Talk:Karma/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Misrepresentations and persistent reliance on poor quality sources

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

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

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

Swami Sivananda_Saraswati puts it like this:

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

The wikipedia article says this about him, with citations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your questions about Buddhism

Collapsing all of this now. The short summary is - that none of the citations given by Mark say that Buddhas or Yidams or Adhisthana or anything else in Buddhism is an example of some being other than ourselves who knows our past and brings about results of karma in the present as a judgement for the past. Though that is said explicitly by some Hindu teachers, it seems - it is never said by Buddhists, and he didn't give any example of a Buddhist who says this.

So - I went through his examples one at a time to answer that - you can argue that my reply was OR - but so was his use of those pages to argue for the idea that Buddhists say that divine beings bring about karmic judgements - as none of them say that.

Extended content

+====Summary of my replies==== Short summary: first this is for information on this talk page only, it's probably too advanced and detailed to include in the Karma in Buddhism section, and wouldn't be for me to write about it anyway. But as a practitioner this is how I understand it as taught by my teachers. So first, Yidams -they are not separate from us. Like poetic ways of talking about the qualities of compassion, wisdom etc that we all have. Adhishthana is inspiration - the pages talking about how Buddhas can help us in our lives, at any moment, through Adhishthana - that's talking about inspiration, the inspiration that arises from reading the teachings and recalling them, for instance. Can arise in more immediate, vivid inspiring ways, but it is the same thing essentially. Devas in Buddhism -they are just long lived beings, like us in other respects, just have happier longer lives, may be more powerful - but as understood in Buddhist teachings they are not gods in the Western sense. Also spirits and powerful beings - they are just beings in Samsara like everyone else. Not a requirement of Buddhism to believe they exist, just traditionally thought they do. If they exist, they may be able to interfere with our lives. But so can other humans, and non human beings, and natural events. They don't at all fit this role of judges that know what we did in the past and bring about fruits of karma after weighing up the evidence of past actions. They have no idea what we did in the past, are just acting under their current motivations whatever they are. +=====More about yidams - not separate from us ===== Yidams are often talked about as if they are separate from us, but that's to be understood poetic fashion as ways of talking about compassion, wisdom etc and the direct connections with those qualities we are all capable of. As the Dalai Lama explained (quote below in details) it would be a grave error to think of them as having an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. Here he is talking about the primoridial Buddha but same is true for yidams. This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra. +=====More about Adhishtana===== As for Adhishtana - that works by inspiration. E.g. many Buddhists offer bowls of water to Shakyamuni Buddha (and to all the Buddhas) every morning. We believe this physical and symbolic action brings his inspiration into our lives. But he entered paranivarna - though we can make a direct connection with the inspiration of his teachings 2500 years ago, and in a way can connect to the past Shakyamuni that way - and though his enlightenment is timeless, he is not any more here as a living being in our world system and can't intervene in our lives in that way. And he has nothing at all to do with bringing about the fruits of karma, no Buddha is. So in your citations that referred to the support of Buddhas in our lives, that they can help us right now, through Adhishtanha - that is how that is understood. +=====Living Buddhas who are born in our current time===== Living Buddhas who are born in our current time, of course can help in many other ways, e.g. when Buddha Shakyamuni was alive he could help not just by teaching but in many other ways as well. They can do this if you have the right connection to meet them, and if you also let them help you, when you encounter them. But again none of that consists of them bringing about the fruition of Karma. They help anyone, no matter what they did in the past. So this is not divine intervention or judgement.

Detailed reply (collapsed)

