countries. But a judge in a court trying someone for murder does not attempt to investigate karmic effects from past lives, any more in Buddhist countries than he or she does in a Western country. Or - if the author of this passage has in mind justice meeted out by a deity or God - well we simply don't have that idea at all in Buddhist teachings.

If you try to read it as a Buddhist - it just doesn't make any sense - it is not a coherent argument.

So - it is a discussion and argument and controversy clearly. But it is a discussion about Western interpretations of Buddhism and issues that arise when it is reinterpreted in a Western and particularly Theistic context. Do you see what I mean - why I think it belongs in the Western section? It's a bit like a Buddhist writing about Christianity and interpreting Jesus as a Boddhisattva and ignoring any mention of God or evil or blame in the bible, and trying to puzzle out what it all means. You would find all sorts of difficulties if you did that. It is very similar but the other way around. And such a discussion of the bible - who knows - might be of interest to other Buddhists - but you wouldn't present it as a general discussion about Christianity if it takes as a basic assumption that it ignores all mentions of God, or evil or blame or divine justice and tries to reinterpret everything in the bible instead using karma, non self, wheel of life, samsara and nirvana - then raises all sorts of issues where the concepts don't fit together properly.

Such a discussion, if a significant one as this one clearly is - would belong in the Buddhist section. So in the same way - I suggest, respectfully, that this belongs in the Western section. Also - I think it should make clear where the ideas used in the argument depart from the corresponding Buddhist ideas.

Here it is with some qualifications added to show where it departs, just the first two paras:

One of the significant controversies with the karma doctrine is whether it always implies destiny, and its implications on free will. This controversy is also referred to as the moral agency problem; the controversy is not unique to karma doctrine, but found in some form in all theistic systems (Buddhism of course is not a theistic system however).

The free will controversy can be outlined in three parts: (1) A person who kills, rapes or commits any other unjust act, can claim all his bad actions were a product of his karma, he is devoid of free will, he can not make a choice, he is an agent of karma, and that he merely delivering necessary punishments his "wicked" victims deserved for their own karma in past lives (In Buddhism however, then karma is not predestined, your actions are not determined by past karma, only your conditions, there is no idea of necessary punishment, or deserving suffering). Are crimes and unjust actions due to free will, or because of forces of karma? (In Buddhist teaching they are due to free will) (2) Does a person who suffers from the unnatural death of a loved one, or rape or any other unjust act, assume a moral agent, gratuitous harm and seek justice? (Buddhists do not assume a moral agent behind karmic effects. They are just unfortunate or fortunate results from the past) Or, should one blame oneself for bad karma over past lives, assume that the unjust suffering is fate? (Budddhists are not interested in whether to blame oneself or not for karma - it is a practical religion with the aim simply to take the situation as it is as your starting point) (3) Does the karma doctrine undermine the incentive for moral-education because all suffering is deserved and consequence of past lives, why learn anything when the balance sheet of karma from past lives will determine one's action and sufferings? (Buddhists of course do not consider that karma from the past determines ones action and sufferings and the path is to do with finding a way to free oneself from the cycle of samsara).

But that is so clumsy as to be unmanageable. I don't know what you can do about it except just to put it in the Western section. Perhaps with a note to say that it is based on Western concepts rather than the Buddhist ideas as such. Robert Walker (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hope that makes sense! Robert Walker (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Walker,

I have read your comments. I am reflecting on them. Your comments read like your personal views about Karma in a sect of Buddhism. Please cite scholarly sources for each of your concern(s), as those verifiable sources will help guide a way to improve this article.

Your comments are focussed on Karma in Buddhism (which may best be incorporated in the dedicated article). Karma concept is not exclusive to Buddhism. It is also a central concept in Hinduism, Jainism and others.

The discussion section is not relevant to Western section. It is before Eastern Interpretations section, because the discussion about karma and free will, transferability and indeterminacy is central, historic and widespread in Eastern scholarly sources and Western scholarly publications on Karma. The discussion is relevant and notable to all - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others. It also helps set the context for the article content that follows starting with Hinduism section.

Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay first on the sources, I am not a scholar myself. I'm a Buddhist practitioner who has heard many teachings on the subject but not studied the sutras. However, you can check out the Karma in Buddhism article which goes into all these points in detail.

Particularly, see Karma_in_Buddhism#Characteristics for some of the main points - it is quite short, and gives sources.

Does that answer your question about sources? These points are common to all the Buddhist schools and covered in the sutras - but a Buddhist scholar would be best to give the sources for them if you want more details.

Yes my comments are focused on Karma in Buddhism because that's the only form of Karma I know about.

Yes - I know there is a great deal of discussion of these topics. For sure it would be good to have a discussion section here. Even at the time of the Buddha time there were many ideas about karma.

It would be good to have a proper informed discussion of karma and comparison of the different ways it is understood in different traditions and problems with it. But this isn't it.

The issue is with the section calling these ideas Buddhist without any sources to back up the claim that they are Buddhist ideas - and within a framework of non Buddhist concepts.

Indeed if you check the sources given for many of the comments here - they come from a series of articles whose authors - as best I can tell (they are rather technical theological articles) - are looking at the possiblity of applying the Eastern idea of karma to give an explanation of why a just and good God can permit a world with evil and suffering in it. The main article I read when I followed up the sources for this section didn't claim to be an overview of Eastern ideas of karma - but rather an application of them to theology. That's why it is imbued throughout with ideas from Western theology that do not fit well with Eastern ideas.

So - if this material is included -it needs to be made clear where it comes from and what the discussion is - and given its proper context, and because the sources are articles by Western Christian theologians - at least the ones I followed up - that is another reason why it belongs in the Western section.

I hope that is clear, but sorry I am only a Buddhist practitioner and not a scholar and can't write such a section myself.

