Talk:Karma/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Karma. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Dualistic bias in this article.
The article says things like "Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and happier rebirths, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and bad rebirths."
The following comments are from a Buddhist perspective, but they should affect the general definition as well. IMO.
Trungpa Rinpoche (Kadampa Lineage Buddhist), has written for example that "good and bad, happy and sad, all thoughts vanish into emptiness like the imprint of a bird in the sky" (quoted by Pema Chodron in Start Where you Are p. 22.
Also consider the Diamond Sutra (Vajracchedika Prajnaparamita Sutra) which discourages such rigid concepts. (See translation and commentary in Awakening of the Heart: Essential Buddhist Sutras and Commentaries Thich Nhat Hahn [A Zen Lineage Buddhist], pp. 313 ff.
First, would "wholesome" or "healthy" offer better alternates for "good" (at least from a Buddhist perspective) in the definition?
Second, perhaps the definition might note that there is a ying/yang at play here. Ignoring (for the moment, future lives) good/right/healthy/wholesome actions produce the least suffering possible in one's self and others. Bad/unhealthy/unwholesome actions produce more (often much more) suffering. So, the result of the action and the action are not separate things; and it is the result that determines whether the action was "good".
Third, perhaps the definition might note that while there are general guidelines for what action is good/right/healthy/wholesome, the context in which the action occurs might change the effect, and thus the "rightness" of the action.
For the second and third points, see The Mindfullness Survival Kit Thich Nhat Hahn, part two "A comparison of Ethical Traditions", pp. 132 ff.; especially "Utilitarianism" pp. 155 ff., and "A Summary of Buddhist Ethics" pp. 193 ff. Geocmoore (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
You said "actions that are performed,arise,or oroginate without any bad intent are considered non existent in karmic impact or neutral " but actions with good intent can have the effect of good Karma so it is "actions without intent" good and bad that are neutral in karmic influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutarfa Nafia (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- From a Buddhist perspective, the generalization that "intent" is required does not seem to be correct. Many Buddhist writers emphasize the the role of "Store Conciousness" (a part of mind) where healthy and unhealthy seeds that produce particular actions/thoughts are nurtured (or not). Then, when the conditioned stimulus or "hook" occurs, the person responds automatically/habitually without (at least) immediate awareness.
- See for example:
- 1) Zen Lineage: Understanding our Mind: 51 Verses on Buddhist Psychology by Thich Nhat Hahn. "Part 1" pp. 23 ff, and particularly "Habit Energies" pp. 49-52.
- 2) Tibetan Lineage: Wake up to Your Life by Ken Mcleod, "Working with Reactive Emotions", pp. 83-88. Geocmoore (talk) 16:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)