Talk:Karma/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

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.

Extended content

I've rewritten this following Dorje108's section layout suggestion - to put these comparisons under "Comparisons with other traditions" " 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) " The Hindu section is based on what I understood from reading the Wikipedia article as I don't know much about Hinduism - and would need to be corrected and expanded by editors expert in the subject. For that matter all three sections are just place holders for future editing. Also as Dorje suggested, there could be many other sections in this comparison section. +===Comparisons with other traditions=== [There may be many other discussions here as Dorje suggested, but so far only the problem of evil, or justice, has been suggested] +====Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil or justice==== +=====In Hindu traditions===== In Hindu traditions, then there are various views. In the older schools, there is no deity dispensing justice. In the newer schools, Karma is the result of actions by an impartial and fair creator deity, Ishvara with varying views on the nature of Ishvara and how he relates to Brahma. For details see also Karma_in_Hinduism#The_role_of_divine_forces. He is also not a solitary deity, but the principal one of many deities in Hindu teachings. As a result, then the problem is stated as a "problem of justice". Most Hindus also believe that eventually all beings will attain moksha or liberation from the cycle of rebirth. Also Brahma was born just before he created the universe - and in some traditions anyway - he also dissolves back again when all reach liberation. For details see Problem of evil in Hinduism, Karma_in_Hinduism, and Ishvara. (NOTE - this section especially needs detailed attention from an expert on the Hindu traditions - which are intricate and complex - I have simply done my best to summarize a few points from Karma_in_Hinduism, Ishvara, and Problem of evil in Hinduism and could easily have misunderstood essential points. Clearly at any rate, this is a different background from the ideas of Western theologians at least and not surprising if the ideas and arguments are also structured differently.). +=====In Buddhist traditions===== Buddha taught that The origin of all suffering, and more generally dukkha or unsatisfactoriness is confusion or ignorance (not "evil"), see Four noble truths(The Four Noble Truths - By Bhikkhu Bodhi. There is no creator god or being dispensing Karma. Our actions are not themselves determined by previous Karma. Indeed Buddha taught a path leading to escape from the cycle of samsara - this would be impossible if our actions were determined by past karma. As a result, past karma can be purified by our present actions. And an enlightened being such as the Buddha no longer creates Karma able to bind him or her to Samsara. It is a result of a natural process. (Source: "Buddhism is a nontheistic philosophy. We do not believe in a creator but in the causes and conditions that create certain circumstances that then come to fruition. This is called karma. It has nothing to do with judgement; there is no one keeping track of our karma and sending us up above or down below. Karma is simply the wholeness of a cause, or first action, and its effect, or fruition, which then becomes another cause. In fact, one karmic cause can have many fruitions, all of which can cause thousands more creations. Just as a handful of seed can ripen into a full field of grain, a small amount of karma can generate limitless effects.", Khandro Rinpoche (2003), This Precious Life, Shambhala;) Karma is also just one of many interacting causes and effects that operate in our lives. For details, see Karma in Buddhism, and especially, Characteristics of Karma in Buddhism. As a result the "problem of evil" plays a minor role in Buddhist scholarship. It is used occasionally as an argument against the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent creator god. The direction of the argument is reversed - instead of puzzling over how God could permit suffering, as theists do, they ask, how can there be a benevolent and omnipotent God given the evidence of suffering? ("The Buddha argues that the three most commonly given attributes of God, viz. omnipotence, omniscience and benevolence towards humanity cannot all be mutually compatible with the existential fact of dukkha." The Buddhist attitude to God) In its place Buddhism has the teachings on the "problem of suffering, or more generally, dukkha or unsatisfactoriness" and the teachings on the path leading to its cessation - or nirvana. "To the Buddha the entire teaching is just the understanding of dukkha, the unsatisfactory nature of all phenomenal existence, and the understanding of the way out of this unsatisfactoriness." (The Buddha's Ancient Path by PIYADASSI THERA) +=====In Western Theology===== In Western theology with the idea of an omnipotent and benevolent solitary creator God, the problem of evil is especially acute. Though karma is not native to the "Western" monotheistic traditions, it has been explored as a possible explanation for the problem of evil. This section summarizes material from the article "Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil" (Whitely