Perhaps others can step in here? Robert Walker (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One thought. It might make it a lot clearer to add this as an introductory para to the section:

"Western scholars have been interested in study of ideas of Karma as an application to the "problem of evil" - an attempt to explain why a good God can permit a world with suffering and evil in it. The lawyer and philosopher Whitely Kayfmann Whitley R.P. Kaufman, Philosophy, Global Studies - bio page, wrote an article "Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil" Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil Whitely Kayfmann, in which he examines the possibility of using such ideas to construct a "theodicy" - a resolution of the problem of evil. He also argues that this problem of evil is not restricted to Western religions but should be a problem for all religions. He makes it clear that his discussion is not based on the details of the original doctrines, which he doesn't have the expertise to examine - but "Rather, my method will be to examine a simplified, idealised version of the karma-and-rebirth doctrine, one abstracted as far as possible from particular historical or doctrinal questions.". He concludes that it doesn't work as a theodicy - but "I leave it as an open and important question whether a mystical interpretation of the doctrine might be a better way to approach the profound mystery of human suffering".

Just an idea - does it help? I wonder if that - or something like that as an intro para might make the whole section clearer - and then - well then it doesn't matter much where it goes if it is clear what the source is and the context of the discussion - but arguably better in the Western section. While a more general discussion would need to draw on published papers by scholars with expertise in the Eastern religions.

It is a rather intricate discussion, and I've just picked out a few quotes there - enough to show that he doesn't claim any scholarly understanding of the Eastern doctrines, and that his main aim is the application to an issue in theology - at least, that is where it originates - though he also argues that the problem of suffering and evil should be an issue for all religions.

However - it is worth noting I think that in Buddhist teaching it is not considered to be an issue to solve the "problem of evil". We have no reason to invoke a just creator God - so it is not a problem in the same sense. Indeed, it already has an explanation. In Buddhist teachings the origin of suffering is confusion and ignorance. Notably, he doesn't mention this in his article as a possible explanation for the origin of suffering - but according to the four noble truths - that is what the Buddha discovered was its cause. Obviously it is not an adequate discussion of the Buddhist ideas if it does not mention the Buddha's own explanation of the origin for suffering. I don't think it is intended to be as that is not the author's speciality.

(Oh just to explain - problem with citations here for a non scholar is that the sutras are so vast. Many Christians or Muslims would have no trouble citing bible or koran. But the sutras are like a library of numerous books. Even many scholars won't have read them all and chances are they specialize on a particular sutra. You tend to go by what your teachers say - which is in turn grounded on the sutras, for the most part).

Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Walker,

Buddhist and Hindu literature is indeed vast. A huge collection has not even been translated in English. Some which has been translated is flawed, or controversial, as translations tend to reflect the culture, prejudices and perceptions of the translator.

How does one construct an encyclopedic article? and how not to? The second question is easier to answer - An encyclopedia is best not constructed from opinions, views, agendas, or original research. Then how? One answer is that an encyclopedic article must be built by agreeing to some rules. For wikipedia, these rules include, but are not limited to, verifiability in widely accepted scholarly sources, no original research, no synthesis and neutral point of view between significant schools of thought on any topic. It is these rules that make it difficult to address every 'personal objection or opinion someone offers without scholarly sources'. In other words, much of what you write is compassionately interesting yet difficult to address. The complexity of the topic of karma, and the vastness of beautiful literature on this topic in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others, adds another degree of difficulty.

You do make a very good, actionable point - this article needs a summary on 'karma and the problem of evil' in the discussion section. Kaufman indeed has written on this (for example, in his 2005 article in the journal Philosophy East and West, Vol. 55, No. 1). Others have too. The quote you provide is interesting, but not a neutral, complete and balanced summary of scholarly debate on 'karma and the problem of evil' for the general reader of an encyclopedia. Yet, Kaufman is a respected source and the summary should include relevant parts of his published work along with those of other scholars.

I had intended to summarize the discussion on 'karma and the problem of evil' in a short paragraph or two. I haven't yet. Your reminder is timely. I intend to soon, in October if time permits. Hopefully, someone else will, and save me some effort. If not, I will.

Thank you and kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed as you say the translations are often flawed. Also many terms such as dukkha, for instance have no equivalent English translation which adds to the difficulty (what we call suffering is just one aspect of dukkha, as most happiness for instance, is also dukkha, through impermanence, because we can't guarantee that it will last for ever). Also the Buddhist sutras themselves are in any case often profound and easy to misinterpret. That's why you need a scholar and why I would not want to answer a request for sources by just searching for material myself. But the Karma in Buddhism article is good - it uses quotes from teachers in many traditions who are themselves well versed in the sutras, along with quotes from scholars.

Generally wikipedia somewhat discourages using quotes from religious teachers Misplaced Pages:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources "Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views." - but in the case of the Buddhist teachings, there are many teachers with plenty of evidence of stature and reputation for expertise, thoroughly versed in the sutras, and they can be the best, most authoritative sources for us - especially using material from reputable and expert teachers in a recognized Buddhist lineage who have experience explaining the teachings to Westerners in English.

Ok, okay so you are knowledgeable enough about the Western scholarship to do that? Then that would be interesting. Yes I understand that Kaufman is a respected source - but at the same time someone who says himself in the article I quoted that he does not have expertise in the details of Eastern philosophy and religion.

I think need to be sure to make clear in this section that "the problem of evil" does not occur in Buddhist scholarship by Buddhists (unless you find a source for it but I'd be astonished if you do - as for it to be a problem, you'd need first to show that the 4 noble truths are invalid, and if you'd done that in a way you found convincing enough way for it to be a problem, I don't think you'd call yourself a Buddhist any more). Also, to touch on the four noble truths and on the Buddha's teaching that suffering all originates in confusion and ignorance and that Buddhism doesn't have any need for the hypothesis of a creator deity so the problems of the motivation of a creator deity again are not a concern. That much - that the Buddha taught that all suffering originates in ignorance / confusion, and that Buddhism has no need for a creator deity - should be easy enough to find sources for that.