Here is the original detailed reply, collapsed

Extended content

On Yidams and adhishtana in Tibetan Buddhism - I can answer a bit about that - but first to say, this is another subtle topic. Easily misunderstood by Westerners. It could be mentioned in the article here but Dorje108 chose not to mention it in his short section, and I would not want to edit what he wrote, as I said, because Karma in Buddhism is a particularly subtle topic and hard to understand. So this is just for your information on this talk page. I'll collapse the details below, as it is answering you particularly and maybe others reading this won't want to read it Short summary - Buddhists do sometimes talk about yidams as if separate from us - but that's to be understood - sort of like poetry - they never really are. If one thought of them as having an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless past - that would be a grave error as the Dalai Lama explains (see below in the details). And the Buddhas do help us - but through inspiration and adhishtana - which is not at all the same as divine intervention. E.g. I might be inspired by remembering instructions about patience - so that then helps me. But they can't prevent my anger from arising - and can't do anything to prevent its fruits either. Karma is nothing to do with the Buddhas who don't generate karma themselves because no longer bound to Samsara. But are able to interact with us through their past connections with us before they became enlightened, and through our own karma. Then you also have beings that Buddhists call "devas" but they are not quite as understood by Hindus. They are just beings still in samsara - who are having a good time temporarily due to past Karma and in future will end up wondering through the realms of samsara again. They never really escaped it. Then you have spirits and powerful beings that some of the traditions think exist, somewhat shamanistic some of them. It's not an essential part of the Buddhist teachings to believe in the devas or worldly spirits, it is just part of the cosmology that was accepted by everyone at the time he was teaching, and some of them things that many Tibetans continue to believe and some Westerners also who have inherited their ideas from Tibetan teachers. Some Tibetans used to think that the world was flat. It's similar to that, it's not a big deal, not essential to the Buddha's teachings what shape the Earth is. You don't go to the Sutras to try to find out new laws of physics. And they are just beings in samsara like everyone else. As for the yidams, they are more like poetry than anything else we have in the West. They are meant to be images that are inspiring and uplifting and to speak to your heart. Not really things you "believe in". The true nature of Chenrezig is simply compassion, the images etc are just things to help you there. When you fully realize Chenrezig you drop all that - it is an obstacle to your practice indeed if a practitioner follows a yidam meditation and is unable to drop the visual aspect of it at the end - at least that's how I was taught. And many Buddhist traditions don't have them, they are not an essential part of the way it is taught. I would not recommend that we discuss Yidams on this page, as the topic is so easily misunderstood by Westerners and subtle and difficult to explain and it is not the central topic here. At any rate I'm not the one to attempt the task! Yet More details: Extended content Adhiṣṭhāna - yes Buddhas can help in this way. It's the main way they help. It's easiest to understand in the case of the historical Buddha. So, many Buddhists offer seven bowls of water to the historical Buddha every morning (in some traditions eight). When you do that, you invite the historical Buddha into your life, as a guest. And then his inspiration then helps you in your life. This does not mean however that he is there acting to fulfill your wishes etc in the way Westerners understand such things. You wouldn't pray to Buddha to give you a new car or house, or to help you succeed in your job interview or some such, as some of the more fundamentalist Christians would do, or indeed to save suffering people - not in the sense of expecting God to act on your prayers. It would be an error to interpret it as divine intervention. It works rather via inspiration. You've been to teachings about the dharma. You've read the sutras, enough to get a blessing connection. And then by inviting the Buddha into your life in this way, you make a connection to him in a physical, symbolic way. And in so doing that helps you to open out to the inner Buddha inside you. Different ways of presenting it - that's in the Tathahhatagarbha traditions. So that's the sense in which the Buddhas can help. Through inspiration. They can't intervene and change things in your life and they certainly have nothing to do with causing the fruits of your past karmic actions to occur. Through their inspiration they can help you to find a way to purify your past karma, because you get inspired. For instance, if in the midst of anger, you reflect on the teachings and have a moment of patience. then that's the inspiration and adhishtana of the Buddhas helping you there, as we understand it in Buddhism. And by so doing they help you to purify your past negative karma in that very moment. But they can't do anything to stop your anger or to prevent you from experiencing its fruits if you do get angry. And then for practitioners who follow the path of a bodhisattva, then that leads to a far vaster inspiration. But - nobody can make anyone else enlightened. They have to find out for themselves. All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can do is to help with their physical issues of course, if they have the right connection - and to inspire them, and show them the way by teaching the dharma in whatever form is suitable to them (not necessarily as "Buddhism"). This is how all Buddhists understand it. The yidams are understood similarly. For instance when Tibetans say that the Dalai Lama is an embodiment of Chenrezig - that's not in an exclusive way. Tibetans would say the same about anyone who shows compassion in an open hearted way, they'd say "you are the embodiment of Chenrezig". So Yidams such as