Talk:Karma/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Arguments put forth on how karma has been misrepresented according to the core tenets of Buddhism is not a fundamental issue here. The protest is mainly by Robert Walker whom I know to adhere to the Mahayana sect of Buddhism rushing in defense of karma as a key article of his faith given its mentioned rational consequences on section 4: "Corollaries and controversies". The section in question need not reflect the views of Buddhism when addressing obvious contradictions that accompany the adoption of samsaric karma as the driving mechanism behind the conditions, situations and destinations of all living beings anywhere and anywhen throughout reality. This is no more different than when a Muslim Asharite viewpoint should not dominate a subject on evident contradictions regarding how the justness of Allah cannot possibly harmonize with occasionalist predestination which suggests that all human actions (good and evil) are dependent in their origination on the Will of Allah. (E.g. why should the heathen be punished in hell-fire if his actions were dictated to him by Allah and he could thus not be held accountable for them?)

Without getting lost in subtleties that pertain to a belief or non-belief in karma as seperate from the main purpose of this article, or being distracted by how the seeding and fruition of karma can best be described as ignorance or confusion instead of suffering, evil, judgement, reward or punishment (which I think is engaging in mere word-play at this stage), it is straightforward to demonstrate that, even under the strictest Buddhist understanding of karma in all its non-trivial jargon, a limitless (perpetually extending) number of karmic seeds ripening every instant of now implies (as per the logical outcome of the preposition of samsara) full causality and determinism to the preclusion of free will. One is hence burdened to explain the means by which the chain of karmic causality can be broken before one could even begin to talk of a person's ability to choose an action as independent of the fruition of past karmic seeds, and ergo, attain responsibility or practice morality.

The seperate notion of a causality of nature running alongside the causality of karma enacted by countless past deliberate acts by innumerable living beings may not be used to explain how human volition can arise either. The two roads of causality ("nature" versus "intentional karma") still does not make free will. Since karma is all-governing by default based on the notion of eternally re-occuring infinite number of life-times, their influence would eventually leak into the causality of nature based on countless past interactions with matter (including the "supernatural"). Therefore, the conclusion is yet another paradox that karma means no karma, given that it turns out to be not anymore "intentional", but "materialistic" in origin (a vicious circle). In other words, all of the material world is also the result of karma, or vice versa, karma is a result of the material world. Even so, Buddhists avoid to explain how choice can happen, all the while claiming that it can co-exist with karma without being sufficiently clear on the subject. They are furthermore discouraged by their belief to ponder upon the extent of karmic results and thus the boundaries of free will, which adds to the ambiguity. When in peril, the line between karma and accident (meaningless happenstance) is held flexible to sidestep the apparent contradictions outlined in the section.

"Karma in Buddhism" already covers the details on karma that can satisfy Buddhists. The editors should be wary of attempts trying to introduce Buddhist bias into the contradictions section of this topic, and perhaps furthermore expand it using logical arguments given here based on additional paradoxical problems with karma. Ozanyarman (talk 22:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Original reply since it's been broken up below to the extent it becomes unreadable

Just to say, AFAIK Kaufmann in his article was not attempting a criticism of the Buddhist and Hindu faiths.

Yes, I am a Buddhist practitioner in the Nyingmapa tradition, that's the first thing I said above. But when it comes to exogesis of Buddhist ideas, then you need to present them as the Buddhists understand them.

If you want to criticize them, then start with the ideas themselves, not a Westernized version of them. As soon as you talk about predestination and just punishment for wickedness, then the ideas are no longer Buddhist.

Ozan claims that both those ideas are an inevitable consequence of Buddhist ideas of karma, and therefore the section is discussing Buddhist ideas of karma after all, even though it is talking about predestination and wickedness.

But AFAIK his reasoning here is original research and not published or peer reviewed. They summarize ideas he put forward in a discussion with me on facebook.

I don't understand why he thinks that Buddhists are forced to accept predestination as a consequence of our ideas about karma. He has repeated his argument several times but I still have no idea what he is saying, although he says it is totally clear in his own mind.

In any case, whatever the merits of his argument, since it is not yet published or peer reviewed, it is not appropriate for wikipedia to include his argument here in the article itself. And without his reasoning, there is no reason to connect these ideas about wickedness and predestination with Buddhist ideas of karma.

And the ideas presented by Kaufmann and the others, if I read the article correctly, were never intended as a direct criticism of Buddhism or Hinduism. Since they discuss a Westernized idea of karma with predestination and wickedness, they belong in the Western section in my view.