Then it can be an interesting section on the problem of evil for non Buddhists and whether karma has anything to say about it. How does this sound?

Also - one thing I don't know - is the "problem of evil" in this sense a problem for Hindus and other Eastern religions - as in the general sense of the question: why is there suffering in the world? If so - do they have the same perspective on it as theists in the Abrahamic religions where they think in ters of judgment and blame and regarding the original cause of suffering as evil rather than ignorance or confusion? Or do they have another slant on it which is neither of those? Could be interesting to compare and contrast if they have another approach to the issue. Thankyou and kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with recent section reordering

I respectfully disagree with the recent re-ordering of sections by Mark.muesse for the following reasons:

• Mark has placed the "Discussion" section, which primarily contains interpretations and commentary on the theory of karma by Western philosophers and/or academics, before the sections that clarify the meaning of karma within the Indian traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). I believe it is far more appropriate (i.e. helpful to readers) to first explain the meaning of the term as it applies to the Indian traditions, and then provide the comparison with Western concepts.
• The section heading "Discussion" is not a clear heading. The section mostly contains Western commentary on the theory of karma, mixed in with some differences among the Indian traditions. The article should always clearly distinguish between commentary based on comparison with western concepts, and differences of interpretation within the Indian traditions.

Therefore, I suggest the following order for the sections (for the short term at least):

• Etymology
• History
• Definitions and Meanings (on overview of the similarities and differences with the Indian traditions)
• Eastern interpretations (not an ideal topic heading, but it will do; this should contain an overview of the meaning of the term within each tradition)
• Comparisons with other traditions (this can be broken up into multiple sections)

I am interested to see what other editors think. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That seems the logical layout to me also. And when readers are trying to understand the Eastern concepts - they are hard enough to understand anyway when you are used to the Western ideas. They are best presented "as is" as presented in the Eastern traditions, and then the Western attempts at reinterpreting and commentaries and comparisons left to later once the original ideas are presented. AFter all that is where the ideas originated.

Also - for each section a reader needs to know - does this section present the original ideas as they are understood and explained in the Eastern traditions - or does it present commentary and comparison with Western ideas? And if the Western commentary was done with some particular Western objective, as in the case of Kaufman's paper which asks if Eastern ideas of Karma can solve a major issue in Western theology - again reader needs to know that also.

Done that way the Western sections are of interest to everyone including those in the Eastern traditions who may be interested to know how their ideas are sometimes used or interpreted by Westerners.

So anyway this is to "vote up" your proposal Dorje, thanks for putting it so clearly! Likewise interested to see what the other editors think. Best regards. Robert Walker (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. It's not vlear to me why the "Discussion"-section precedes the usage in Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed sections

I've collapsed the next few sections to assist with readability because it is mostly content written by me (sorry I'm rather verbose at times) and this page is getting over long. Hope that is okay

There are I think just two comments by anyone else, by Mark Muesse, - if you want to - I suggest you copy them out of the section and put them where-ever is more appropriate. Robert Walker (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

New section reordering proposal - the problem of evil section intro in context

Collapsing this, including discussion, as it didn't lead to any proposal for a solution. Mark, I hope you are okay with me collapsing your replies here? It's just because this is now an old discussion and I think not easy for readers of the talk page to follow - a bit like archiving. Maybe a fresh start on the debate will help?

I don't want to archive the entire talk page up to this point, so this is an interim solution.

I've prefixed subsection titles with + so that they don't show in the contents list.

Suggestion for RfC

Mark - there doesn't seem much sign of us reaching a consensus, do you agree?

Can I suggest a RfC? Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment

Collapsing this suggestion as there was no reply

Dubious: The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment

Mark - noticed your addition of the sentence "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment." in the introduction as if it was true of all notions of Karma.

I don't think that's true of Hinduism. No expert on it, but in the Karma in Hinduism article, Karma_in_Hinduism#The_role_of_divine_forces outlines a whole range of attitudes on this. According to some of them, Ishvara, or various deities, play a role in producing the fruits of karma. See also the Ishvara article.

In some of the Hindu traditions then some of the deities can also purify beings of their karma so that they don't receive the consequences. See Karma_in_Hinduism#Mitigation_of_bad_karma.

Those articles gives many citations and seems reasonably well researched articles as best I can tell..

What you wrote is true of Karma in Buddhism of course, but not apparently of Karma in Hinduism. Robert Walker (talk)

Have just added a disputed tag to this sentence also, as it is inconsistent with the other articles above which have many citations Robert Walker (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I see you have removed my tag and marked all the citations in Karma in Hinduism as an unreliable sources. But surely - there's a point where you come to the conclusion that they can't ALL be unreliable. Including following up to the articles about individual traditions within Hinduism Vishishtadvaita#Key_Principles_of_Vishishtadvaita. And then also you do a google search e.g. for Karma + Vishishtadvaita and the websites that come up - and scholarly books also - say the same thing. I think it is unlikely that all of these are unreliable. I know some scholarly articles are unreliable. But then - to say e.g. that a website of a Hindu temple, explaining the basics of their own religion is unreliable? Just because you have a source that says the opposite. It doesn't seem likely to me.

I don't like to edit war especially on this topic, but I don't think you were right to remove this "disputed" tag and "solve" the issue by marking all the citations in the relevant section in Karma in Hinduism as unreliable. Robert Walker (talk) 03:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages guidelines say Template:Disputed_tag "If there is no active discussion, then the tag may be removed by any editor". That is hardly the case here! Robert Walker (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

See response here. On rest, see my October 3 comment on this talk page, peruse WP:Reliable and read these notes on editing disputes.