Chenrezig - even though they are often depicted and described like external deities, but Buddhists understand - they are internal really. They are not separately existing external entities. Some sutras speak of them as if they are - but those are understood in this way. This is what the Dalai Lama says about it This is how I understand the concept of the Primordial Buddha. It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time. If we had to accept the idea of an independent creator, the explanations given in the Pramanavartika, the "Compendium of Valid Knowledge" written by Dharmakirti, and in the ninth chapter of the text by Shantideva, which completely refutes the existence per se of all phenomena, would be negated. This, in turn, would refute the notion of the Primordial Buddha. The Buddhist point of view does not accept the validity of affirmations which do not stand up to logical examination. If a sutra describes the Primordial Buddha as an autonomous entity, we must be able to interpret this assertion without taking it literally. We call this type of sutra an "interpretable" sutra. His account is discussed in chapter 2 of this book http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bd4HSga3FHUC and for the full quote (that book leaves out sections with ...) see http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html He is talking particularly about the Primordial Buddha there - but when he says "It would be a grave error to conceive of it as an independent and autonomous existence from beginningless time" - that's true just as much of course for the various Yidams such as Chenrezig for compassion. It is easy to misunderstand some of the statements that Buddhists make about Yidams and Adhishtana if one doesn't have that background. It is a subtle and difficult topic. I would not recommend including it in this article as it is too specialized and far too easy for Westerners to misunderstand. But if it was felt necessary to include it, then that's a discussion to carry out with Dorje108 and others. The ones that go closest to the idea of Buddhas as an external deity would be the pure land sects in Buddhism. But even there, they don't really understand them in that way. Not as separate from internal. It's a subtle topic. I have just touched on it here. Buddhas of course don't create karma or experience its fruits. When they interact with us in physical bodies, as Shakyamuni did, or teach us, it is through their past connections with us before they became enlightened and our own Karma. That's how Buddhists understand it.. Robert Walker (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC) There are also many sutras and texts that are written in a more poetic way. I don't think we are expected to literally believe that the baby Buddha to be. when first born was immediately able to walk and lotuses sprung up with every step. Rather, it is an image that inspires the mind. It's like a poem written about the baby Buddha to be, by a devoted Buddhist. So that also leads to a lot of misunderstanding by Westerners also. And - if that poem touches our hearts deeply, as some of the more poetic sutras do, filled with Buddhist imagery - who is to say whether perhaps it is more "real" in a way than the superficial things that so often occupy our lives. Robert Walker (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Just had a look - you link to stories about worldly "deities" as well. In Buddhism. These are just spirits, or beings who happen to have very long lives, and may be very powerful. Sometimes called "gods" in stories. The "devas" of Buddhism - they are just thought of as beings that have very long lives and - in the "higher god realms" happy lives due to past karma. They are not enlightened. Eventually the past karma is exhausted and they end up wondering through all the other realms of samsara like the rest of us. They never left it. Just like a sort of a "holiday" like we do here also, temporarily everything is wonderful, for a while. Those details really aren't that important for Buddha's teachings. If he were teaching Westerners he'd doubtless talk about ETs with life extending technology or some such. Who knows. The point there is just that there may be other forms of existence where beings live much longer than we do and have long happy lives. Or not so happy as the case may be. And again they are not responsible for creating fruits of Karma in the Buddhist teachings. I can understand why you might think they are. But it's no different really from e.g. meeting someone in the street, if you believe such beings exist. They interact with you because of past karma. But they are not responsible for you being in a body that experiences the results you experience. Buddhists don't think of karma anyway as operating on that sort of 1-1 this particular effect is due to this action I did a hundred lifetimes ago. approach. As Lama Tai Situpa I think it was, said in one of his talks, if a mosquito bites me on my nose, that doesn't mean that I bit it on its nose in a past life :). Saying all this since you asked, and in these short answers I am just touching on a few points of a vast subject that others would be best doing a full exposition of if you needed it. You couldn't be Buddhist and say that Karma is the result of divine judgement. The two are incompatible because the Buddha taught that the path is one that anyone can follow and that by seeing the truth of non self you can be free from Samsara. Just by seeing the truth, not thorough any autonomous external Divine intervention. But you can be Hindu and say so, it seems, with variations amongst the various Hindu traditions about whether they think so or not. I think myself it is cheating the reader to present various traditions with differing views as if they were all the same. We all have different inclinations and what is a suitable path for one person to follow may not be appropriate to another. Same happens within Buddhism, we have many traditions. Even in Tibet, the Dalai Lama is a lineage holder for four Buddhist traditions that teach in different ways (he refers to the variation in how they understand things in that quote above). Robert Walker (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Your other citations

