Thread: The Law of Karma

I am NOT a Buddist but I found the below very interesting. I thought I would share it.

The Law of Karma

In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)

Therefore, the law of Karma teaches that responsibility for unskillful actions is born by the person who commits them.

Let's take an example of a sequence of events. An unpleasant sensation occurs. A thought arises that the source of the unpleasantness was a person. (This thought is a delusion; any decisions based upon it will therefore be unskillful.) A thought arises that some past sensations of unpleasantness issued from this same person. (This thought is a further delusion.) This is followed by a willful decision to speak words that will produce an unpleasant sensation in that which is perceived as a person. (This decision is an act of hostility. Of all the events described so far, only this is called a karma.) Words are carefully chosen in the hopes that when heard they will cause pain. The words are pronounced aloud. (This is the execution of the decision to be hostile. It may also be classed as a kind of karma, although technically it is an after-karma.)

There is a visual sensation of a furrowed brow and downturned mouth. The thought arises that the other person's face is frowning. The thought arises that the other person's feelings were hurt. There is a fleeting joyful feeling of success in knowing that one has scored a damaging verbal blow. Eventually (perhaps much later) there is an unpleasant sensation of regret, perhaps taking the form of a sensation of fear that the perceived enemy may retaliate, or perhaps taking the form of remorse on having acted impetuously, like an immature child, and hping that no one will remember this childish action. (This regret or fear is the unpleasant ripening of the karma, the unskillful decision to inflict pain through words.)

If there are no persons at all, then there is no self and no other. There is no distinction between pain of which there is direct sensual awareness (which is conventionally called one's own pain) and pain that is known through inference (conventionally called another person's pain). Whether pain is known directly or indirectly, there is either an urge to quell it or an urge to cultivate it. Whether joy is known directly or indirectly, there is either an urge to nourish it or to quell it. In the conventional language of speaking of events personally, the urge to quell all pain and to nourish all joy is known as being ethical or skillful or (if you like) good. The urge to nourish pain and quell joy is known as being unskillful, unethical or bad.

Being fully ethical is said to be impossible for those who make a distinction between self and other and show preference for the perceived self over the perceived other, for such perceptions inhibit being fully responsive. Being fully ethical is possible only for those who realize that all persons are empty, that is, devoid of personhood.

That's really deep, *****. Don't know if I understand it fully but I read from it that we are all a part of one whole (Gaea type thing?). Therefore what goes around comes around - we reap what we sow etc. I don't profess to be 'anything' but out of all the 'life path choices' I know about, Buddhism seems to make the most sense to me. I try to live my life respecting all other living things and try to be non-judgemental. I've got a really good book called 'The Seven Spiritual Laws to Success' by Deepak Chopra. It makes really interesting reading and helps me put 'stuff' into perspective! It will be interesting to see what others add to this thought provoking thread Hope I wasn't too heavy. lol:o)

Yeah...it is a bit heavy isn't it!...I personally could not make heads or tales
out most of it and, after reading it 3 times I got a bit of a head ache, but I
figure out of the 1000's of people who visit this forum on a daily basis some
one could sum it for us in 25 words or less....Basically i think it says...

What goes around comes around, or do unto others, or something along those lines.

In it's meaning, it is very rudimentary, but the repetitive use of heavy prose can confuse the best of us. Very much in the same way that Shakespearean language with it's unforgiving "iambic pentameter", tends to be unpalatable rhetoric in modern society.

By shifting our focus away from the actual language,we can examine the
core passages and the implications of the subtext.

Duality is in our subconscience, and forces, although opposing, co-exist within the same conscience realm. But it is the determination of these unskillfull thoughts that cause us much necessary pain. Through pain and suffering we are born a new, and inevitably free ourselves from the conscience realm of unskillful emotions. It is through the removal of will and unskillfull determination that we emancipate, and bring ourselves closer to Karma.
Remove the unskillful will, and our very existence becomes unskillful. It is through these transgressions that we truly become free.

You took the words right out of my mouth ;)