Any scholarly/reliable externally published sources that support your doubts and dispute tag(s)? Tags are not tools to express personal dislikes. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please see my response there. The sites you marked as unreliable are not all unreliable. Some were, I agree, but they include a few that are acceptable as sources on Misplaced Pages. They are not perhaps the best sites one could find on the subject, but enough to show that some Hindus at least think this way. And a search in Google Scholar turns up more information supporting what they say. For example:

"Because of the difficulty of accounting for the action of the law of karma naturally, some have argued that a god of some sort is a necessary component of any system which advocates the law of karma. There must be some sort of theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, For example, `Sa.nkara argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can supersensuous, nonintelligent qualities like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, God (II`svara).(13) In a similar vein, Nyaaya uses this as one of its arguments for the existence of God. Our karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, there must be a conscious God who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits. Though immobile, he affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for the reincarnate produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences."

From: Karma, causation, and divine intervention By Bruce R. Reichenbach, ' Philosophy East and West' Volume 39, no.2 April 1989

Note - I'm not sure how reliable it really is - satisfies all the usual criteria for a notable scholarly source in wikipedia - but in this particular subject the Western scholars often say conflicting things and are sometimes inaccurate, so even though it is a paper in a notable international journal, I think it is really a secondary source and doesn't have the reliability of a primary source.

It remains disputed, in the sense that we have sources that satisfy wikipedia conditions for scholarly sources, that say conflicting things on the subject. And neither of us are Hindus (I assume you are not from your statements) or know much about the subject and we need input from a Hindu knowledgeable about what are the most reliable primary sources to clarify the issue.

So the disputed tag should remain until this is sorted out. Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll try posting to the talk page for the main Hinduism article as there may be more people watching that page who may be able to supply reliable sources.

Added request here Talk:Hinduism#Good_Primary_Sources_needed_for_.22Divine_sources_of_Karma.22_-_in_Karma_in_Hinduism_article. If that doesn't work I can also try the Hinduism project talk page. Robert Walker (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark.muesse, I've just found this - an original Hindu text by a modern day noted spiritual teacher - shows that at least some Hindus do think this way, and this is undoubtedly a primary source, not a secondary one or unreliable one - you can't get more reliable than a Hindu author writing about his own religion :

"Some people die when they are eighty years old; some die when they are in the womb; some die at twenty; some at forty. What is the cause for the variation? Who has fixed the span of life for all? This clearly proves that there is the theory of Karma, that there is one Omniscient Lord, who is the dispenser of the fruits of the actions of the Jivas, who fixes the span of life of the Jivas in accordance with their nature of Karma or actions, who knows the exact relation between Karmas and their fruits. As Karma is Jada or insentient, it certainly cannot dispense with the fruits of their actions."

It is a diverse religion so it is no objection at all if you find that he is unusual in his views, as a noted Hindu expressing his views, it counts as Hinduism.

See God Exists Robert Walker (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Western bias of the Discussion Section - summary of the issues

Collapsing this as there were no replies to it, shorter summary at end of this talk page. See #Short Summary of the Proposals

Discussion of what to do next

I'm not sure what to do next. I suggested a RfC, but with no reply. The only other thing I can think to do is to mention this issue on the talk pages for the Religion, Hinduism and Buddhism projects, and the talk pages of Karma in Hinduism and Karma in Buddhism and see if anyone has any ideas about what to do next. I do not wish to edit war on this topic. Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit of Definitions and Meanings section

With discovery of a couple of good primary sources on Hindu proofs of existence of God from Karma (including article by a noted Hindu Swami), plus the primary source I found earlier on Buddhist use of Karma to disprove existence of God (by a Buddhist scholar), I think that is good enough reason to edit the Definitions and Meanings section.

Have also corrected some other very minor issues in this section. Robert Walker (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(NOTE, these edits were all reverted by Mark. I think there are no edits left by me on the current page).

Issue with Karma and ethicization

This section Karma#Karma_and_ethicization also is non neutral, written from a Western perspective. An Eastern scholar would talk instead about Dharma and it would be presented differently. Just saying. Don't know what the solution is - whether to have two sections, one on "Karma and ethicization" and one on "Karma and dharma" - or what to do - I don't feel ready to edit it yet myself. But comments welcome! Robert Walker (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added the less strong POV-check template to this section. Not so much biased really in the sense of saying things that flat out contradict what Eastern traditions say - so much as that it is written from a Western perspective and not really presenting this quite as it is understood in Eastern traditions.

Examples of the bias

Examples: "Where the outcome is unintended, suggests Reichenbach, the moral responsibility for it is less on the actor, even though causal responsibility may be the same regardless" and "The karma concept thus encourages each person to seek and live a moral life, as well as avoid an immoral life"

Why that is biased

- that's true in a way - but it's not the main purpose for instance of the Buddhist teachings. He didn't teach us "how to be good" but how to find the path to happiness and freedom from suffering which all sentient beings seek - the "good life" comes as part of the path and is not the aim of the path. A Buddhist would refer to awakening from the cycle of existence, and Buddha and nirvana while writing this section and would not probably even discuss moral responsibility here, it's just not how they teach about Karma.

Similarly a Hindu writing this section would surely talk about Moksha. Probably also about justice and about devotion.

Need for "Dharma" to be mentioned more prominently

And more generally best at least to lead off this section with Dharma and say a bit about this concept as it is understood in the East, as it is central to all the Eastern traditions and a word not widely understood in the West and with no good translation, and is intimately bound up with the teachings on Karma for many of the traditions.

This link of Karma with Dharma should be made much clearer than it is in the current article. I've mentioned it in the intro now (wasn't before) but it deserves an entire section - can be a short summary - but should be here somewhere, and prominently, the word surely should appear in at least one section header on this page.

