Talk:Karma/Archive 2

Thoughts

First of all, I think that a clearer distinction needs to be made between the the different views of karma as seen by the different religions/philosophical systems. Buddhism is an inherently atheistic religion and does not require the existence of a creator god for its definition of karma to function.

Karma as relating to Buddhism is simply natural law. There is no judgement placed and there is no sin or attonement thereof. Every thought or action taken by a person is a seed which can come to fruition at some point later in this life or another. Although there is no judgement placed on karma, according to the Buddha, there are 3 types: action which results in positive circumstances, action which results in negative circumstances, and action which results in neutral circumstances. The important point behind this is INTENT. Your karma will be substantially less for accidentally taking a life than it would be for purposely taking one. Moreover, if you feel remorseful and strive to avoid those kinds of unwholesome actions, you will reduce your chances of negative circumstances for the future.

The state of Arahat (enlightenment, but not complete enlightenment like that of a Buddha) is the state where your actions are not tied to karma. At this point, al of your past karma will catch up to you in order to burn it off in this lifetime. The goal for humans is to accumulate enough merit and burn off all karma (negative) to enable us to be freed from the cycle of rebirth and suffering. I hope this has helped those who are genuinely troubled by other notions of karma gain a clearer understanding of what it means.

In Buddhism, Hinduism and also Jainism, all beings, including gods are subject to karma. It is a natural law that is above the will of any god. However, in Hinduism, room is left for the will of god, and generally more emphasis is placed on his will than natural karma. But of course hinduism is so varied between practitioners that it's almost pointless to try and assign a fixed viewpoint.Ledgohan 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with your thoughts. What worries me in the article is the whole chapter 4 and it's subparagraphs - according to the Buddhist view, this is pretty much a collection of incorrect statements, and I suspect most of it is not valid for Hinduism also. This whole part reads more like a freely invented New-agey interpretation - that's not bad as such, but it should be clear that this is not Buddhism (or Hinduism as I understand it). rudy 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to first understand what is 'thought'. It is not an act of mind as the article projects! May I suggest the reader to have a look at this article on 'Karma'? <http://www.archive.org/details/StoryOfTheMysteriouskarma> 122.162.237.136 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Cdr Varma.

Darkconis (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)==Nomination for Worst-Written Article on Wikipedia== It's astonishing that an article of this length has so little merit. What a disappointment. From the first sentence to the last, this article needs an encyclopedic rewrite. Anyone willing to work with me to take it on as a mercy project? TheEditrix2 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sadly enough I have to agree... If I can do anything to help with the Buddhist section, just let me know. rudy 23:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It may even be worthwhile someone starting again in a sandbox and working it up from scratch? I'll help out with it where I can. Gouranga(UK) 09:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} -- not a single source is cited, so it is fair to remove all the clutter with prejudice. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is absurd. Karma has nothing to do with cause and effect. It is but one of the four objectives of human living in hinduism, which it was really created. Dharma, which means righteous living. Karma, which means satisfaction. Arta, which means wealth. And finally Moksha, which means liberation. And Moksha is always above the other three. Depending on the tradition depends on the order of the other three. It has nothing to do with the new age ideal of it. This information comes from Dr. Julius Lipner from the University of Cambridge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkconis (talk • contribs) 17:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Practical view

Sorry to say but the page fails to grasp the concept of Karma entirely. How would you possibly understand a spiritual term only with intelligence and without wisdom? Did ANYONE of the authors actually knowingly work with karma? MetaByte 21:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Caste and Karma / Karma and politics

The theory of karma ... became a rational explanation for the caste system and provided much needed solace for those who were disadvantaged by it. The exercise of caste rights became obligatory but only ephemeral, in this present life, with better prospects in the life hereafter, if these obligations are met without complaints.

Ref: http://www.boloji.com/hinduism/061.htm

That view of Karma is fairly commonly held in the social sciences and often goes further than the above quoted article. The idea that Karma rationalizes the exploitation of the lower classes (untouchables) and has lead to the latter turning to other religions in significant numbers (especially in the northwest of the subcontinent) is a very important idea that I believe has to be included in this wikipedia article. Wikimam 22:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Verbal Garbage

It looks like there are vested interests in this page who suffer from verbal diarrohea when it comes to writing about Karma.

Instead of simple and elegant organization about this subtle concept, the writing is kept hap-hazard, digressive and repetitive. The whole idea behind having sub-topics references is to lessen the congestion in the main page...and yet, some people vomit in details at both places.

I had made considerable clean up which was promptly undone. I would like the support of like-minded individuals to make this page useful to one and all, especially the beginners.

The above unsigned contribution was made in this edit: [1] by User:Jrajesh. When edits are contested, one approach that reduces conflict is to list the individual points in question on the talk page, and then focus on one item at a time. When multiple points are handled in a single edit, it is more difficult to build consensus around the bulk edit. By working one issue at a time, each one can be considered in some detail. It would also be helpful if all editors would comply with WP:CIVIL.

I would agree that the article contains a great deal of weak material that needs to be redone. However that process can take two types of action: 1. Tagging and subsequent removal of unsourced material (see: Wikipedia:Verifiability, and 2., addition of strongly-sourced material using good inline citation methods (see: WP:CITE. A simple step is to just place fact tags on disputed material, which helps draw the attention of editors to unsourced items that are of particular interest. I will add one or two such tags now, as I agree that the article has many problems. Buddhipriya 20:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Jrajesh - In your edit you had removed a lot of information and made quite important changes without any kind of discussion or comment being made. After reading it through I wasn't really sure if the changes were improvements or not so I reverted back to the last version. This article was a real mess in the not to distant past, and still needs a lot of improvement. Please don't be put off from making changes, but as Buddhipriya has stated above it is helpful to discuss and make them in a transparent way. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

salvation part???

srsly guys... who the hell wrote this crap?