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

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

Your 145 stories of Yogi Chen

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

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

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

Extended content

First few I thought were just worldly spirits so that's why I wrote what I said above. But in later stories, he talks about Yama, and about these as apparently external beings, who are the instruments of cause for the fruits of Karma. I'd want to know more background about it to be sure it's been understood right. But it does seem on the face of it to be an example of someone who calls himself a Buddhist who also says that Karmic fruits are caused by external spirits or deities who make decisions about what are the appropriate karmic fruits to visit on them depending on their previous actions. I don't see myself how that is compatible with the Buddhist teachings. But if he is accepted as a Buddhist then you'd have to say that some Buddhists also hold this view. The Dalai Lama I'm sure and many other Buddhists would call that a grave error if so. If he does indeed believe this. It may be that they are "interpreted" stories where they are not meant to be taken literally as caused by external separate beings. But it does on the face of it seem as if they are being taken as such. I don't know what to say, would need someone more knowledgeable to step in and say more about it - is he a Buddhist (just calling yourself a Buddhist doesn't make you one, is different from Hinduism - there are certain core things that are needed to be a Buddhist, if you don't follow his teachings on the four noble truths for instance, no matter what you call yourself, most Buddhists would say you aren't a Buddhist) - do other Buddhist traditions recognize him as such - and if not - then what do they say? What point would there be in the 4 noble truths if there are external deities shaping your lives, and there is nothing you can do except submit to their whims? It would make a nonsense of the whole thing. That's why it seems to me, either he is not really a Buddhist, or they are not to be interpreted literally. This is the Wikipedia article about him: Yogi Chen "According to Lama Ole Nydahl, Chen had, in his youth in China, been terrified of death and had at first practiced Taoist life-extending exercises. Later he turned to Buddhism and, in search of teachings, went to Tibet, where he spent several years living in a cave. " So, if that is correct, he is a Chinese hermit who started off as a Taoist in China and then met many Tibetan teachers and took on their teachings. I know also that in China then Buddhists there traditionally melded their views with Taoism and Confucianism. I.e. they would often be not pure Buddhist, but Buddhist / Taoist / Confucianist. It may be that these stories have Taoist and Confucian elements and are not pure Buddhist teachings. Just a guess there, but seems a reasonable one. Good to hear more from someone who is knowledgeable about this! Robert Walker (talk) 23:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The reverted material and future proposals