Kaufman, Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil) by the lawyer and Western philosopher Whitely Kaufman (Whitley R.P. Kaufman, Philosophy, Global Studies - bio page). +=====Criticism of the Eastern Ideas by Western Theologists===== Optionally maybe some of the Kaufman material can be put in here. If thought appropriate to include his criticisms of Eastern ideas of karma. I think it is good to separate out general criticisms at an abstract level by Westerners who don't claim any special knowledge of the Eastern traditions, and who, as Kaufman did, abstract a few basic ideas from the complex Eastern ideas of karma - from criticisms by either Eastern or Western scholars with a thorough knowledge of the Upanishads or the Triptaka respectively - and a knowledge of the extensive commentaries on these works. His article doesn't seem to belong for instance in the thread of the discussion of the problem of Injustice in Hindu thought, or the discussions in the "The Buddhist attitude to God" article, and I think it would be hard to merge them together to make a single section, probably best kept separate. +=====Other sections===== Also, what do we do about "Other interpretations" and "Karma and emotions"? I suggest, just for discussion, that we leave them as is between the "Eastern Interpretations" and "Comparisons with other traditions" +===Discussion of this proposal=== What do you all think? Just thoughts, for one way to do it, as a starting point for discussion. Mark.muesse, Dorje108 etc? Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Robert Walker, The problem of evil is one of many discussions relating to the karma concept that have prominently featured in the Eastern traditions. It is not a superset. With due respect for multiple and linked articles guidelines, you should take the above Kaufman discussion to Karma in Buddhism talk page, then include a consensus version in that main article. A summary from the article should then be included in this article. The October 10 2014 version, of Karma in Buddhism article, does not even cite Kaufman. The summaries for Hindu and Buddhist position on 'problem of evil' above are flawed and not encyclopedic. We need a more comprehensive summary from multiple sources. Kindly consider, for example, scholarly reviews about problem of evil in Eastern traditions by Arthur Herman, by Francis Clooney and by others. In addition, please consider Karma and the Problem of Evil: A Response to Kaufman in Philosophy East and West, Volume 57, Number 4, October 2007. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 22:16, 10 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Muesse The articles are clearly of keen interest to Western theologians. But where do any of the authors in this discussion thread discuss the Buddha's teachings on the origin of suffering and and the characteristics of Karma in Buddhism? And, if they don't discuss the Buddha's own teachings on the matter - in what sense does it count as a discussion of Karma in Buddhism? Extended content The Problem of evil in Hinduism intro may be helpful: "Hindu answers to the problem of evil are different from most answers offered in Western philosophy, partly because the problem of evil within Hindu thought is differently structured than Western traditions, mainly Abrahamic traditions." In Buddhist teachings - patterns of thought are so differently structured that it doesn't arise as a question at all except in discussion of non Buddhist ideas. We are never going to be able to meld these all into a single unifying pattern of thought that encompasses all three traditions, though we can compare and contrast them and bring out similar and differing ideas amongst them. Basically, I'm suggesting we follow a similar style to that used in the Buddhist Rimé movement where "When he (Khyentse Rinpoche) taught, he would give the teachings of each lineage clearly and intelligibly without confusing the terms and concepts of other teachings." - if that is necessary even within Tibetan Buddhism for the four main schools of Tibetan Buddhism, is even more so important when we want to talk about Buddhism, Hinduism and Western Theology within a single article. Please treat the sections I wrote as stubs to be corrected, expanded, and citations added to them. The main point in writing them was just to show one way that these three main threads of discourse could be separated, if it's agreed that this is what we need to do. The Karma in Buddhism article is one of the most thorough and scholarly articles on Buddhism here, with several hundred sources cited, including many Western scholars. Take a look at its Notes References, and Sources. As you noticed, they don't mention his article - but rather than suggest that they should, I'd put it the other way - why isn't his article mentioned there already, in such a thoroughly researched article? Does that not suggest that it does indeed belong to a different discourse? Also - would a reader be familiar with the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma already at the start of the article? If not - is it not best to present those ideas first? It is most usual to proceed that way - to present the basic ideas first, and discussions of them later, especially when the ideas are unfamiliar to the reader. Anyway - that's what I think. Interested to hear what other editors think about this however. Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC) If necessary, if we can't resolve it amongst ourselves, we could take this to a Request for Comment? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment, might help. Robert Walker (talk) 05:30, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Robert Walker, Other than Kaufman's article(s), which scholarly articles on theodicy and karma, in Buddhism or Hinduism or other Eastern traditions, have you studied so far? Which ones would you recommend for a summary on the problem of evil and karma. On sequence, the article already has a definition section before the discussion section. The definition section already states, "(karma theory) as that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to his or her actions in past." The Buddhism section states, "...the causes and conditions that create certain circumstances that then come to fruition. This is called karma." The Hinduism section states in context of explaining karma theory, "future is both a function of current human effort derived from free will and past human actions that set the circumstances." I already see in definition section what you refer to as "the original Hindu and Buddhist ideas of karma already at the start of the article." What is the definition section missing? Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC) Mark Muesse - you haven't answered my question. In what way is Kaufman's article a discussion of the Buddhist ideas of Karma when he doesn't mention the Buddha's teachings on the origin of suffering, and the Buddhist teachings on the characteristics of Karma. For that matter, in what way is it a discussion of the Hindu ideas if it doesn't discuss the Hindu ideas of justice? Sorry, I just don't understand what you are asking for here. I suggest you read Karma in Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths if you need an introduction to the basic ideas of Buddha's teachings on karma. They have plenty of citations if you need to go further to the scholarly literature on the subject. If that is not sufficient, I'm not sure what to do. Please explain in more detail if I haven't understood. What particularly do you need citations for in the short summary I wrote above? Citations for the four noble truths? Citations on the characteristics of Karma in Buddhism? Citations to show that the Buddha taught a path leading to the cessation of dukkha? Or what? You can't expect an extensive literature on theodicy in Buddhism because it's not a central topic as it is for Christians. It is replaced by the "problem of suffering" which is of course a central topic in Buddhism, together with a path leading to its solution. I've included the only citation mentioned on the subject in the Problem of evil page - and it goes into a fair amount of detail also. Extended content In case of Hindu teachings, I am not familiar with it, but just summarized the Hindu sections of wikipedia as best I could. But Kaufman doesn't refer to the basic ideas of them either in his paper. He never mentions the "problem of justice" which apparently is central to Hindu thinking on the matter. I'm not a Buddhist scholar as I said. But you don't have to be a scholar to edit wikipedia. Indeed this is not the place to conduct original scholarly research. And there are plenty of citations available on these topics. As for the introduction - that's a general introduction without specifics. The Buddhist section explains that karma in Buddhism has nothing to do with judgement, or a benevolent creator God, and gives many other details of the Buddhist ideas. That surely has to go before any discussion of them. Because we can't assume that the reader is already familiar with Buddhist ideas on Karma if the discussion is placed first before the exposition of those ideas. I've collapsed parts of my answers similarly to discussions on facebook - leaving just the essential points visible, maybe it's a possible solution to verboseness here. It works well on facebook. Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I've added citations to the Buddhism section, just copied over a few citations from the articles it links to. Does that answer your question? As for the Hindu section - that especially is a place holder, should be looked over and corrected by someone familiar with the details of Hindu ideas of karma and injustice. Robert Walker (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC) Robert Walker, Kaufman paper discusses karma-rebirth doctrine wherein he states his scope and context includes Buddhist ideas (see first paragraph of the paper). That is what I was referring to when I urged you take Kaufman discussion to Karma in Buddhism. You are inviting me to a forum like discussion with questions such as "In what way is Kaufman's article a discussion of the Buddhist ideas of Karma when he doesn't mention the Buddha's teachings on...". Look at the top line on this talk page's information box: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". I decline your invitation. Your summary for the problem of evil in Hinduism relies on a wikipedia article that is of poor quality and mostly without any reliable sources. Consider wikipedia content policy: wikipedia articles are not an acceptable source for other wikipedia articles. Hinduism has many schools. Karma theory in almost all schools of Hinduism, as well as Jainism, has nothing to do with (divine) judgment. I will take another look at the article and clarify where appropriate. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, but Kaufman's mention of Buddhism in his introduction doesn't make it a discussion of Buddhist ideas - not when he doesn't reference any of the Buddha's teachings anywhere in the article. And I wouldn't think of suggesting such an article for Karma in Buddhism for the same reason. And he says himself that he is not expert in Eastern ideas (here I'm referring to the sentence where he says that doctrinal exegesis is outside his competence). And there are dozens of Western papers cited in Karma in Buddhism so it's not been left out because of a bias against Western scholarship. Perhaps you don't realize how central the four noble truths are to the Buddha's teachings? When you have an article that discusses suffering without mentioning the four noble truths, and does not mention that the Buddha taught a path leading to freedom from dukkha - it is not an article about Buddhism. But he doesn't say that it is about Buddhism anyway. The only connection he makes with Buddhism is in the intro where he says "The doctrine of karma and rebirth represents perhaps the most striking difference between Western (Judeo-Christian and Islamic) religious thought and the great Indian religious traditions (Hindu, Buddhist, Jain).". As far as I can see, the words Buddha and Buddhist don't occur anywhere else in the article. If I've missed it, please point out the passage(s) where he discusses Buddhist ideas of suffering and the origin of suffering, or indeed any specifically Buddhist ideas at all in the article. Extended content In essence they contain the entirety of his teachings. So an article that talks about suffering and the problem of suffering without mentioning the four noble truths, really can't be considered to be an article about Buddhism. Any more than an article that doesn't mention God could be considered to be an article about theism. Even if the author says in the introduction that this is an article about theism - but then in the entire article never mentions God, you wouldn't consider it to be an article about theism. And if the author goes on to say that he is not an expert in theism and hasn't studied any theist texts - you would then understand why he hasn't mentioned God. In the same way Kaufman says himself that he is not an expert in Eastern ideas - so it is no surprise that he doesn't mention the central Buddhist teachings on the origins of suffering. Absolutely totally essential. It just isn't the Buddhist teachings if you don't mention that. Yes for sure, the summary of the Hindu problem is likely to need to be rewritten. Somebody else needs to step in and comment on that. But in the case of the summary of Buddhism - I'm confident enough in that. Because it is simple basic stuff that any Buddhist knows, the little I said there, and as you see, I've now backed up every remark made there with citations. And whatever you might say about the Hindu articles, the Karma in Buddhism article is of the highest quality with hundreds of citations and written with a scholarly thoroughness. And - what is your reason for putting a discussion of the Buddhist ideas before the ideas themselves are presented? You haven't answered that. It's not just me saying that. Three of us have said the same thing so far, and you are the only one that thinks that the discussion should go before the ideas are presented. Why? I suggest that we put the Eastern ideas first before they are discussed, as is the more logical and natural progression. And I suggest that we separate out the discussion in the Buddhist literature which uses the evidence of suffering (not evil) as an argument against a benevolent omnipotent God from the arguments of Kaufman etc which I hesitate to summarize, complex arguments rooted in Western theology. and from the Hindu discussions as well, whatever they are. If the current Hindu article on the subject is poor, someone needs to improve it, and then summarize the results here, but it's all we've got at present. I think we have to do it that way, because they are different discussions, not referring to each other, using different conceptual frameworks, and I don't see how they can be merged together to make a single discussion thread, without thoroughly confusing the reader. Yes of course you don't use Wikipedia articles as citation sources. But it is okay to use them as a basis for material. Extended content You often have to summarize a more extensive article as a short section in another page - and that is fine. The only thing is that as they are not primary sources, you don't cite them in your summary. The usual approach, as done in numerous wikipedia articles, also in the Buddhism and Hindu sections of this page, is to use the same citations as are used in the main article and add a "see also" type link to the articles for the reader who wants to find out more. I haven't used any wikipedia articles as a citation source. For that matter it is just a draft, it is not yet in the main article. Robert Walker (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for RfC

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

Can I suggest a RfC? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment

Collapsing this suggestion as there was no reply

Extended content

I recommend, to keep it as simple as possible, that we have two questions. I think also - that since you need to be able to answer a RfC with either Oppose or Support, they might have to be two separate RfCs, which is okay, I think you can have two RfCs on the same talk page. Anyway whether as two RfCs or whether you can do it as a single one, I suggest the questions are: 1. Should we keep the existing section ordering - or change to Dorje's section ordering where the discussion follows the Eastern religion presentations on Karma? 2. Should we keep the existing single section on problem of evil in Karma or change to my suggested division into three sections? Plus encourage them to make any other recommendations if they have other ideas for solutions. I've looked at the other options, things to try first, on the RfC page but I don't think they will work for us. Extended content The RfC format is useful because you have a simple list of views, as Oppose, or Accept kept separate from the discussion, so it doesn't get overwhelmed by a long discussion between two people as has happened with us, and each participant can put forward their argument there as best they can without interruption. Also, it's obvious that a third party opinion is not going to work for us. And it is not just a matter of technical details to be sorted out, it is more of an opinion. Seems to be a question about whether Karma is a subject you can abstract from the specific teachings in the way that Kaufman did. You, I think believe that you can do that. Also, if I understand you right, in his paper, you see an article which captures the essence of the idea, and which then raises important issues that are universally applicable to all the different doctrines on Karma. So to you, it makes most sense to summarize its contents before we get down to the specifics of the different religions. While for me, reading the same article, I don't see any resemblance to the Buddhist ideas on Karma. To me, it seems to express particular views of a Western philosopher and theologian largely informed by monotheistic Abrahamic theology who has picked out a few strands from the Eastern ideas and combined them with other ideas from Western theology. And far from being universal in its scope, I see it used to address questions that are mainly a priority for theists who also believe in an omnipotent and benevolent solitary creator God. (I know he says that the questions he asks are universally applicable but I'm not convinced by his arguments there, as for a Buddhist the "problem of suffering" is not a "problem of evil" - and I feel he would need to discuss that first, as well as the Buddha's teachings on the origin of suffering, if he wanted his ideas to be relevant to a Buddhist). I don't think any amount of discussion will resolve this between the two of us. We've both said our say, and found citations to back our views etc, and it hasn't resolved anything, because it is a matter of opinion - about whether Kaufman's paper goes to the heart of the matter about Karma and should be accepted as fundamental to all discussions of the topic - or whether it is a paper that takes a uniquely Western theological view on the questions. BTW I just discovered, while writing this, that his paper is part of a complete conference on this topic, Revisioning Karma. It's obviously a big subject. But again - there don't seem to be any actual Buddhists from the Eastern traditions contributing to the discussion. All Western names, at Western universities. There are some papers there that, unlike Kaufman's paper, specifically address the Buddhist ideas. But still, seems to me that the focus is on revising Buddhist ideas to make them accord with Western ethical dilemmas. Many of those ethical dilemmas they raise, which seem so acute to the authors, would go away, seems to me, if they studied the ideas as they are understood by Buddhists. There are a great many eminent Eastern scholars - why are they not involved in this discussion if it is so important? Were they invited to contribute and declined, or not invited at all? Isn't that by itself enough to show that it is a Western pre-occupation? Anyway, I'll put that into my "Support" section of the RfC, and you can put your views in your section, if we do this. Then we can post it to the Religion, Buddhism, and Hinduism project talk pages, the Karma in Hinduism, Problem of evil in Buddhism, and Karma in Buddhism talk pages and anywhere else appropriate. And hopefully get some more views and some clarity on the matter. What do you think? Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 14 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