"The process of release (moksha) from ego-consciousness (ahamkar) with its inherent karma can be compared with :the doctrine of salvation in mainstream Christianity: Grace given by faith in the suffering, death and :resurrection of Jesus."

this, in my opinion is utterly wrong... sin in christianity and karma in the dharmic religions are no where near the same and wtf?? compared with the doctrine of salvation? ARE U JOKING????? wow ur dumb. Sadartha 04:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes well Wikipedia is not opinionated, it's factual. And don't insult people. If you want to rewrite it, no one's stopping you. ♥ Fredil 20:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Christ quotes Lao Tzu verbatim (I think in one of the Beatitudes) - he was aware of the early Buddhist doctrines.

Secondly, the Christian references are not quite correct. Mainstream Christian theology - and my personal experience - takes a series of steps, firstly of confession and repentance (turning away from the baleful to the truth - there is great debate about the form of confession, but at root it's a heart-felt revulsion of wrong), then of blind faith (the feeling out of the Divine) leading to a personal pentecost, which translates most closely as satori, but can include other forms of enlightenment. However, there is a limitation: the Divine Will does not automatically accept such a conversion.

Turning to the text:

Origins' second paragraph is nonsense for the following reasons:-

1. Your reference to Esoteric Christianity is based on a miscomprehension. If you refer to the page linked to, it currently states "In the later Middle Ages forms of Western esotericism, for example alchemy and astrology, were constructed on Christian foundations, combining Christian theology and doctrines with esoteric concepts." This is an anachronism: before we adopted scientific method, the method used was a theological heirarchy of the trivium (grammar, rhetoric and logic, giving the tools for structured argument) was used to develop the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy) in pursuit of pure theology. The modern practice of esoteric astrology developed from mediaeval astronomy, losing the bounding objective of theology in the process: it was never the other way round, as demonstrated by the use of the works, for instance, of Ramon Lull in the construction of the Escorial as a Third Temple. The result of any divergence was punishment as heresy: see Gilles de Rais, the heresy accusation being in specific his pursuit of alchemy which used all his considerable assets, in particular in observation of a text which called for the massacre of the innocents, which really called for the abandonment of the ego, but which he naively took literally. The result was his being burned at the stake at Nantes in 1440. The reality is that exoteric concepts were subject to Christian theology and doctrine. As a result, there is no contiguous esoteric doctrine of the sort claimed in this text: Christian mysticism was bounded by reality.

2. The Essenian schools are a very recent Christian sect: the Essenes were massacred to a man by the Roman Army in AD72. Although there is some suggestion that they may have been the core of the Jerusalem Fellowship Paul was in dissention with and thence passed into Syriac tradition, there is little real evidence that they continued as such.. There is a minor suggestion that certain Western alchemical practitioners such as Nicholas Flamel may have been in contact with an esoteric school in Cappadocia (Turkey) which may just possibly have maintained the tradition, but as at this point there is no serious proof that it survived.

3. Rosicrucianism is not to be identified as Christian: it is possible for a Christian to be a Royal Arch Freemason and thence a Rosicrucian, but the two are not identities, many advanced Christians are not Rosicrucian and many Rosicrucians are of other faiths and of no active faith. In fact, there is evidence that some European Rosicrucian schools are actually anti-Christian (see Aleister Crowley and Papus).

4. It omits an essential prerequisite in Christian doctrine, that it is subject to God's will. This may be guided by prayer, however.

I have therefore deleted this paragraph, as it falsely attributes Freemasonic or Rosicrucian doctrines to mainstream Christianity, which is likely to be extremely objectionable to many Roman Catholics, insofar as these doctrines have been explicitly outlawed by their heirarchy and this therefore breaches NPOV. If a representative of these Schools wishes to add an NPOV text in their own behalf addressing these questions, it is their privilege.

All in all, this was a circular argument by modern esotericists to rewrite history in their own justification and has therefore been deleted. If they can prove their case, I would be most interested, however the best evidence suggests that Newton and Leibnitz may have extrapolated certain aspects of the Inquisition's pursuit of their predecessors, Galileo and van Helmont, as a similarly-circular argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.58.169 (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Meditation and Karma

Could anyone write on how Meditation can a) liberate mankind from wheels of re-birth b) eliminate/emancipate one's Karma and c) achieve eternal life ?

• possibly better off in another article, have you tried following the links from Meditation David Woodward 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”

I agree with the comparative saying “What goes around, comes around.”

"As you sow so shall you reap" maybe

“For every action there is an equal and opposing reaction.” “As you do unto others, it will be done unto you.” “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” i don't think are as useful because they are more restrictive in meaning. As i understand Karma in the Buddha Dharma, (although i'm no expert) it may come back at you in a different way than it went out. In particular "eye for an eye" is a proverb directing the action of people, rather than reporting on a law of nature or God.

Exodus 21:12-25 The Law concerning Violence
12 Whoever strikes a person mortally shall be put to death.
[cut]
22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine.
23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life,
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
bible.oremus.org David Woodward 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold

I just went into this page to try to fix the long line of [edit] boxes under Other Niyama Dharmas. As I did so, I started to tidy up a bit, as is my wont. I got to a paragraph that made no sense, so, being bold (for the first time) I removed it completely.

I continued reading and realised that the article is full of what appears to be simply various people's understandings of what "karma" is. In an encyclopedia, we don't really need wishy-washy views - we need fully referenced definitions and explanations of a concept.