I think myself that replacing "ethicization" with "Dharma" in this section title would be a good move. Westerners might not know what it means, but it is briefly mentioned in the intro now, and it is such a fundamental concept that if you haven't come across it, best to encounter it briefly before you read any further.

Robert Walker (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

NOTE Since Mark reverted my last edit, the word "Dharma" is no longer mentioned in the introduction.

For reference, this is what the main Dharma article says, and I think it would be good if somewhere the article mentioned these distinctions:

Dharma (/ˈdɑrmə/; Sanskrit: धर्म dharma, About this sound listen (help·info); Pali: धम्म dhamma) is a key concept with multiple meanings in the Indian religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism. There is no single word translation for dharma in western languages.

In Hinduism, dharma signifies behaviors that are considered to be in accord with rta, the order that makes life and universe possible, and includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and ‘‘right way of living’’. In Buddhism dharma means "cosmic law and order", but is also applied to the teachings of the Buddha. In Buddhist philosophy, dhamma/dharma is also the term for "phenomena". In Jainism dharma refers to the teachings of the Jinas and the body of doctrine pertaining to the purification and moral transformation of human beings. For Sikhs, the word dharm means the "path of righteousness"

Just saying that there are different paths here. That intro doesn't explain the Buddhist path at all so it's a very short summary, but it is clear there are distinctions here.

These distinctions make a difference to how Karma is understood. That's one of my main issues with this article, that it should make it clear that the different religions and traditions have their own "dharmas" - generally it's a word for the path that you are following. And Western theologians have their own dharma also. And the problem with the article as it is curently presented, in a nutshell, is that it presents the subject in the context of the Western dharma as if it was the only dharma there is. For many Westerner theologians, I think the aim is to become a good person in the eyes of an omniscient benevolent God who they believe exists. Something like that. Not all Christians even think like that so there are variations here also. But whatever it is, I may have go that wrong, it is a different path at any rate, it is another "dharma". Or rather several different dharmas surely.

So this idea of your "dharma" - the Sanskrit means to "keep or hold" - the path that you hold to - and the idea also that different people have different paths they follow and that we don't have to understand everything the same way - is fundamental to the Eastern traditions, as I understand it anyway. "Ethicization" has none of the same connotations. It sounds like the idea of an absolute path of good or evil that you believe applies to everyone. And it is of course a Western word not used in any of the Eastern traditions, and no way could you call it a translation of any Eastern concept. Robert Walker (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentations and persistent reliance on poor quality sources

1. I have reverted insertion of blog and random website-sourced content with no evidence that those websites have any editorial oversight. Further the content in these unreliable websites is WP:Primary opinion - they don't reflect widely accepted scholarly view and do not belong in an encyclopedic article.
2. The tagging and misrepresentation of peer-reviewed journal articles with allegations that these are "western opinions" is nonsense, false and getting tiresome. Because if you study the cited references in this article, you will notice that they are secondary sources, that is they review, among other things, numerous eastern scholars and ancient Indian literature and thus summarize "eastern literature and scholars". Such secondary sources are preferred sources for any encyclopedia.
3. Tiresome too is the monologue on what may be wrong with this article, without identifying scholarly reliable external sources, and while admitting "lack of knowledge and incompetence about the topic".
4. Equally tiresome is the assumption, "multiple blogs or promotional websites or equivalent could not ALL be wrong". Two or five unreliable sources do not collectively become a reliable source. Go to a good university library, read the hundreds of journal articles and other reliable literature on karma in Hinduism and other religions, figure out what the widely accepted scholarly views are, identify what is missing in this article, then suggest reliable sources on how to improve this article. Constructive suggestions/edits with scholarly reliable externally published sources are welcome. Expect content that violate wikipedia policies and guidelines to get reverted. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 03:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

How is an original article written by a respected Hindu Swami poor quality? It is a primary source for his views on the matter, and he is a Hindu.

I don't get it, how can you say " The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" in an absolute sense when the notion of Karma has many different meanings in the various Eastern traditions, and here is a Hindu who uses the necessity of God to create the fruits of Karma as an argument for the existence of God? What makes your source more reliable as a source for the beliefs of Hindus than an article written by a Hindu master? And how can it assert a universal truth when you have exceptions to it?

Swami Sivananda_Saraswati puts it like this:

"Some people die when they are eighty years old; some die when they are in the womb; some die at twenty; some at forty. What is the cause for the variation? Who has fixed the span of life for all? This clearly proves that there is the theory of Karma, that there is one Omniscient Lord, who is the dispenser of the fruits of the actions of the Jivas, who fixes the span of life of the Jivas in accordance with their nature of Karma or actions, who knows the exact relation between Karmas and their fruits. As Karma is Jada or insentient, it certainly cannot dispense with the fruits of their actions."(Source: God Exists SRI SWAMI SIVANANDA, A DIVINE LIFE SOCIETY PUBLICATION, First Edition: 1958, World Wide Web (WWW) Edition : 1998)

The wikipedia article says this about him, with citations:

Sivānanda Saraswati (8 September 1887 – 14 July 1963) was a Hindu spiritual teacher and a proponent of Yoga and Vedanta. Sivānanda was born Kuppuswami in Pattamadai, in the Tirunelveli district of Tamil Nadu. He studied medicine and served in British Malaya as a physician for several years before taking up monasticism. He lived most part of his life near Muni Ki Reti, Rishikesh.

He was the founder of The Divine Life Society (1936), Yoga-Vedanta Forest Academy (1948) and author of over 200 books on yoga, Vedanta and a variety of subjects. He established Sivananda Ashram, the headquarters of The Divine Life Society (DLS), on the bank of the Ganges at Sivanandanagar, at a distance of 3 kilometres from Rishikesh

How on earth can you say that his writing on Karma is not a notable source for beliefs of some Hindus, and use that as a reason for reverting my edit? These are the primary sources that your scholars rely on when they discuss contemporary Hinduism. Far better than the secondary sources you are using. Or do you think that the only reliable sources on Hindu beliefs are articles written by Western theologians?