Other editors - your comments are welcome on this - either way!

Robert Walker (talk) 00:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Since Robert Walker misconceived the intent behind the broken-up style of writing, I re-arranged my reply hereunder.

(Oz.) I don't understand the need for getting obsessed over terms like "deserving punishment" or "justification", "retribution for wickedness", etc..., when the desired neutrality of view can be maintained based on the general thinking that Buddhist karma formulates our current life to be the "consequence" of past karma. The "Theodicy" topic on wikipedia includes a more or less universal definition by Max Weber addressing the same matter of fortunes and misfortunes in the world under the context of theodicy. So it's merely a borrow-term and need not imply theism of any sort here.

(Oz.) Problem of evil being a non-question for Buddhists does not diminish its presence or significance. Just because the concept does not conform to Buddhist sensibilities of subtlety is no reason to classify the rational arguments based on the implications of karma under a Western perspective. Logical analysis of the implications of any proposition is not particular to the West.

(Oz.) This faith-based demagogy adds nothing to the discussion on whether or not to move the rational criticism against karma (also according to Buddhism) as just some Western interpretation. This is nothing other than an emotional attempt to justify faith in karma, not to address the controversies arising from thinking that karma is responsible for our current lives.

(Oz.) One certainly does not need to present one's criticisms against karma based on Buddhist terminology and dogma once one comprehends the fundamental workings of it as revealed by Buddhist notables like those in the wikipedia article titled "Karma in Buddhism". The problems with the karmic-samsaric way of thinking as presented in the section at hand are not Westernized corrupt versions of some mysterious higher realm of thinking. they are rationally understood expositions robbed of the allure of Buddhist doctrines and dogmas. If the implications of believing in the Buddhist karma points to some sort of predestination, so be it. This cannot be categorized as a Western whim just because a Buddhist never applies reasoning on where karma would eventually lead.

(Oz.) I did no such thing. In fact, all I argued was that, there is an undeniable need to define a third kind of property aside from natural causality and karmic causality (which amount to the same thing since all neutral karma since the eternal past mobilizes the entire universe of matter directly or indirectly) to acocunt for free will, which is nowhere to be found in Buddhist teachings I've encountered so far. Without a clear-cut definition on how free will can be exercized within the dominion of karma and physical laws, one cannot present the case of attaining liberation and such. But these are all beside the point. The issue is the stipulated sensibility that we do not "re-interpret" the mishaps of this world as "wickedness" and "evil" from the "Western point of view", but take them at their face value as presented to us by the Buddhist doctrine. How does calling the perpetration of a bad act as "fruition of ignorance" going to help us point out the issue with karma? It simply won't.

(Oz.) I don't understand this demand. Is Robert asking that we remove the section criticizing karma in Buddhism?

(Oz.) I'm not asking that original research be included without resources. I've just tried to demonstrate reasonably the idea of Buddhist karma taken to its extreme limits. On Robert bringing up our discussions on facebook, I can remind him that he wrote his bit on this talk page when I linked the article to his attention in the first place. As for the ridiculous idea that I'm forcing him to accept predestination, it's just ludicrous. He can choose to believe anything he wants. But he and his other Buddhist friends have no right to rampage on a wikipedia article section just because the criticisms presented do not conform to their faith. It's like an Asharite protesting that the criticism of the goodness of Allah as claimed by him based on Allah being the author of all human actions be placed under Western views of Asharism.

(Oz.) I strongly disagree with Robert. Karma according to Buddhism is not some mysterious concept that eludes the intellect. The way it's presented is rather easy to comprehend and the consequences easy to conjecture once dethroned of its lofty Buddhistic garb of incomprehensibility. They are just not satisfied with where the idea leads to, and are thus trying to push the controversies under the Western views section as if to elevate Buddhist ideas as being above universal criticism.