This is not to say that western ideas of karma should not be included. Quite the contrary. However, the explanation needs to be from a reputable source. I know what I mean when I say "that was karma", but I'm sure it is of no interest to the world at large, and even less to future generations.

Kitty Davis (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition

It is important to notice for example, that the views on karma adopted by the “modern” Christian faith or any other denomination promoting fear as a way to understand God, are difficult to understand. Karma is very simple to understand: an action brings a reaction. At the same time, karma is also extremely intricate in it's application. This is neither good nor bad, it simply brings to the foreground the element of choice that we all have. Having a look at the daily news will bring an understanding of the laws of karma as they are plainly exhibited for all to see. As spiritual beings, we presently experience in this world the reactions of our thinking process. Today’s Christian faith embraces the: "you shall burn in hell eternally" model if one deviates from the prescribed "laws" of God. Well... There is a point to be made here. This "you shall burn in hell eternally" model was put in place to control people by means of fear and does not reflect in any way the teachings of Christ whatsoever. Love of God is developed through free will, never by fear. This world is simply and only but a karma laboratory meant to conduct the experience of reconnecting to love of God, and all of us, being a part and parcel of God, can do so by practicing with each other. The moment we can love, and love here is used in it's most profound meaning of the ultimate experience of giving and receiving unconditionally, then we have made use of the 'laboratory' in an efficient way. Karma is neither good or bad but rather an indicator to show us if the strategies we use to meet our needs are promoting life as a wonderful experience of not. Life itself is simple; we all share the same needs behind the cloak of 'modern' life. Karma is an ally to help us see how close we are to achieve our ultimate goal in this world; love.

The above paragraph was recently added to the main article. It is unwikified and unsourced, but it may be that certain elements are useful and informative? I'm moving it here for now where anyone interested in keeping parts of it can provide sources and copyedit the text before re-inserting into the main page. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Definition

The correct definition of Karma is "因果", not "業" as corrected by user O not.

Definition in English-Chinese dictionary (http://www.tigernt.com/dict.shtml):

   karma   ['ka:m/&/ ] 名 因缘;因果报应;宿命

More reference: http://www.buddhism.com.cn/jingtu/ygjs.htm.

Please discuss before changing the definition.

Joelee.org (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The dictionary you used clearly isn't a very good one, but then karma, as a religious term, is a fairly specific concept and inaccuracy isn't surprising. 因果 means "causality" a broader and related concept. The only proper and correct translation of karma is 業, simply because this usage of 業 was invented to translate karma. See the Chinese wiki for zh:業 and zh:因果. o (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, on further reflection, I found the Chinese translation of karma irrelevant to this article. Karma isn't a Chinese-originated concept and there is no reason to include Chinese while leaving out Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, so on and so forth. I'm removing the Chinese translation, anyone interested should just refer to the wiki articles in the other languages. o (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

jak sie robi karme -------karme sie robi w taki sposob ze zawiesza sie slonine na nitce lub na druciee i sie gdzies wiesz \ \\\\\\\\\\\pisala PAULA ZIMOLĄG KLAsa 6 b podstawowa numer 3 w gostyninie '

Islam and Other Semitic Faiths

• I wonder why there are no Islamic reference given for this universal philosophy of Karma.
• For example in the Quran there is reference about, "If you help in the way of your Lord, He shall help in your way"
• Further, "Remember Me, and I shall remember you"
• These and many others are karmic references or examples of the dynamics of karma in operation when refering to Godhood as source of creation.
• Such is the underlying theocratic theme in other sister semitic faiths such as Judaism and Christianity. However the later is mentioned somewhat. Thus i feel it can be more encyclopedic to state where it occurs.

Just my humble opinion - Red1 D Oon (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That is not really karma as the Indic religions see it; there, karma is a universal law. In eg. Islam or Christianity, it is a God who meters out punishements or rewards, that's why it's not called karma. rudy (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Theosophy and New Age is unreferenced

...and flakey and ought to go! Redheylin (talk) 01:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Koan

I'm not a Buddhist, but the Japanese word Koan means public case. As We have in Stones explanations not read yet. It might also be inseresting for the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.157.199.15 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Analogs of Karma

While this section is pretty reasonable it contains no sources except for a single primary source. It needs notable 3rd party sources that have compared karam to other religious concepts to avoid being chopped altogether. Ashmoo (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Karma in christianity and judaism

in christianity and judaism, karma is referred to as ,cautiousness, circumspection or prudence (http://www.woxikon.com/dut/voorzichtigheid.php) I read it in Religion for dummies.

Add in article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.142.53 (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Karma in popular culture

Is there any place in this article for references to this, e.g. the TV show "My Name is Earl"? Dorfird (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps trivialities have no place in an encyclopedia? rudy (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

One man's triviality is another man's raison d'etre. Thus what may seem a triviality to you does have a place in an encyclopaedia, and even more so in Wikipedia. I do not feel passionately about this issue, but if anyone wishes to include information on "My Name is Earl" in the article I feel it should be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.230 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Triviality is another man's raison d'etre. Thus what may seem a triviality to you does have a place in an encyclopaedia, and even more so in Wikipedia. I do not feel passionately about this issue, but if anyone wishes to include information on "My Name is Earl" in the article I feel it should be welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.43.230 (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Hi everyone I am deleting footnote 4 in the reference section. It appears to be the product of an earlier version and refers to its source simply by the last name of the author and a page number, no title, no year of publication. As such it is impossible to locate the source. Furthermore, that sentence has multiple footnotes. However, if someone feels this was important material please let me know. --Luke Warmwater101 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I think it did originally come from somewhere else. Mitsube (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Analogs of karma