I don't know of any Misplaced Pages guideline that would make this an unreliable or low quality source. That was why I was so confident that i just went ahead and did the edit. And to just revert it without discussion! What is the wikipedia guideline you think I voilated? Robert Walker (talk) 10:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say I have lack of knowledge and incompetence. I just said I am a practicing Buddhist but not a Buddhist teacher and not a Buddhist scholar. You don't have to be a scholar to edit wikipedia. But when it came to expounding the details of the Buddhist teachings on Karma for that section of the article, then I felt that because it is such a subtle topic in Buddhism, that that particular task was beyond my abilities and asked for help. I have the basic general understanding of the meaning of dharma, the four noble truths, and karma in Buddhism that any Buddhist practitioner would have who has been practicing the Buddha's teachings for many years and been to many teachings on the subject. Also as a mathematician who did post graduate research in maths and philosophy i understand scholarly disciplines, citations and such like well enough, just am not a scholar in the particular area of the Buddha's teachings. (Some Buddhist scholars may spend much of their lives studying a single Buddhist sutra). Robert Walker (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Peruse WP:Fringe. Guideline: "in an article about a mainstream idea, a theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight, and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." Can you offer any karma article in peer reviewed scholarly journals or a widely respected encyclopedia that includes opinions of Sivānanda Saraswati on karma? If not, then it is not mainstream idea and does not belong in this article.

Consider similar sources in Karma in Buddhism. What, if anything, would you like to include from 1 and 2? In , see section on The Sutra of the Causes and Effects of Actions from Lama Yeshe Wisdom Archives. How about 3 (Quick summary: 4)? In , see David Barash's contrast between traditional Buddhism and modernist Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism in certain parts of the world had deities, notes David Barash. How about Sivānanda Saraswati type deities-linked opinions on Karma doctrine by ancient and modern era Buddhist monks from China or Bhutan or Myanmar or Thailand or Cambodia or Vietnam or Korea, who express a different karma doctrine in Buddhism that the current summary in this article? Mark.muesse (talk) 12:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

On your past admissions about your knowledge and competence about this topic, teachings and scholarly works. You wrote: "Okay first on the sources, I am not a scholar myself. I'm a Buddhist practitioner who has heard many teachings on the subject but not studied the sutras."; "I can't speak to Hindu teachings, only been to one teaching in the Hindu tradition so don't know much about that", etc. Mark.muesse (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

In the above list, include Yidam-related karma in Buddhism literature written by Buddhists, such as 5 or more ancient ones; and opinions of Buddhists such as Lama Shenpen's on divine intervention in Buddhist karma doctrine as expressed in 6. What, if anything, from these type of sources should be used in this article? Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 13:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

First, unlike Christianity or Buddhism, or Islam, Hinduism is not a single unified religion. It's an umbrella word for a wide range of different Indian traditions and belief systems.

So, you don't need a secondary source to prove that he is a Hindu, it is enough that he identifies himself as such and is recognized by others as a Hindu. It's clear he is a historically important C20 Hindu, and the Divine Life Society is a major organization with many members and branch organizations world wide.

Obviously I wouldn't write a detailed section about his views or tradition. But this is a simple one line statement that is easy to check for veracity about whether or not he did use ideas of Karma to prove the existence of God as one of his many proofs.

Also, I just said " But in other traditions, it is thought to require divine agency to operate, and some Hindus especially in the Nyaya tradition use Karma to prove existence of God". Not that all Hindus think like this, indeed many of them think that Karma is a natural force just as you said, especially the earlier traditions, as I understand it.

So, whatever ones personal opinions might be about particular Hindu teachers, you can't say that something is true of Karma in a universal way as you do in this section, when there are many people who have other ideas about it. Robert Walker (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your questions about Buddhism

Summary of my replies

Short summary: first this is for information on this talk page only, it's probably too advanced and detailed to include in the Karma in Buddhism section, and wouldn't be for me to write about it anyway. But as a practitioner this is how I understand it as taught by my teachers.

So first, Yidams -they are not separate from us. Like poetic ways of talking about the qualities of compassion, wisdom etc that we all have.

Adhishthana is inspiration - the pages talking about how Buddhas can help us in our lives, at any moment, through Adhishthana - that's talking about inspiration, the inspiration that arises from reading the teachings and recalling them, for instance. Can arise in more immediate, vivid inspiring ways, but it is the same thing essentially.

Devas in Buddhism -they are just long lived beings, like us in other respects, just have happier longer lives, may be more powerful - but as understood in Buddhist teachings they are not gods in the Western sense.

Also spirits and powerful beings - they are just beings in Samsara like everyone else. Not a requirement of Buddhism to believe they exist, just traditionally thought they do. If they exist, they may be able to interfere with our lives. But so can other humans, and non human beings, and natural events.

They don't at all fit this role of judges that know what we did in the past and bring about fruits of karma after weighing up the evidence of past actions. They have no idea what we did in the past, are just acting under their current motivations whatever they are.

More about yidams - not separate from us

Yidams are often talked about as if they are separate from us, but that's to be understood poetic fashion as ways of talking about compassion, wisdom etc and the direct connections with those qualities we are all capable of.

As the Dalai Lama explained (quote below in details) it would be a grave error to think of them as having an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time.

Here he is talking about the primoridial Buddha but same is true for yidams.

This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra.

More about Adhishtana

As for Adhishtana - that works by inspiration. E.g. many Buddhists offer bowls of water to Shakyamuni Buddha (and to all the Buddhas) every morning. We believe this physical and symbolic action brings his inspiration into our lives. But he entered paranivarna - though we can make a direct connection with the inspiration of his teachings 2500 years ago, and in a way can connect to the past Shakyamuni that way - and though his enlightenment is timeless, he is not any more here as a living being in our world system and can't intervene in our lives in that way.