I've said my say above, don't have any more to add, just that nothing you've said makes wickedness and predestination appropriate concepts to use in a criticism of Buddhist ideas of karma since karma in Buddhism is not predestined. So how can a criticism of an idea of karma combined with predestination be a criticism of Buddhist ideas of karma? But will see what other editors say. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

This has become a vicious circle of discussion so far. Suffice it to say that one needs not conform to the Buddhist idea of no-predestination if it can be reasonably shown that karma does indeed imply predestination as it is presented and when carried to its full implications. It's not a Western thing, it's just applying logical thinking to the task at hand. END. Ozan Yarman (talk) 05:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Applying "logical thinking to the task at hand" is

less is more. Editors are less likely to read through massive walls of text, so any persuasive points you make may very well be overlooked. - Aoidh (talk

) 05:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

That's how, we may remain unaware of the logic if no source has been provided. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

To cut this very short, the section should stay where it is, since the criticisms given there do not stem from any fundamental Western misunderstanding of Buddhist mysteries of karma. --Ozan Yarman (talk) 13:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources that support this? That is what matters. - Aoidh (talk) 18:54, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not logged in, but I accept credit/blame for my post. My name is Steve Suttles. My email is 67.202.145.242 (talk) 00:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[email protected].

It occurs to me that the parallel between major religions is not mentioned. Catholoicism has the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Hinduism (sorry, previous posters) has the version of: Do unto others as you would have done unto you later, perhaps quite some time later. There is also the cheesecloth theory. New age philosophers talk about a common conciousness that every one of us can affect, either for the good or for the bad -- the "new magic". Tibetans follow their path to find enlightenment, because the path of others essentially dictates what they will find. I am not qualified to write this section, but it is still missing.

Please note that I am not considering "karma" (with a lowercase k) to "Christianity" (with an uppercase C) as competing religions. My point is that the CONCEPT of karma is a common precept to many religions, although it always has a different name.

Again, I take responsibility for this post. Feedback of any kind can be addressed to [email protected], and will be welcomed; responses can be expected. In the same spirit of WikiPedia, I seek further knowledge for myelf and others. BTW, does anybody else use the "random article" button for enjoyment? I highly reccomend it.

I am going to update the section on Buddhism, based on the article Karma in Buddhism--this article is well-researched and well-sourced.

I am copying the current text in the Buddhism section to the "Karma in Buddhism" talk page, here: Talk:Karma_in_Buddhism#Storing_text_from_the_.22Buddhism.22_section_in_article_.22Karma.22

The current text is presenting karma in the context of the twelve nidanas, which is a somewhat advanced presentation; all of the sources I have researched (which can be found in the article "Karma in Buddhism") present karma in simpler terms when introducing the topic.

Note: since we already have a separate article on "Karma in Buddhism", my intention here is to keep the section in this article as brief as possible, while summarizing the main points. - Dorje108 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note on language

Please note the following guidelines from this page:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

1. [...]
2. Scientific journals and research papers. A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the
   wikilinks
   should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

The section on Buddhism in this article is an "introduction" to the Buddhist understanding of karma. Hence, as per the guidelines, it should be written "plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia..." - Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is meant to address me on my fixing up some sentences on Karma under the section Buddhism with the intent to elucidate certain left-out points (like karma being positive, neutral or negative), it is rather unwarranted. Cordially, --Ozan Yarman (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ozan, thank you for your comment and your efforts to improve the section on Buddhism. Yes, my comment above was aimed partly to address your edits, but I don't think it came off the way I intended. The use of academic language (within introductory sections) is a problem (in my opinion) that I see with many editors. I think it just requires more awareness on the part of editors. Regarding your point about "karma being positive, neutral or negative": that is a perfectly valid point, but my question is: Is it the most appropriate point to make for a reader who is new to this topic? Is this one of the points that is going to most helpful to a new reader in gaining an understanding of the Buddhist view of karma? And how do we determine which points are most appropriate to include and which are not? I think the answer to my last question is that we due some research and find the best reliable sources we can find--sources that are presenting this material on an introductory level--and see how they introduce the topic. I think this is only "neutral" way to determine which information is most pertinent for an introduction and which is not. This has been my approach anyway.

Regarding your edits, they are much appreciated. You will notice that I have left some of your edits as they are, and modified others. I think the result of our combined edits is an improved section. The point of my comments here is to explain my rationale for my editing. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind reminders Dorje. However, Buddhists themselves are obscure and often contradictory in their ideas on karmic cause and effect, particularly with their acceptance of non-self as the initiator and receptacle of karma. Truly, how does one go about it without scaring away the reader? Thereby the issue on which source to actually take seriously arises. Here is one pointed out to me by Robert Walker which demonstrates my point: http://web.archive.org/web/20131004214153/http://www.buddhanet.net/cmdsg/kamma6.htm. Specifically, regard the following section:

"However, if we speak in terms of reality, we can speak of the essence in its entirety, referring to it as a process of events. For example, we could say that within the operation of this set of five khandhas, a mind state based on anger arose. There followed the mental proliferation in accord with that anger, leading to physical action. Conceiving in this way habitually, the mind began to assume those tendencies. Physical repercussions from external sources were experienced, adding to the unpleasant feeling, and so on.