In "Analogs of karma", this appears to be a personal statement rather than one based on sound logic, Drinking poison is not a consideration of karma. Karma concerns the cognitive dissonance behind an action which would coerce one to voluntarily drink poison. It is best if this section is deleted or rewritten. Sealpoint33 (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Analogs of karma section was unreferenced commentary that had not been sourced for over a year; I have deleted it from the article. I noticed that you have added a new section on Karma and emotions to the article. Unfortunately, it seems that the section is based on synthesis of quotes from various primary sources and it is not clear that those sources are explicitly commenting on Karma and emotion. As such this section may not be appropriate for wikipedia, unless secondary references linking the words of Jung, Mipham, Tagore, and research on emotional intelligence and mindfulness meditation, to the concept of Karma are found. Can you try to find such references and rewrite the section based on their content , so that the new section can be retained ? Abecedare (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Karma vs. faith

In the opening paragraphs we see:

  In an academic and "Eastern" philosophical sense, Karma is the concept that "action" or "deed" builds a definite, if not immediate cause of effect. In some Eastern religious dogma, Karma is in contradistinction to some concepts of faith.

CUT: "espoused by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human dramas as the will of God as opposed to present - and past - life actions."

Further definition can be found within the Wikipedia article and is not appropriate as a summation.

I see people here attempting to defend Christianity's take, as one example of how many definitions of this word (faith) could be applied from a biased perspective, thus confusing the matter being discussed, rather than helping one understand all the different takes on a term which the reader may or may not want to get into. If they do, then they will continue on down into the article.

A better example (from a traditional and historical basis), would be the incorrect assumption that Islam "is" opposed to the concept of Karma. Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age and you will see how one common view within Islam today, does not represent all Islamic belief and cannot be traditionally or historically supported. The allowance of fundamental bias within Islam did not even begin to find an ear until The Crusades, ironically. It certainly was not supported by Saladin (see the section "Decline" in that article). The current level of influence was not even present until the late 20th Century. (If Islamic comparison is included in a discussion of Karma, a reference to these points should be included.)

In Christianity, the difference is (and should be mentioned if further explanation is included) that free will is considered A GIFT from God and whatever EFFECT one's action/cause has, COULD BE altered if an amused God felt inclined, which by definition would itself be a JUST effect and the WISE reaction to that action of free will. Otherwise, examples of cause and effect are countless in both the Hebrew and Greek text. Rigid, fundamental influence in Judeo-Christian faith has the same result as it does in Islamic application, this being a chosen selection to oppose logic- which is also not supported by religious text.

The reflexive response to someone within an Eastern religion is to first think in a broad, wide-perspective of a more academic philosophical application, THEN to possibly apply a refined individual religious bias. Within a Western culture, or more specifically an American- especially so in Southern States- culture, the reflexive response is a limited-view application and THEN perhaps the wider view may be considered, for the sake of respect. So, when asked, Karma is something someone in Texas, for example would likely say they generally believed in unless they were aware of a discord in the finer points of their faith.

Kingwoodguy (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

More about how the "will of God" is distinct from present/past life actions would be nice here as it isn't clear what "will of God" means in the general context of "Abrahamic religions." Perhaps there are other pages which could be referenced that cover that topic?

What keeps the sentence from being reworded as:

  'Karma' ... refers specifically to present - and past - life actions in contrast with 'faith' espoused by Abrahamic religions which couples the will of God with those actions.

Either ways more references are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.137.250.81 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

"Faith" is not the converse of "Karma." Faith :) is a concept that exists in all religions at some level as they all contain concepts that are not empirically verifiable. Hindus, for example, take the existence of karma as an article of faith. What the first paragraph is attempting to address is the concept of predestination/determinism vs free will. This is a complex subject and there are differing theories among the sects of the Abrahamic faiths. Most believe there is some level of free will in human action and in the inevitability of facing the consequences of our actions at some point. Calvinism rejects free will. Where there is a clear difference between the eastern (Hindu/Bhuddist) and Abrahamic faiths is in how the consequences of our actions are believed (as a matter of faith) to affect the spiritual progress of the soul after death. The Abrahamic faiths do not include the option of reincarnating and reexperiencing the physical world. See wikipedia "predestination" AShipway (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Karma is not only defined by our thoughts and actions but also by the attitude that accompanies our actions. The reason why we are acting. Even if one does a good action with a bad attitude, the end result is bad karam. The best form of action is nishkama karma where in one just does ones best in every situation irrespective of what the outcome is. It is not important to win every battle but it is important to try your best to win it.

Karma is not to be treated as tit for tat. What intentions you have when you do something will also affect your mind. A person's physical and mental state is in constant change. When you are angry, everyone is seen as a potential threat. When you want to hurt someone, the obsession also torments you, to the point that you cannot notice the finer things life has to offer you anymore. Hell and heaven are created by your thoughts. Karmic retribution does not have to be physical. People who do 'bad' things are seldom happy people. Even the gleeful ones will have to fear their back constantly.Joseph Yiin (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

However you slice it, the characterization of the Abrahamic faiths in the opening paragraph is a load of bullshit. That's not what "faith" means at all. It needs to be changed by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.

It's amazing how the Eastern religions alone are permitted to present the tenets of their faith as if they were plain facts. Just try that in an article on a Christian topic and see what you get. 192.31.106.35 (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should read fate not faith - faith according to Merriam-Webster dictionary definition is loyalty.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.133.32 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2011‎ (UTC)

Should it be "faith" or "fate"? I could understand the comparison between karma and fate but i can't see wath faith has to do with karma.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.183.145 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Western theory of karma

I was just reading the page on Karma. I was surprised to find that there was a whole paragraph on karma and its western interpretation. I am wondering now if this is strange. The word itself is of Sanskrit origin. and a eastern Hindu Buddhist origin and its associated religions like Jainism and Sikhism.