And he has nothing at all to do with bringing about the fruits of karma, no Buddha is.

So in your citations that referred to the support of Buddhas in our lives, that they can help us right now, through Adhishtanha - that is how that is understood.

Living Buddhas who are born in our current time

Living Buddhas who are born in our current time, of course can help in many other ways, e.g. when Buddha Shakyamuni was alive he could help not just by teaching but in many other ways as well.

They can do this if you have the right connection to meet them, and if you also let them help you, when you encounter them. But again none of that consists of them bringing about the fruition of Karma. They help anyone, no matter what they did in the past. So this is not divine intervention or judgement.

Detailed reply (collapsed)

Here is the original detailed reply, collapsed

Your other citations

Sorry you posted a whole bunch of links to web pages. Sp,e of them long pages. But you didn't say anything specific about them, I've no idea at all what your reason was for posting those links. I've just responded to the ones that seemed to have some relevance to the topic we are discussing. The others do talk about yidams etc - there are many pages about such topics - but said many things and I don't know what you wanted to draw my attention to.

If the others are relevant also, do please explain more, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Your 145 stories of Yogi Chen

Mark.muesse, just had a good read of your link 145 Stories about Karma (Cause and Effect) with Pictures and Poems

Summary of my reply here: - seems that he is a Taoist / Confucian hermit from China who moved to Tibet and met many Tibetan teachers and took on their teachings

So, his stories mix together features of Taoism, probably Confucianism also as well as Buddhism. I can see what you mean here, that these stories may possibly be talking about Karma as divine judgement but if they do, that doesn't make it a Buddhist view.

The reverted material and future proposals

Just realized, nobody reading this except myself and Mark will know what he means by the reverted material. So here it is.

Misrepresentations and persistent reliance on poor quality sources - part 2

Robert Walker, You make new allegations, assume new premises, almost all without reliable scholarly sources. For example, you allege "Some of these traditions consider it is due to divine agency" and cite Sharma reference (ISBN 81-208-0365-5, pp. 209-10) as support. But, Sharma makes no such claim. He never uses the phrase "divine agency" or equivalent in his discussion of karma, neither on pages 209-210, nor elsewhere. You are misrepresenting Sharma reference. You allege, "First, unlike Christianity or Buddhism, or Islam, Hinduism is not a single unified religion." That is a naïve assertion! Christianity, Buddhism and Islam are not unified religions either. You allege Sivananda wrote 200 books. Did he write 200 books on karma in Hinduism? in total? any source for either? Have you checked the citation index or a library?

You ask, "How on earth can you say that his writing on Karma is not a notable source for beliefs of some Hindus, and use that as a reason for reverting my edit? These are the primary sources that your scholars rely on when they discuss contemporary Hinduism. Far better than the secondary sources you are using." You are mocking wikipedia's content source policy, and generally accepted principles for writing encyclopedic articles.

Primary sources and individual opinions, particularly when they reflect fringe views, are poor quality sources. They should not be given undue weight. That applies to individual Hindus, individual Buddhists, individual Jains, and others. There is plenty of verifiable sources that individual Buddhists link "divine intervention" to "karma in Buddhism". For example, I provided a link to Lama Shenpen's views above. He states, "I believe there is such a thing as divine intervention in that I believe the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas always are there helping as much as it is possible to help us given our karmic situation (...). So people’s prayers do help but if the karmic situation is unfavourable the help doesn’t manifest in any obvious way." You find a variety of personal views on divine agency and karma, among some Buddhists, in various sects of Buddhism, particularly in Tibet, Bhutan and southeast Asia (for example, see Matthew T. Kapstein, The Tibetan Assimilation of Buddhism, ISBN 978-0195152272, Oxford University Press, pages 42-54). Where should such Buddhist's views, from various sects of Buddhism, be mentioned in this article? Or, should this general article on karma avoid including individual opinions and 'divine agency and karma' theories from regional sects of Buddhism?

You wrote earlier, "I didn't say I have lack of knowledge and incompetence. I just said I am a practicing Buddhist but not a Buddhist teacher and not a Buddhist scholar." You also wrote, "In case of Hindu teachings, I am not familiar with it, but just summarized the Hindu sections of wikipedia as best I could." Instead of poor quality wiki articles, constructive sources for suggesting changes to this article would be peer-reviewed scholarly publications. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem mentioning other articles IN A WIKIPEDIA TALK PAGE DISCUSSION - that's not using articles as a citation - and the few page edits I did were minor and good faith

First, surely you agree it is okay to mention other articles in wikipedia in a talk page discussion. Of course I'd never use them as citations in a wikipedia article. But - do you not agree that it is acceptable to do that?

Apart from that - linking to wikipedia articles in this talk page discussion with you, the only edits of the page itself which I attempted were relatively minor changes (all now reverted) - adding tags, a couple of sentences, an attempt at an intro to the discussion section - that's it. So, I don't feel I have done anything particularly dire or dreadful or against the wikipedia guidelines :). They were all Good Faith edits

Detailed reply to your comment on the Sharma ref

On the Sharma ref Sorry I haven't read it. But I remember reading this section on the Nyaya in wikipedia Nyaya#The_Nyaya_theory_of_causation - so probably copied / pasted from there.