Extended content

The main points are, that the discussion is in the wrong place in the article, before exposition of the ideas discussed - and that it should be labelled as a Western discussion since, so far at least, only Western scholars are engaged in this discussion, and it doesn't seem to have engaged Eastern scholars yet. For a detailed proposal for a way to organize the material, see Dorje's #Problem with recent section reordering. Details of some issues with the section Much of the material in this section derives from one of the papers Karma, Rebirth and the Problem of Evil presented to the Revisioning Karma conference. Discussion is placed before the exposition of the Hindu and Buddhist ideas which it discusses. Logically it should follow the ideas discussed. This "Karma, rebirth and the Problem of evil" debate is not mentioned in Karma in Buddhism, Karma in Hinduism and Problem of evil in Hinduism - never mind leading those articles. The first two are scholarly articles - Karma in Buddhism has hundreds of citations both Western and Eastern. It does not seem credible that the topic has the same importance for Buddhists and Hindus as it has for Western theologians when they don't mention it. Some of the authors in the debate, such as Kaufman, claim that their considerations are universal ones that should be accepted by everyone in all religions or none. But such claims are not sufficient reason for accepting that their arguments are indeed universally valid, if they are not in fact taken up and debated by members of other religions. It is common in philosophical debates for philosophers to claim that their conclusions are universally valid and should be accepted by any rational person. When this happens, wikipedia editors shouldn't take such claims on face value without first reading works by other philosophers to see if they agree. Same with religious ideas. The articles use ideas from Western ethics and theology such as Moral agency - rational beings able to distinguish between right and wrong. Similar debates in Eastern traditions are structured differently. For instance in Buddhism, the aim of a bodhisattva is not to be a "good person" or to make good moral choices. They don't care what other beings or deities think about them, their only wish is for all beings to be free from suffering and to find happiness in whatever form is true and appropriate for them. And when helping others to find happiness and freedom from suffering, the Buddhas and bodhisattvas are not troubled by questions about whether they "deserve" to be happy or not. So - it's much simpler in a way - many of the complexities of Western ethics and theology are to a large part just irrelevant to the Buddha's teachings. The articles (especially Kaufman's) also frequently make explicit appeal to the notion of a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, solitary always existing God, an idea which is not present in any of the Eastern traditions discussed. In Hinduism, then Brahma was born just before he created the universe, and then - in some traditions at least - dissolves away when all reach liberation - and is the principle one of many deities. In Buddhism, there is no need to assume a creator god, or omnipotent type deity at all. This of course changes how you think about Karma. The authors in this debate are all Westerners at Western establishments. I can see no articles by any Eastern scholars at all in the listing for the Revisioning Karma conference, and there are of course many notable Eastern scholars. It is not properly an East - West debate, however it might be labelled, if carried out only by Westerner theologians and philosophers. The Buddha's teachings on the origin of suffering and a path leading to the cessation of suffering, are not mentioned at all in the main article cited or the discussion section. For Buddhists, it is a "problem of suffering", not a "problem of evil". For Hindus it is a "problem of injustice". When these distinctions are not mentioned, in what sense is it truly a discussion of the Eastern ideas? It is true that some of the Westerners involved in the debate think that their points should be universally accepted as issues with the idea of Karma. But this does not of course, by itself, make points universally accepted, that some of those who present those points in their articles believe that they should be. It should be mentioned of course. Is clearly a major topic for the Western scholars involved in it. Just saying - that for now at least - for as long as it remains a topic of primary interest to Western theologians - that it belongs at the end, and in the Western section. Suggestions for a way ahead For a detailed proposal for a way to organize the material, see Dorje's #Problem with recent section reordering. As for specific discussion of problem of evil - I think the Hindu discussions of the problem of Injustice - and its limited mentions in Buddhist scholarship as an issue with the idea of a benevolent ominiscient deity - are best treated separately from the "Revisioning Karma" discussion - as they don't refer to each other as far as I can tell. Also the context is different and the ideas are framed differently so it would be hard to merge them into a single discussion. For one idea of how to separate them, see my #New section reordering proposal - the problem of evil section intro in context

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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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).

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.[56] 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)

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.[8] 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,[10][note 1] and includes duties, rights, laws, conduct, virtues and ‘‘right way of living’’.[7] In Buddhism dharma means "cosmic law and order",[10] but is also applied to the teachings of the Buddha.[10] In Buddhist philosophy, dhamma/dharma is also the term for "phenomena".[11][note 2] In Jainism dharma refers to the teachings of the Jinas[10] 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)