So I am very shocked to see some westerner give a western interpretation? If I try to place the distinction between a personal and an opinion on arising from cultural philosophy, There is a difference. Any individual is free to have an opinion. But if the culture and civilization of the region does not have a philosophy as such in the subject. The individuals opinion cant be construed as a philosophy of the civilization. In western religions like Christianity and Islam. The soul lives just once. I do not understand the role of Karma in such a situation, and neither is it mentioned in religious books of the west.

I find that as western spiritualists get familiar with eastern philosophy , there is a tendency to usurp this knowledge if it appeals to them and rebrand it as theirs, Maybe to feel comfortable while accepting such philosophies.

I can understand this feeling. But please don't pervert history to accommodate such feelings.

Anyone is welcome to subscribe to the Karma philosophy as we consider it a universal law of nature. But please don't give it a western tag. It never was a western concept.

Christanity had a simple concept. If you did wrong, God dispensed punishment or forgave you. There was no Karma involved in this, and any law of cause and effect. The entire Catholic Church was built on this belief. They interpreted Gods will and interceded on his behalf. Hence confessions for mitigation of sin, as god forgave.

Please don't corrupt knowledge, Wikipedia must stand for dissemination of genuine knowledge

I am open to corrections on my observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.114.120 (talk) 05:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Karma has become a term that is now part of the Western lexicon, such as many other religious and non-religious words, so I don't see a problem with discussing the cultural impact and use in Western civilization. However, I have two major concerns about this article: (1) There is no "criticisim" section about Karma, (2) there is not a comparative analysis with other Western and Eastern phylosophical points of view.

For instance, in a Dilbert strip (a comic strip) Dogbert says something like 'I like Karma because that means that I can hit anybody, and that would be okay, because he or she did something in the past that made them to deserve it.' This is a popular Western culture use of the term, and a criticism from the author. Furthermore, what happens if an individual is born without reincarnating anybody, and then he is hit by a stray bullet and becames paraplegic, what would be role of "Karma" here? Luiscolorado (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That Dilbert cartoon smacks more of Christian antinomianism - karma does not care if others do bad works because they believe it is justified - a bad act is just that, karma has no regard for the why - the ends never justify the means in human action karma-wise. Warriors rely on dharma to balance out the karma aspects of their actions 173.74.8.158 (talk) 08:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing inaccurate text with no citation

I am removing the following paragraph:

'Karma' is an Indian religious concept in contradistinction to 'faith' espoused by Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), which view all human dramas as the will of God as opposed to present—and past—life actions. In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose their own actions, which require only the will of God to implement karma's consequences. Buddhism and Jainism do not accord any role to a supreme God or Gods, but the principal belief is the same. In Indian beliefs, the karmic effects of all deeds are viewed as actively shaping past, present, and future experiences. The results or 'fruits' of actions are called karma-phala.

The reasons are:

1. The citation at the end of the paragraph only applies to the last sentence of the paragraph (which is accurate as far as I know).
2. The rest of the text is not clear and has no citation. There are differences in Eastern and Western thought that are worth discussing, but this paragraph contains inaccuracies. For example, it assumes that faith and karma are in contradistinction; they are not. Hindu's have faith in their gods, yet they also believe in karma. Buddhists also have faith in the Buddha, though they do not think of him as a "god".
3. I suggest the this type of discussion could eventually be added as a separate section within the article, and that it should be well-sourced.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 April 2011‎ (UTC)

Neutrality tag?

Can the editor explain why a neutrality tag was put up? Sud Ram (talk) 19:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Because, frankly, this page absolutely disgusts me. Sentences such as "This modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies and attempts to portray karma as a universal psychological phenomenon which behaves predictably, like other physical forces such as gravity." make me want to kill myself. This is Wikipedia, not the New Age chapel. This should be a neutral article about the definitions of Karma, not a pamphlet trying to persuade me to a view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodlegs (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What view are you being persuaded into? Karma has different interpretations as it is a dynamic concept. You may not agree with them but they are still worthy of being brought to light since New Age is a big movement and karma is a big part of it (pun intended). What I do agree on with you is that the particular passage you noted isn't referenced but still within a referenced context. If the article is such a problem for you and you seem to find the time to reply to a talk page, why not edit it according to the guidelines?

Also, what is the issue with original research? Can this be clearly pointed out? Peace Sud Ram (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has different interpretations, and that is exactly what the issue is here. The writer is stating opinion as objective fact. You don't go onto the article for, say, the Democratic Party and expect to read "but of course, any nation governed by total democracy will devolve into mob rule," or some such mess. Perhaps "this modern view of karma" (which may not even be a modern view or THE modern view except for in the eyes of the writer) does NOT obviate the need for acceptance of the idea of reincarnation in a Christian context. Perhaps I'm a repentant Baptist or something and I think we're doing just fine. Perhaps I'm a detached observer with no association with the New Age or Christianity who doesn't believe in reincarnation. No real matter here. In a nutshell: This article does not need some asshole's opinions being presented as demonstrable fact and I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that Wikipedia's standards are upheld and that this page is maintained in a neutral and unbiased manner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodlegs (talk • contribs) 21:42, 1 May 2010‎ (UTC)

So what do you suggest? :) Sud Ram (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

That we at least completely remove the Karma and emotions section. There's simply no place for this on Wikipedia. Alternatively, someone else could edit this section heavily until it's portrayed in a more objective fashion. You can start by removing all connotative adjectives ("Sakyong Mipham eloquently summed this up when he said;" Maybe he didn't sum it up eloquently, and maybe he didn't awkwardly stumble through a clusmy explanation either? All we know for sure is that it's something that he said.) I'll leave this all up to the people who at least know or pretend to know what they're talking about and can find some way to demonstrate this as a belief held by numerous people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodlegs (talk • contribs) 17:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.89.7.82 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 20 June 2010

Not done: The editsemiprotected template requires a request with a 'please change X to Y' level of specificity. Celestra (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Typo in the origins section: "The idea the the moral quality..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaam93 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Accounting of Life Philosophy

ACCOUNTING OF LIFE is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA. Accounting of Life is a branch of accountancy beside of governmental accounting, cost accounting, auditing, accounting system, financial accounting and so on..... as PETER DRUCKER said: "KNOWLEDGE HAS TO BE IMPROVED, CHALLENGED AND INCREASED CONSTANTLY OR IT VANISHES."

Accountancy knowledge is applied to explain Karma Law logically and mathematically. Accounting of Life (AoL) is a kind of philosophy with its basic equation: REWARD = SIN + KARMA.

The Accounting of Life's basic equation is REWARD = SIN + KARMA. From that equation we can conclude that the more value of REWARD, the more value of KARMA. And the more value of SIN, the less value of KARMA. In other words the less value of REWARD, the less value of KARMA. And the less value of SIN, the more value of KARMA.

If the goal of the company according to Financial Accounting is to increase profits as much as possible and to reduce costs as less as possible, so the goal we live in this world according to Accounting of Life is to do good things as much as possible and to do bad things as less as possible.

The period of Accounting of someone's Life begins when an individual is born and ends when the individual pass away. The next period will be started when the individual is rebirth with its OWN accumulated value of karma brought from the late period.

For more complete info / posts about the Accounting of Life can be found in yahoogroups and facebook under the name of AKUNTANSI KEHIDUPAN group, but it's in Indonesian language.

Huang Ching Fu (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is confusing

I came to the page because I believed that most people misinterpret "Karma" as "Payback".

Then I read this:

In theistic schools of Hinduism, humans have free will to choose good or evil and suffer the consequences, which require the will of God to implement karma's consequences, unlike Buddhism or Jainism which do not accord any role to a supreme God or gods.

Huh?!

This is way too complicated for an intro, especially if I'm right about most Americans' misinterpretation. Crasshopper (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Really Consequentialist?

I have taken notice that Karma has been linked with consequentialism at the bottom. This doesn't seem to make sense, if anything Karma is deontological ethics. Anybody might look at the word "consequentialism" and infer that it is making a statement about actions having consequences, but this is not what it is; in fact it means that the ends justify the means. Compare this with the notion that "one reaps what one sows" - a philosophically identical statement. That only good effects come back from good causes, and bad effects come back from bad causes. Is the focus on justification here for what is being reaped, or for what is being sewn? Given that it is the cause (means) that is justifying the effect (ends) of what I get in return, I would argue the deontology of karma. If, indeed, karma was consequentialist then I literally could do anything, and it would be justified, so long as what I get back from it is positive. Dark Observer 04:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

My definition of karma

Understand that you don't have to agree with any of this.. I'm just defining the term karma better for you.

Many of you hold the belief that karma means what goes around comes around and that the universe somehow recompensates with increase the spirit of any action. While this belief may give comfort to victims and encourage people to do nice things for each other...

The term "karma" is a hindi word, rooted in hinduism.

Hinduism came from Taoism.

The term "Tao" means "Two".

The teaching of the two predates lao tzu the founder of taoism.

The two is a reference to Self and Stuff.

Perceiving the difference between self and stuff is considered attainment of the tao.

Self is formless.

The three are self, mind, and body.

The null is absolute nothingness.

The path of Tao is for the three to become the two, then the two cross over the null, becoming one.

The one is Self manifested in form.

The one can become the two again via misperception of self.

The one is always connected to the two and begins to perceive the many.

The many refers to all aspects of personality.. westerners that understood the many called the aspects archtypes.

In hinduism, the three are called brahma, visnu, and shiva.

The one is called krisna.

The many are the manifold deities.

and the two are called "karma"

Karma means cause and effect.

Karma means self and stuff.

Self is the cause of effect.

However, if stuff is perceived by self as the cause, then self will be perceived as the effect.

This is Taoism and Hinduism in their purest form.

Off topic, Buddhism came from Hinduism, and these three religions have been greatly bastardised over time.. originally only proven science was added to these religions, then superstition, dogma, philosophy, etc.. until the core was hidden and the religions mainly used to control masses of people.

Perhaps such is the fate of all earthly teachings.

and if you liked this one, you should read my book, it's free, currently called, "The Occult Magizian Handbook" you can get it off my website ( currently http://magizian.dyndns.org:20080 ), torrent, or elsewhere since it's all over the web.

Hunter Reon Barnes

"Magizian" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.208.226 (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Karma difference between Buddhism/Jainism and Hinduism

I think more should be said in the introduction about different meanings for karma in different religions. E.g the treatment of karma in Hinduism as 'fate' while in Buddhism/Jainism you make your own karma by your thoughts and actions. Jccraig (talk) 07:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bck2hell, 29 May 2011

Word karma Is Mostly used in mostly used in the south Asia,countries like Nepal,India,Pakistan,Bangladesh....In India,it is pronounced as karam whereas in Nepal,its karma.... Bck2hell (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Please provide some citations for each part of this, that meet the guidelines in the Header box at the top of this page. BTW, the word 'karma' is wisely used in the USA since WWII. Lentower (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

✗ Not done, for now. If you address the above concerns, feel free to reopen this request. Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 19:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Lack of sufficient Emic viewpoints

The whole article on Karma suffers from a lack of sufficient Emic viewpoints.