Early Naiyayikas wrote very little about Ishvara (literally, the Supreme Soul). However, later Buddhists in India had become from agnostic to strictly atheistic. As a reaction, the later Naiyayikas entered into disputes with the Buddhists and tried to prove the existence of God on the basis of inference. They made this question a challenge to their own existence. Udayana's Nyayakusumanjali gave the following nine arguments to prove the existence of creative God:(ref: Sharma, C. (1997). A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 81-208-0365-5, pp.209-10)

...(9th of his nine reasons)

Adŗşţāt (lit., from the unforeseen): Everybody reaps the fruits of his own actions. merits and demerits accrue from his own actions and the stock of merit and demerit is known as Adŗşţa, the Unseen Power. But since this unseen power is unintelligent, it needs the guidance from a supremely intelligent god.

It's not citing the other wikipedia article as a reference, just extracting material from it, including the citations from the original article, which is permissible and often done. But given that you challenge it, which I didn't expect, then presumably someone should follow this up and check it.

Anyway so if you want to check it then presumably you need to look under Adŗşţāt in the reference.

If this is accurate - then presumably if you know where to look there is an extensive literature on this debate between later Nyayas and later Buddhists. So that might be worth following up, probably scholarly articles on it - if you wish to learn more about this subject. Robert Walker (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Detailed reply to your comment on my use of a primary source to show that there are at least some Hindus who think that Karma is a result of divine intervention

On primary sources - yes they should not be given undue weight, of course, that's one of the reasons you need secondary sources. I don't know how much weight should be given to Swami Sivananda Saraswati - all I'm saying here is that he is a historically significant Hindu - and so his views are relevant to a discussion of the views of Hindus. It may be a minority view, it may even be regarded as "fringe" by other Hindus - that needs to be determined - a primary citation can't establish that.

However, a single citation from a historically significant figure is enough to show that this is a view about Karma that some people have, and also not just Joe Bloggs next door, but someone easily notable enough to count as an example of a Hindu who holds these views.

Suggested solution if you want to keep your new sentence about Karma never being due to divine intervention

BTW a Hindu wikipedia contributor has just said on the Talk:Karma_in_Hinduism#Western_Bias_in_main_Karma_article page that his is a minority view that most Hindus would not accept. Still, called him a Hindu. So presumably it is a "minority Hindu" view.

I can't help clarify this any more myself - all I can say is that it is clear that your sentence in the intro can't be 100% cororect from this citation.

Perhaps you could say something like "In most traditions, the law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" if you do want to include the sentence still. Just a thought. It has to be qualified in some way. So, if you don't want to go into the detail of saying why it is qualified, at least can qualify it slightly like that and add a citation or two as a reference for those who want to know why you put it like that. Just a thought. Robert Walker (talk) 03:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Why your citations don't support the view that Buddhists think that Karma is due to divine intervention

As I think probably not many people think that any Buddhists do hold this view, I'll just collapse this entire answer now, so the few who do think so can read my detailed reply. Though Mark didn't reply again, he has had plenty of time to read it now.

Why it is okay for a Buddhist practitioner to help with editing an article on Karma even though I'm not a Buddhist scholar

And - I've already answered what you say about my competence for working on wikipedia. We don't have to be scholars to edit wikipedia. I do have background in scholarship in maths and philosophy, am just not a Buddhist scholar. But just as a carpenter can help edit an article in Misplaced Pages on carpentry - and doesn't have to be a scholar who has studied many books on carpentry - a Buddhist can help edit an article on Karma and doesn't have to read numerous scholarly articles first.

The proposals under discussion here (recap)

Repeated more succintly below

Short Summary of the Proposals

• Karma as understood in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism etc needs to be presented first before the long discussion sections, as there are many ways of understanding Karma, and reader needs to see the original ideas first before they are discussed.
• Intro should introduce idea of "dharma" or the path you follow or hold to, with the idea of a multitude of possible paths - as that's how the original ideas are presented, in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The word "Ethicization" is only used in modern Western discussions of the concept, so should be introduced later in the discussion section.
• Reader needs to be told that the existing discussion section (as of writing this) summarize some of the papers from the conference on "Revisioning Karma".
• All contributers to this online conference were Westerners - see List of contributors.
• In the original traditions many of the ideas are framed differently, to the extent that a merge of everything into one single discussion seems unlikely to work. This could be handled by adding extra sections covering other debates within and between the original traditions.

As for how to label the discussion section - perhaps this would be enough for an introductory para:

"This discussion presents some of the ideas presented to the 2005 online conference on "Revisioning Karma" by Whitely Kaufman and other contributors"

Just an idea. Tells the reader where these ideas are coming from. They don't just come out of the sky as revealed truth :).

On that last, see Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity

"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"

Hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Law of karma independent of any divine judgement statement

Also - it is a minor point, but the recently added sentence in the introduction "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment." should be moved or qualified. Same problem, it is stated as an objective statement "from nowhere".

Walls of text

This talkpage has become unreadable. Frankly, Robert, I think your walls of text here are bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE - if not already over the limit. Sorry to say so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean. Sorry about that. Not intentionally certainly.

I've just collapsed a fair bit of my recent posts here, sometimes adding short summaries of the content before them, hope that helps. Including most of this one also, facebook style. Robert Walker (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also collapsed a long dialog between myself and Mark that had no other contributors - that's intended as like archiving, not to hide his posts, just to make the page more readable as I don't want to archive entire talk page up to then. Hope it is okay to do that. Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should just try to be to the point. People will tend to ignore your comments. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Yoga articles
• Unknown-importance Yoga articles
• WikiProject Yoga articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• High-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Hinduism articles
• Top-importance Hinduism articles
• B-Class Hindu philosophy articles
• Top-importance Hindu philosophy articles
• B-Class Spirituality articles
• High-importance Spirituality articles
• C-Class Jainism articles
• Mid-importance Jainism articles
• B-Class Buddhism articles
• High-importance Buddhism articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class philosophy of religion articles
• High-importance philosophy of religion articles
• Philosophy of religion task force articles
• B-Class Eastern philosophy articles
• High-importance Eastern philosophy articles
• Eastern philosophy task force articles
• C-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles