I recently read an article about religions and...above other things, it was written that those who follow buddhism consider that a raped woman is suffering a consequence of her karma, which seems pretty strange to me. I'd like to read some views and explanations on this matter... please.
What does it matter how a "Buddhist" thinks regarding this matter? Was it written that a Buddhist would not take action regarding being in proximity with the act being performed? Regarding action taken to subdue and arrest someone raping a woman, you have to understand that a lay practitioner (one who practices Buddhism and is not a monk or laity) will do whatever it takes to ensure something will be done about such a crime as long as it doesn't involve forfeiting their own existence in the process. Even a monk will call the police or draw attention to the matter in such a way to cause the perp to stop what they were doing ... if at all possible ... after all, who wants to get caught in the public scrutiny with their lower body parts hanging out of their pants? I say it doesn't matter how a Buddhist "feels" or "thinks" regarding the actions of another person, or persons. And yes, a majority of those who follow the teachings of Buddha will say that it is a persons Kamma (Karma) that things happen in their lives. Probably much like I will most likely take rebirth in an animal realm of existence as a cat and be killed by another being in the human realm of existence for killing a cat myself before I became a Buddhist. And who knows, probably by the very cat I killed who took rebirth in the human realm of existence. HTML: HTML: HTML:
It all depends on how you look at it. You could argue that karma determines everything, that all of our good and bad fortune is the result of the interactions/forces of karma, and so seen from that angle, then anything that happens to you, whether it's rape or finding $100 on the ground or anything else, comes back to karma. One would be a fool to walk past someone being mugged with the excuse being that it's that person's karma that he/she should be mugged... while yes it is true that all of our actions are somehow related to karma, you are creating more karma for yourself by walking past a crime being committed without doing anything. We don't just sit back and say, "it's all karma, everything that happens is supposed to happen," because that is to ignore our responsibility to do our best as individuals no matter what. Even though bad stuff can be determined by karma that doesn't mean we don't try our best to make the world a happy place. Edit - I didn't explain that well at all, but hopefully it makes some sense... basically, one of the problems with any deterministic type worldview (here, karma) is that is one really believes it's determined, it is easy to make the mistake of thinking that we shouldn't worry about the bad stuff that goes on or we shouldn't try to make our lives and the lives of others as good as possible because it's all somehow determined, but that is to misunderstand it entirely... if you don't try to make your life good, then that just means it was determined that you were not to strive for greatness in life. If you put forth solid effort and are rewarded with a happy life, then this was what was fated, but it would not have happened had the effort not been there to begin with. Now I'm really rambling
kharma is a statistical function of how the universe that surrounds us works. i mean the reality of it is pretty simple. if we restrain ourselves from messing everything up for everyone else, we have that much less messed up of a world to have to live in ourselves. if we cause suffering or harm, the resault is that there are more of these things, and if there are more of them, it is more likely that they will bite us on our own ass. (because there is more opportunity for them to do so because there is more of them) i don't know why it should take either rocket science or a whole lot of mumbo jumbo for anyone to see and understand this. =^^= .../\...
Trouble with this as I see it is as follows: what about the many millions of bacteria and virus bodies I have killed - if I had to re-incarnate as a bug for every one of them, I'd have millions of lives to live out just to be killed in order to settle the score. I think it's a bit of a cop out to say a woman gets raped because of karma - it's a way of avoiding addressing the real social and paychological issues behind rape.
It's okay if you think that way. It is, after all, your perception of things. You wouldn't be you without it. And I doubt I'd like to see another me walking around sharing my spot in the universe along with me ... both occupying the same space simultaneously. After all ... It's just all Rocket Science anyway ... !!! HTML: HTML: HTML:
I don't want to make others think like me - all I'm doing is stating my own personal thoughts. I don't want to offend anyone.
Im with you there. A similar thing happens with the likes of car crashes or disability, some Christians feel the need to put it down to an act of god, some Buddhists an act of karma. I guess being a libertarian I can accept random acts happen. In this case if somebody did say that a raped woman was suffering as a result of karma, Id tell them to wisen up! That might not be a typical buddhist view though.
um how do you get to raping a woman from karma? You mean, so you got bad karma so you somehow get to rape a woman, as reward!?! How'd you figure that out? Anyway I agree with Themnax it is statistical or even mechanical. Computer at nature's core kinda guy that I am, karma should be...pretty simple.