Why is that the majority of the scholars who are quoted in this article are Western scholars practicing and professing Abrahamic faiths based in western universities while their research is focused on santahana dharma and its geographical and historical contemporaries Jainism Buddhism ?? I find this highly suspicious since there are few corroborating opinions in the article for the claims of western scholars from Hindu , Buddhist or Jain Scholars from Indian universities who are practicing Hindus or Buddhists or Jains themselves .

Such a bias is blatantly clear in origins section where the article suddenly diverges to make assertions (that too with great pains) that brahmins (in implication vedic Hinduism ?) is not connected with the origin of the idea of karma. Presently the idea of caste as a permanent social structure in pre-british india is loosing its ground by recent research on the subject. Caste as a permanent social structure was ossified in india with the advent of the British (before their advent caste was a fluid social structure) thus viewing the origin of the idea of karma in caste framework in ancient india is nothing less than laughable. Further even the idea of Aryan invasion is long past its sell by date and is being increasingly questioned by emic scholars in India and as well as in western scholarship too - so the matter of aryan or non aryan traditions becomes moot. Further it makes little sense in ascribing the ideas of ancient india like karma , samsara , yoga etc to particular castes or religions - i would better serve rationality if those ideas are ascribed to philosophical innovations of particular individuals in the long tradition of indian philosophy. Such an individual may be brahmin jaina , kshatriya buddhist , Hindu sudra or any of the permutations and combinations possible.

It is unanimously acknowledged in social science research that a major flaw in uncorroborated etic research is that the whole exercise is often akin to blindmen feeling up an elephant or even worse such scholars may be influenced to make such unqualified assertions since they have no real stake in the traditions themselves.

Therefore the article in my opinion needs a complete review keeping in mind the concerns i have raised. And should dwell more on the philosophical implications and nuances of the meaning of karma as expounded in various hindu , buddhist , Jaina texts instead of trying to ascribe a sense that "karma" is an inherent concept to even abrahamic religions. Until they are satisfactorily addressed a POV or non-neutrality tag has to be added at the top. I will wait for replies till tomorrow before putting up a tag.

Scourgeofgod (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove "Islam" section. Karma is a technical term strictly restricted to Indian religions; articulating parallel themes in Islam is unsolicited and unencyclopedic. 117.204.86.62 (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree Snowcream (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Moral action and quantum physics

The author appears to take liberty in the minds and opinions of quantum physicists without a verifiable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.200.209 (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Not an Indian word

Karma is not an Indian word its a Hindu word. so wiki pleas don't post untrue articles. India is not only the country which fallow Hinduism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushilda (talk • contribs) 13:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek?

Hi all,

I would like to very respectfully suggest that the following passage about Spiritism be revised:

Spirits are encouraged to choose how (and when) to suffer retribution for the wrong they did in previous lives. How we know of this without remembering we had the choice is ambiguous.

I'm not sure who wrote it or for what reason, but it seems a little disbelieving. And if that were the case this disbelief should not be shared here at this factual source. The fact is that there are people who have given accounts of memories of 'life before life', most of them seem similar enough to draw certain conclusions from yet these people have had nothing to do with each other or heard each other's stories before (in this life). But, maybe they're all a little crazy. Anything's possible.

My point is, please be sure you're writing down facts (and well researched ones at that), and not opinions, which can be very misleading.

123.2.223.88 (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Original vs current meanings

There have been several points arguing for adding more current interpretations of the word karma to those in ancient traditions.

I think it is a fair point that an encyclopedia should have both...providing those current meanings...and their authors...have fairly widespread recognition. Adding new sections for relative obscure groups simply because they interpret the word differently is putting the cart before the horse. New Age thinking generally tends to fragmented--indeed, the variety is its strength. But from an encyclopedia's view, the best approach for reporting this would simply be to have a section briefly reporting several alternative interpretations to illustrate the variety of thinking.

And I agree: text such as "The modern view of karma, devoid of any spiritual exigencies, obviates the need for an acceptance of reincarnation in Judeochristian societies ...This view of karma, as a universal and personally impacting emotional constant, correlates with Buddhist and Jungian understanding that volition (or libido, created from personal and cultural biases) is the primary instigator of karma. Any conscious thought, word and/or action, arising from a cognitively unresolved emotion (cognitive dissonance), results in karma.[50]"

Is not the language of encyclopedias and should either be removed or modified. However the criticism of it above, IMHO, could do with some language adjustment as well to bring it in line with moderate tone in discussion.

--174.7.29.185 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello you all. Where isn't there any mention that Karma is (regarded by many as) an irrational and superstitious concept, like reincarnation, seven years of bad luck when you break a mirror, astrology, and such? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.134.37 (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013

Karma is a Hindu thing, not specific to India. Please correct! thanks. 63.231.145.96 (talk) 05:58, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Please give a reliable source to confirm your claim. - Camyoung54 talk 15:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Karma in Buddhism

Hello, I just read this in the Buddhism section of Karma, it is incorrect

"Most types of karmas, with good or bad results, will keep one within the wheel of samsāra, while others will liberate one to nirvāna.[citation needed]"

Karma does not liberate one to nirvana - whoever posted this has not completely understood the theory. Here are some quotes by Bodhidharma (1st patriarch of zen buddhism) that will hopefully back this up:

"invoking buddhas brings good karma...but no buddha" "to go from mortal to buddha, you have to put an end to karma" "as long as you're subject to birth and death you'll never attain enlightenment" (source: the zen teachings of bodhidharma) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdougdoug (talk • contribs) 22:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hinduism is not fixed

According to the Wikipedia article on Hinduism (Hinduism includes a wide spectrum of laws and prescriptions of "daily morality" based on karma, dharma, and societal norms. Hinduism is a categorisation of distinct intellectual or philosophical points of view, rather than a rigid, common set of beliefs.[3]) it seems presumptuous and perhaps misleading to only expound on Vedantic thought or perhaps dogma regarding karma. There's the Samkhya school (no God exists); and Mimamsa (natural laws of causation are enough to explain it).

Perhaps a link to the article "Karma in Hinduism" would be good. 76.2.130.12 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Taoism

What about this one, "Taoism" By Eva Wong, Page 193.[2] Capitals00 (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientific nature of akarma

Karma is not only a religious tropic it can fully explain by quantum physics. This explanation based on Double Slit Experiment & human body aura.

Ariyaguru (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.. RudolfRed (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It's never a good sign when (paranormal) is in the article title. —Will^(B) 05:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Although it might be tempting to identify the concept of karma with some physical laws sich analogues miss an important point: Entropy. Of course, any action causes a re-action, but this reaction is not necessarily an exact mirror of the action, not even remotely. For example, in German we have a saying like that states "if you shout into a forest, you will get the echo". The echo, however, is always less intense than its cause, while the rest of the energy is converted into heat. This is even true for moral actions: The longer one waits the more the original act gets forgotten (or the recipients pass away), and the consequences for the actor will be less intense. After a number of generations, even wake of the most terrible crimes (e.g. a murder happened centuries ago) tend to dissipate. This concept of increasing entropy is totally omitted in most karmic concepts.--SiriusB (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Confusion in Hinduism section

I'm ok until the new edit starting "Another meaning of Karma as per Bhagwad Geeta..." Maybe it's just poor English confusing me. But even before that, the last paragraph starting " In this way, so long as the stock of Sanchita karma lasts," doesn't seem to follow from anything - this is the first mention of Sanchita karma. Looking at the history, it appears some of it was deleted, see [3] although I have no idea if Goyandaka J, The Secret of Karmayoga, Gita Press, Gorakhpur is a WP:RS. Dougweller (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Clear "redirects"

I don't really think if it's necessary to put "

"Karmic" redirects here. For Ubuntu v9.10 "Karmic Koala", see List of Ubuntu releases § Ubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala). For the EP by Nada Surf, see Karmic (EP).

"Kharma" redirects here. For the professional wrestler, see Kia Stevens.

" above the lead, hope someone will throw some light, in this regard. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Origins

Please give historical Geographic origins of karma, i dont understand why you have not added india as the location to which the concepts of karma is founded and originated from

Also i don't understand why you wrote this bellow:

A concept of karma (along with samsara and moksha) may originate in the shramana tradition of which Buddhism and Jainism are continuations.

Buddha did not become enlighten by reading his own scriptures, instead he used hindu scriptures and information from indian sages, so potent was this information that he ended his life actually in India.

I just cannot see how you can Put karma came from buddhism and claiming its to be them who are teaching the original form, or as you put it continuations,sounds like you have got a soft spot for buddhism, a hint of favoritism of somekind maybe?82.38.161.217 (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)veda

Issues with clarity, missing sections and undue emphasis

This article's issues:

1. Sources for some sections: Some sentences have 8 citations, many paragraphs have none. Several cited sources are good and reliable, but Karma enumerated by these sources is not properly summarized. Some sources used are questionable commercials/blogs, these are neither scholarly nor peer reviewed secondary or tertiary sources.
2. Missing sections such as definition and meaning, history, controversies, etc.
3. Clarity, the article is confusing.
4. Undue emphasis to certain schools, while other views are missing (see Karl Potter, Wilhelm Halbfass, Bruce Reichenbach, etc.).

Parts of this article needs a rewrite, some parts need clarification. I plan to edit it, add reliable scholarly sources. However, if someone is already planning to do so, or has objections to the above comments, please let me know. It will save me effort. I am also adding archive bot to this talk page, as some comments above are old and irrelevant to the current version article (if someone wants the old comments, please remove bot code at the top). Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You think that sources can be provided for fully re-written material? I will give a try though. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to this 5th January 2014 version. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a proper noun

The word "karma" is not a proper noun, and thus should not be capitalised, unless used as the first word in a sentence or in a title. It appears as if at some time in the past someone used a text editor and performed a global find-and-replace to capitalise the word; I've selectively removed the capitalisation where it is inappropriate. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs correction, in my opinion

The bolded portion in the below text appearing in the article is not factually correct. For Vedanta, the nyAya pramana-s are valid.

"Vedanta school acknowledges karma-rebirth doctrine, but concludes it is a theory that is not derived from reality and cannot be proven, considers it invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality / other observable facts about society, treats it as a convenient fiction to solve practical problems in Upanishadic times, and declares it irrelevant; in the Advaita Vedanta school, actions in current life have moral consequences and liberation is possible within one's life as jivanmukti (self-realized person)."

May kindly initiate necessary changes please.

112.196.141.93 (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Atanu Banerjee

Nemesis in 'Western interpretation' section

The ancient Greek concept of Nemesis seems to fit into this section and would help to expand it. She was the goddess of divine retribution against [...] hubris (quotes and other info from Wikipedia page Nemesis_(mythology)), not particularly good or bad (and not an arch-enemy as the word tends to signify now) — something of a 'karma goddess', the punisher of Echo and Narcissus and general balancer of fortunes.

Unfortunately these assertions on Nemesis' own page are not particularly well supported, but if it were included, both the purported original distributor of fortune, neither good nor bad, simply in due proportion and the eventual avenger of crime and the punisher of hubris, tending towards the arch-enemy, should be expressed, if only briefly (to match the rest of the section), to at least hint at both the similarities and differences between Nemesis, karma, and the modern Western concept of it. --IntelVoid (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)