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

Extended content

In Karma#Definition and meanings I replaced "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" by: According to some of these traditions, law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.. Some Buddhists go so far as to use Karma to disprove existence of God. But in other traditions, it is thought to require divine agency to operate, and some Hindus especially in the Nyaya tradition use Karma to prove existence of God. Where the main citation there is to an article by Sivananda_Saraswati, a Hindu and author of over 200 books who used Karma as one of his proofs of existence of God, and I balanced it with an article by the Buddhist V. A. Gunasekara who used Karma to disprove existence of God in a statement made to a multireligious seminar. I added this to the following para: Some of these traditions consider it is due to divine agency , some use it to refute existence of God. before: " Karma thus has not one, rather multiple definitions and different meanings." And finally I also edited the last para of this section to: Karma theory as a concept, across different Indian religious traditions, shares certain common themes: causality, dharma i.e. teachings about appropriate behaviour often motivated by karma, and rebirth. where I replaced the Western word "ethicization" by the word used in this context by the Eastern religions, "dharma". In the section "Karma and ethicization" I added a template Pov-check - that's because I suggest this section also is written from a Western perspective, and it would be more authentic in the Eastern traditions to call it "Karma and Dharma". and the section would be expressed differently based around the Eastern idea of dharma as the path you hold to, rather than an intrinsic externally imposed good. I also added to that section "In some traditions also, many acts have consequences that are neither positive or negative, but still bind you to the cycle of existence. " That's because I thought there was too much emphasis there on Karma as "good" and "bad" as after all the main aim in the Eastern traditions is not to have a good life but to find freedom from the cycle of existence. It should also, I think, at least mention Nirvana and Moksha Further back in time, I changed the title of "Discussion" to "Discussion in Western Theology / Philosophy" and wrote a short para of intro here; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma&diff=628468124&oldid=628467573 Just saying that for completeness. I think it needs some kind of intro, but I'm sure what I did there could be improved. And before that, several of us had decided in discussion that the "Discussion" section belonged at the end of the article, as you can see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karma&oldid=627991735 where it is nested under "Understanding within Western culture" as "Scholarly debates" And that's it. Minor changes really. But they were all reverted by Mark. And that's what this discussion has been about Robert Walker (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Proposals for the future I propose that we replace Ethicization by Dharma in the introduction and present the ideas as understood in the Eastern traditions first. And that we follow Dorje's proposed section ordering with the Western scholarly debates nested as "Scholarly Debates" under "Discussion in Western Theology / Philosophy" as these discussions have not so far spread to any of the Eastern scholarly debates on these topics. I think also that it would be good to have some section on Eastern debates as well, just like the "Discussion in Western Theology / Philosophy" to have "Discussion in Eastern Traditions" where it would be appropriate to talk about some of the debates from an Eastern perspective. As they are discussed there. Because, it is clear that there are different ways of framing the debates in the East and the West, and that you can't merge discussions into a single paragraph if they are conducted by people using different concepts who don't refer to each other. And the Western scholarly debates are surely not "objective". In the Eastern traditions there is a long past of scholarship, right back to the early universities in India, such as the great university of Nalanda with its hundreds of thousands of books, where everything was questioned. As much integrity as there is in the Western scholarship. And it is reasonable to use this for the Eastern traditions. You don't need Western summaries of them, by Westerners who often don't have much in depth understanding of the debates. In the East then typically those concerned will spend many years, decades of their lives studying these topics. A few Westerners have also taken on the discipline of studying the debates with the same level of commitment - but not many. For those who have, of course their contributions are important and significant parts of the debate. For the others, who haven't studied the Sutras or Vedas or Upanishads, and the subsequent Eastern scholarship, but instead rely on summaries plus Western ideas of theology, then their contributions are more suitable for the Western section. Robert Walker (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Also to say - the Discussion section derives from authors who don't believe in Rebirth or Karma spanning multiple lives Had another thought - perhaps the most distinctive feature about those Western writers is that they write about rebirth as a belief system they don't have themselves. And they make various conclusions about what the Easterners should believe about how Karma continues from one life to another, that Karma is. Fatalistic Deterministic Those who experience misfortunes are "bad" and those who don't are "good" That we can't help each other because it is "your karma" to experience what you experience It is clear that some Westerners do think that those are inevitable consequences of the idea, such as Whitely Kaufman, a Western philosopher and lawyer. There has been no evidence, in all this discussion, of anyone in the Eastern traditions - in the Buddhist traditions anyway (which I know most about) - who subscribe to these views. And there are many scholarly writers in these traditions, including many Westerners who have spent decades of their lives studying them. Surely it is best, in an article on Karma, to describe Karma as it is understood in Easterners - for Buddhists at least it is Something we all share - if anyone else has misfortunes, I also have the same Karma coming to me in the future A reason to be generous to others and to show compassion and loving kindness to others (see the Pāramitās) A concept that encompasses a wide range of ideas and beliefs. For instance in Buddhism, there is, of course, no idea of an "atman" continuing from one life to another as you have in Hinduism, and a wide variety of views about how Karma and rebirth works within Buddhism, see Reincarnation#Buddhism Detailed working out of results of Karma is one of the Four imponderables in Buddhism Something that binds us to the cycle of existence, but all beings can also escape from (Many other differences) There is plenty of evidence to back that up, just read the Karma in Buddhism article for some of them, and other articles on Buddhism here in wikipedia. And for some of the variety of beliefs about rebirth see Reincarnation. I don't give citations here as it is a talk page, and it is easy to find many - just read those articles and then follow up the citations given there. Is it not best to start the article with material from the people who actually believe in rebirth and Karma, as they understand it - and to present it as they understand it first, before reporting the Western material by authors who, generally, don't believe in rebirth? And if we have a discussion section, have it after the various traditions are explained, rather than before. And to include Eastern discussions of the concepts and give some idea of the variety of ideas in the Eastern traditions, rather than treat it like a single concept they all share, as the Western philosophical and theological discussions tend to do. Well that's how I see it anyway.Robert Walker (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentations and persistent reliance on poor quality sources - part 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detailed reply to your comment on the Sharma ref

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

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

...(9th of his nine reasons)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

So, When you assert in the article that "The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment" - You only need one notable person that asserts its opposite to show that this statement has to be qualified. So - that's all I was doing there. As to how to qualify it -that's another matter, needs to be found out. We are talking about people's beliefs and philosophical views here, so all you need is for a significant group of people, either historically or numerically - to believe something - and it is then worthy of description and citation in Wikipedia. It's not like science where - in physics only certain things are "core science" and other things such as the flat Earth hypothesis for instance, generally considered to be "fringe science". And even there, their views and theories are still covered in wikipedia but are labelled clearly as fringe. But here - nobody is fringe in any absolute sense as far as I can see, just groups of people with differing views about Karma - and some maybe with views that differ from those of most other Hindus. On the difference between Hindus and Christians - that's how I understood it - but could be wrong - that Hinduism is much more diverse than Christianity and with not so much by way of unifying beliefs or creed - but in any case - do you have any evidence that anyone questions that Swami Sivananda Saraswati was a Hindu? As for fringe - well the citation should still be kept but just properly labelled, but you need evidence that he is fringe first, or whatever is the appropriate label here. But - not a reason for leaving out any mention that anyone has these views, just because in your view he was incorrectly labelled in my edit (which is well possible).

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended content

I find this a bit awkward - because you added a sentence to the article that says that nobody says that Karma is due to divine intervention, and also reverted my edit which qualified that to say that some Hindus think it is due to divine intervention - but then also, provided various citations that you think prove that Buddhists do believe in divine intervention (which of course contradicts your own sentence that you added to the intro). So that's left me confused, as I'm not sure what your overall position is here. But whatever - none of the citations you came up with show that Buddhists believe in divine intervention causing the results of Karma. First - I don't think any of what I'm about to say should be mentioned in this article- The subject is already adequately covered in Karma_in_Buddhism#Karmic_results_are_not_a_judgement which gives the citations you ask for, and I'm sure you can find many more easily, to support this, that, as presented in the Buddhist teachings, Karma is not a judgement by any external deity. So - this is just a bit of a background to those citations you found, and to explain why they don't imply (for Buddhists) that the fruits of Karma are bestowed by divine judgement. So, as you found out, yes many Buddhists do say that Buddhas can help others through adhisthana. And Adhisthana is not active intervention. It is just blessing and inspiration. However Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can also of course intervene directly. There is no problem with that either. So can any of us, with the right connection from past . You could meet a Buddha in physical form, as happened with Buddha Shakyamuni's disciples. And if that happens, a Buddha could help you directly. Just as someone can who is not a Buddha. This doesn't make them divine agencies passing judgement based on past actions. Indeed their only wish is to free you from Samasara. They are not there to make you suffer, and do the best they can to help you when suffering just as most people do who are not Buddhas. To take an example, say that someone was dying of thirst in a desert and you gave them water and saved their life. Then - it's their past karma that leads them to be in a body that is susceptible to dying through lack of water. But you also have a body susceptible in the same way. And it is through other causes - decisions made by you and by them - and maybe also accidents not due to anyone's decision e.g. that they have a leak in their water bottle - that lead to this situation. And you if you give them water to save their life - they are able to receive that help through past karma and connections. But the whole encounter is also the result of many decisions, and physical chance events as well. And there is no way that by giving them water, that you are in any way an agent bringing about the results of their past karma. That's not why you act, you have no idea what they did in the past to lead to them having a body that is susceptible to thirst, or what you did either (and the Buddha warned us that it is not helpful to speculate about details of our past lives also, that it tends to lead to pre-occupation with illusory ideas of self to do so). You act just to help them, but it is their past karma that makes that possible. And there is no being who is the agent of the fruition of their karma. But you are able to help them all the same. So that's how it works for ordinary beings - but works in the same way for Buddhas also. If you are a Buddha, then you have a connection with this person who is thirsty in the desert in the same way through past karma - and they with you - and that's why you can help them. But you are still not a divine agent bringing the fruits of their past karma to them. Just a compassionate being helping another who is in trouble. So, as I understand it, that's how Karma works in Buddhism, how it is explained (while other traditions - Hindus, Jains etc may have many other views on the matter). The difference is - I'm coming at this as a Buddhist and practitioner, not a scholar. And the texts are not always easy to interpret. What you read as divine agency - it is clear to me that the Buddhist teachers you cite - apart from that Taoist / Buddhist Yogi, here are talking instead about Adhisthana and about ordinary generosity, and indeed also bodhisattvas and Buddhas taking an active part helping the beings they have a past connection with - and such like, not the same thing at all. Does that make sense? None of the citations you came up with said that Buddhas are responsible for causing the fruition of Karma. What's more, it would be directly against the Buddha's teachings to assert that - because it would be in direct contradiction of the teachings on the four noble truths. For instance, if that was true, then the only way the Buddha could have beome enlightened is by somehow influencing some other Buddha to stop visiting the fruits of Karma on him. But instead he became enlightened by seeing through the illusion of self - and then after that was no longer bound by the cycle of existence - that's how Buddhists understand it - that's the example that inspires us. He didn't have to devote himself to any external deity or propitiate any external deity to do this. And to suggest that that is necessary to become enlightened is to go directly against his teachings. Also repeating the section on adhistanha in my previous collapsed reply - this is what Shenpen was talking about: Adhiṣṭhāna - yes Buddhas can help in this way. It's the main way they help. It's easiest to understand in the case of the historical Buddha. So, many Buddhists offer seven bowls of water to the historical Buddha every morning (in some traditions eight). When you do that, you invite the historical Buddha into your life, as a guest. And then his inspiration then helps you in your life. This does not mean however that he is there acting to fulfill your wishes etc in the way Westerners understand such things. You wouldn't pray to Buddha to give you a new car or house, or to help you succeed in your job interview or some such, as some of the more fundamentalist Christians would do, or indeed to save suffering people - not in the sense of expecting God to act on your prayers. It would be an error to interpret it as divine intervention. It works rather via inspiration. You've been to teachings about the dharma. You've read the sutras, enough to get a blessing connection. And then by inviting the Buddha into your life in this way, you make a connection to him in a physical, symbolic way. And in so doing that helps you to open out to the inner Buddha inside you. Different ways of presenting it - that's in the Tathahhatagarbha traditions. So that's the sense in which the Buddhas can help. Through inspiration. They can't intervene and change things in your life and they certainly have nothing to do with causing the fruits of your past karmic actions to occur. Through their inspiration they can help you to find a way to purify your past karma, because you get inspired. For instance, if in the midst of anger, you reflect on the teachings and have a moment of patience. then that's the inspiration and adhishtana of the Buddhas helping you there, as we understand it in Buddhism. And by so doing they help you to purify your past negative karma in that very moment. But they can't do anything to stop your anger or to prevent you from experiencing its fruits if you do get angry. And then for practitioners who follow the path of a bodhisattva, then that leads to a far vaster inspiration. But - nobody can make anyone else enlightened. They have to find out for themselves. All the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas can do is to help with their physical issues of course, if they have the right connection - and to inspire them, and show them the way by teaching the dharma in whatever form is suitable to them (not necessarily as "Buddhism"). This is how all Buddhists understand it.

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

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

Extended content

My edits which you reverted were minor and the suggestion I'm making here - to present the material as understood in the Eastern traditions first, and to re-arrange the content with the Western commentry later and to not give undue weight to the western commentary as if it was objective truth - why does that need to be proved through scholarly citations? Is it not obvious that this is the best way to do it? Robert Walker (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC) Nearly everything I wrote in this talk page is not at all intended for wikipedia content. It is just talk page discussion in answer to your various challenges to prove that the Eastern ideas are discussed differently in the East than they are in the Western discussions you introduce the article with - and to show that the Eastern ideas have integrity and value and can be presented on their own - and don't have to be reduced to equivalent Western concepts before the reader can understand them. I can't give detailed scholarly references - just as a carpenter couldn't give detailed scholarly references to support some statement about carpentry - but found what best I could by way of citations and directed you to the Wikipedia articles on the Four Noble Truths and on Karma in Buddhism and Dharma and such like to back up things I said. Since Buddha was a single teacher, there are certain core teachings that all Buddhists accept as the teachings of the Buddha. Essentially, the Pali canon - Therevadhans and Mahayanists differ in their acceptance of the later Mahayana sutras of 1st to 10th centuries - but all accept the early sutras as the teaching of the Buddha, and central to those teachings are the four noble truths. Those articles then have numerous citations, they are describing core basic concepts of Buddhism. I think those are enough to show how the Eastern ideas, at least the Buddhist ones, are indeed different form the ideas discussed by Kaufman etc. Where you can follow up the citations to find out more about Buddhism if you are not sure after reading them.

The proposals under discussion here (recap)

Repeated more succintly below

Extended content

That's the main proposal - that the teachings of the Buddha - and of course before that the Hindu teachings also - should be presented first to the reader before these discussions by Westerners - or indeed discussions within the Eastern traditions also - the ideas need to be presented in their original form before they are discussed + the additional suggestion to introduce the Eastern concept of Dharma in the introduction instead of the Western concept of Ethicization which also I think should be left for later in the article in the Western section, as, again, it is a Western way of framing questions not present in the Eastern discussions. The idea of dharma, where everyone has their own dharma or path that they hold to - leads to a rather different outlook on the whole thing than the idea of ethicization with the background idea that some people are "good" and others are "Bad" in some absolute sense and that the aim of the practiioner is to become one of those who are counted as a "good person" - that is not at all the aim in Hinduism or Buddhism, where in both cases the aim is for all beings to be free from samsara. + saying - that there are many different ideas on whether or not fruits of Karma are due to divine intervention. Buddhists are quite clear on this - that they can't be. Hindus it seems have a variety of beliefs, as far as I can tell most think similarly to Buddhists, but in at least one case say clearly that they are the result of divine intervention. I think that introductory sentence you added recently saying that nobody believes that the fruits of Karma are the result of divine intervention should either be left out altogether, or qualified. Robert Walker (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Short Summary of the Proposals

• Karma as understood in Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism etc needs to be presented first before the long discussion sections, as there are many ways of understanding Karma, and reader needs to see the original ideas first before they are discussed.
• Intro should introduce idea of "dharma" or the path you follow or hold to, with the idea of a multitude of possible paths - as that's how the original ideas are presented, in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. The word "Ethicization" is only used in modern Western discussions of the concept, so should be introduced later in the discussion section.
• Reader needs to be told that the existing discussion section (as of writing this) summarize a paper by the philosopher Kaufman, written from a Western theological perspective, for the online conference on "Revisioning Karma".
• All contributers to this online conference were Westerners - see List of contributors.
• In the original traditions many of the ideas are framed differently, to the extent that a merge of everything into one single discussion seems unlikely to work. This could be handled by adding extra sections covering other debates within and between the original traditions.
• Secondary sources can't be relied on to provide a single overall approach for the discussion section, because, as is common in philosophy and religion, it is easy to find secondary sources that contradict each other. For instance many things said in Kaufman's paper are directly contradicted by other secondary sources - see characteristics - I link to the old version of the page as this section has been recently deleted by Joshua Jonathon - see below. It gives citations to some secondary sources you can follow up. Is easy to find more. Here for instance is the list of citations to secondary sources in the old article on "Karma is not a judgement" which directly contradicts the discussion section statements on this matter: In Buddhist philosophy, karmic results not considered to be a "judgement" - list of citations to scholarly sources
• The discussion section comes first, and is also as long as the sections on Hindu and Buddhist ideas altogether. Ideas by a single Western philosopher don't deserve such prominence in an overview article on Karma.

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

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

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

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

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

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