I think you missed the point. If a woman gets raped, some say it's because of bad karma, probably from a previous life. And that is taken as a sufficient explanation. But also, yes, under such a scheme it must also be the karma of the rapist to rape - not as a reward, because they will have to return in order to be raped in a future life. As I say, I don't really think this can be right.
No offence taken here. What I was pointing out is that it is your perception of things. Your opinion(s). You did state, afterall, "Trouble with this as I see it ...", and all I was doing was iterating that, "It is, after all, your perception of things", and that you were entitled to your views (perception, thoughts). Thing is, if you see "Trouble" with the way others think, perceive, or view reality from their perspective, then the trouble is yours, not theirs. You, or anyone else for that matter, would have "trouble" accepting perceptions, views, thoughts outside their own because it is not the other person perceiving, viewing or thinking of the world as they (you -- arbitrary usage of the word "you") do. According to the Buddhist philosophy or view of things, your statement regarding the killing of "many millions of bacteria and virus bodies" is not so much negative in karmic effect unless the "Intention" to do so (killing that is) was there. When you "Intend" to take the life of some living organism your "intention" is to deprive it of its existence. This "Intent" is what would cause a negative impact on the kamma being propogated. This particular "Intent" would be considered Ill-will. Then perhaps you would spend "many million" lifetimes being killed yourself, even if it was not the intention of the one taking your life "many million" times. So you see, kamma really has other factors involved in how it is propogated. It would be unfair in the understanding of kamma to just pick out one aspect and consider that this is the sole cause of the existence (or presence) of kamma. Buddhist text clearly states that Greed, Ill-will, and Delusion (ignorance, confusion) are the chief cause of kamma. That by eliminating these three aspects from ones life one eliminates kamma because one eliminates the root of kamma which is Ignorance. That because of Greed, Ill-will and Delusion you continually propogate Ignorance, which continually propogates Volition (kamma), which continually propogates Consciousness, which continually propogates Mental and Physical formations, which continually propogates the existence of the Six Base senses, which continually propogates Contact with external objects, which continually propogates Feelings, and Feelings are of three types, pleasant (Greed), non-pleasant (Ill-will), and neither pleasant nor non-pleasant (Delusion), and Feelings continually propogate Craving, which continually propogates Clinging, which continually propogates notions of Existence, which continually propogate Birth, which continually propogates Death. When the eye comes into contact with forms (visual objects) a sensation is produced. When we experience sensations we either like it, dont like it, or are not sure or confused as to whether we like it or not. This is going on hundreds of times per second, perhaps even thousands. Likewise for the other five senses ... yes, including mind as a sensing mechanism where thoughts are the resulting sensations of the mind coming into contact with mental objects. It is because of all this sensing we do on a moment-to-moment experiential level with all the senses (eyes, nose, tongue, ears, body, mind) that we formulate and create opinions and ideas of our perception of reality ... Views. With Intention we act on these views in either a positive, negative or neutral way. If we perceive our surrounding reality one way, and someone else perceives it another way, to us they are wrong, and we view their perception as wrong because they dont see it (view it, experience it, formulate it ... ) like we do. So therefore, according to our view of reality, they are wrong and we are right because this is how we experience and perceive things and this is how others should experience and perceive things. So our intention then becomes clear. We must get others to see things the way we do. It is our imperative right to get others to see things the way we do by continually correcting their perception to our way of thinking by telling them how much "we" see problems in "their" mode of thinking, or perceptions, or views. Only, here's the real reason we see problems in their views ... we don't like that they have a different perception on things. We start exhibiting Ill-will on the contact we have with their mode of thinking. We begin exhibiting impatience. When we continually exhibit impatience it changes to anger. Because of anger we, with intent motivated by anger start telling them how much we see "problems" with their mode of thinking. We tell them how much they are "wrong" because in our own minds we are right and if we are right and their perception of things dont agree with our perception of things then they have to be "wrong", so therefore there is a "problem" with their mode of thinking, "as I see it". This is the beginning of suffering. The beginning lf sorrow. The beginning of pain, lamentation, grief and despair. Wrong Views, Wrong Intentions, Wrong Speech, Wrong Actions, Wrong Livlihood, Wrong Mindfulness, Wrong Effort, Wrong Concentration ... Which is exactly why the Noble Eightfold Path is one of Right Views, Right Intentions, Right Speech, Right Actions, Right Livlihood, Right Mindfulness, Right Effort and Right Concentration -- Morality, Concentration, Wisdom. So, as I see it, you have your views and I have my views ... which one is right? Yours are right ... to you ... Mine are right ... to me ... But there comes a time when we continually see that even our own views are not as right as we thought they were, and we realize then there is room for improvement ... HTML: HTML: HTML:
In my view: Karma means action or actions taken. In common Buddhism it is thought of as having a causal relation. My action or actions will determine, or cause, some circumstance that I may find myself in at some future time. This is a basic notion which suffices to help those who are trying to improve or modify their behavior toward others. However, at a deeper level the notion of Karma changes. To begin with, to truely understand Karma, we must realize that the notion of causality is unfounded. Effect is not based on cause. Cause and effect arise together, at the same time. This is so as there is no past or future...only now. I write now, and you read now. You can only exist now. You can only experience now. So, if there is only now, there can be no future time at which your "now" actions will take effect. In addition, even if there was a future, you can not base an action taken now on what the future implications of that action will be unless you know everything about the situation you are acting upon and all possable outcomes. Can you know that the child born of the rape will not become the greatest scientist the world has ever known and find a cure for a sickness that kills millions, thus being something "good"? This is not possible. In the Bhagavad Gita, Karma Yoga is stressed. Action without regards to outcome. You act by giving full attention to the moment without regard to success or failure. A women being raped may or may not find herself in that situation due to any causal chain that we can determine. What counts is her reaction, and our reaction, now, to what is happening.
Thanks for your very full reply. I agree with the point that it is intent which matters, at least up to a point. It doesn't matter really to me what others believe or percieve, with the exception of those who wish to force their beliefs on others. I'm not seeking here to attack Buddhism wholesale - only stating my own thoughts on one aspect of Buddhist teaching which is, perhaps, often misunderstood. Generally, I think it is important for we humans to try to act in a positive and a compassionate way. I don't doubt that negativity leads to further negatitvity - but I don't really believe in a kind of absolute determinism of karma.
Hello, Meagain. Good to see you. Well not really you, but the writings of you are just as much a projection of you as your own speech and actions are. This is pretty heady ... I'm not sure how to comprehend this statement of yours ... Please elaborate on how effect does not arise in dependence on cause, and their relationship with time as understood as past, present and future. I got the notions of a non-existing past and non-existing future in relation to the production of sensations through contact with external sense-objects, but not in relation to simultaneously arising cause and effect. So, like, what is cause dependent on for its arising? And if, as you say, effect is not dependent on cause, then what is effect dependent on for its arising? HTML: HTML: HTML:
Yes, Karma in a closed system - i.e., society, world, universe - is borne by all, not just the actors, though the actors do often bear the greatest brunt or reward for their contribution. In general, if you create suffering, you may very well find yourself in a hell of your own design.
Hey DK, Alls well I hope. First of all, if there is no past or future cause and effect cannot occur. They may appear to occur, but cannot as a cause effect relation requires a progression of time. I'll try to reconstruct the argument in support of my statement, cause and effect arise together, as this is one of the "facts" that I know, but have to think about to "understand". If you know what I mean. So it goes like this.... When something happens we think that it has a linear connection to something that has happened before. As an example, and I think I got this from Robert Pirsig's writings; If my motorcycle's engine doesn't fire, there are three possable things that can go wrong. No compresson, no spark, no fuel. So I start to look for the one that is lacking. I check for spark and it's there, I check compression, and it's there, I check fuel...and find the gas tank is empty. So I make the statement, "The reason, or cause, of my engine not starting, is lack of fuel." I fill the gas tank and it starts. So we would say lack of fuel caused the engine to not start. Cause, no fuel, effect, not starting. The cause seems to preceed the effect. But, if we look at it another way we find that the cause does not exist unless the engine doesn't start. A lack of fuel causes nothing unless we try to start the engine. There is no cause before the effect is to be produced. Once the effect manifests...not starting...the cause also appears. Again, lack of fuel causes nothing until that fuel is needed to produce an effect, but once the effect is desired everything must be in place to produce that effect or it doesn't occur and then we look for the cause. Effect, not starting, cause no fuel. So as to the law of karma....A woman gets raped, effect; then we look to a past deed and say it caused the rape. But if the woman doesn't get raped there is no past deed leading to that rape that can ever be found. We talked around this a year ago, I think, so I moved up thread called Interdependence and Cause and Effect
well you know, i don't call myself a buddhist or anything. i come here and dao and shinto and the like, because there is a certain calmness lacking in western monotheisms, or the ways in which they are usualy practiced. =^^= .../\...