Speaking according to the conditions in this way, we have all the necessary information without the need for reference to Mr. Brown or any kind of self. The process contains in itself natural elements of various kinds arising and reacting with each other to produce actions and reactions, without the need for a doer or a receiver of results."

Given such arbitrary notions trying to harmonize free will of choice by a "non-self" with naturalistic cause and effect, which are plainly incompatible by definition, how do we explain to the reader the understanding of karma by Buddhists? Which points must we emphasize and which others neglect? --Ozan Yarman (talk) 22:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ozan. The section that you quoted above is actually speaking on a very subtle level. Regarding your question of how to explain the topic of karma--I think the answer is that you explain it in the same you as you explain any topic. You start with broad strokes, describing it on the coarser level, and then you work your way into the more subtle and subtle levels. By analogy, if you are describing the human body to someone, you would most likely start on the coarse level of the parts of the body: the head, the arms, the legs, etc. And then you describe the internal organs: brain, heart, stomach, and so forth. Then you can describe the systems: digestive, skeletal, nervous, etc. Then down to the molecular level, etc. Describing the body on the molecular level is going to sound very different than describing the head, neck and chest, etc. But there is no contradiction there; you are just describing the concept of the body from different points of view. I think it is the same with a topic such as karma: there are many ways to explain it, or many different points of view, but they are not necessarily contradictory or arbitrary, they are just looking at different aspects of the topic. This is my understanding, anyway. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 01:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the academic approach you criticize me of committing, Dorje, and also pertaining to a physical system (body, lungs, cells, etc...) subject to physical laws, which doesn't apply here because karma is metaphysical and is therefore not tangible - or else it is a fully physical causality as Buddhists attempt to describe, which entails that it should be treated in a more skeptical manner and not in a story-telling fashion. Anyway, I'm good with the section the way it is for now. --Ozan Yarman (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Given

WP:SUMMARY guidelines, a summary here is sufficient. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk

) 22:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the thing is - that it is simply a non issue in Buddhist teachings.

Take for instance the second sentence "The controversy is not unique to karma doctrine, but found in some form in all theistic systems." - Buddhism is not a theistic system.

" 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" - no Buddhist can claim this.

This is based on a misunderstanding - karma as explained in Buddhism no more implies predestination than - e.g. Freudian psychology does in Western psychology. It's not meant to be a "Theory of Everything" and extended to describe the whole of physics, as some Westerners seem to think.

I think the confusion here possibly arises because karma has effects in the world. So they conclude that it totally forms the world and determines the motion of all the atoms and the workings of everything that happens. To see how that is not true, imagine a world with no beings in it, if such were possible. There would be atoms, molecules, storms, many things going on - but no karma. Indeed - if everyone was enlightened then also, there would be no karma. The karma is no more than a kind of patterning and structuring amongst many other complex processes going on such as those we nowadays investigate in physics.

". If intent and act can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, new karma can be proven, and the process of justice can proceed against this new karma." - what process of justice? You don't have a process of justice in Buddhist teachings - except of course ordinary criminal justice as we have in all countries. But a judge in a court trying someone for murder does not attempt to investigate karmic effects from past lives, any more in Buddhist countries than he or she does in a Western country. Or - if the author of this passage has in mind justice meeted out by a deity or God - well we simply don't have that idea at all in Buddhist teachings.

If you try to read it as a Buddhist - it just doesn't make any sense - it is not a coherent argument.

So - it is a discussion and argument and controversy clearly. But it is a discussion about Western interpretations of Buddhism and issues that arise when it is reinterpreted in a Western and particularly Theistic context. Do you see what I mean - why I think it belongs in the Western section? It's a bit like a Buddhist writing about Christianity and interpreting Jesus as a Boddhisattva and ignoring any mention of God or evil or blame in the bible, and trying to puzzle out what it all means. You would find all sorts of difficulties if you did that. It is very similar but the other way around. And such a discussion of the bible - who knows - might be of interest to other Buddhists - but you wouldn't present it as a general discussion about Christianity if it takes as a basic assumption that it ignores all mentions of God, or evil or blame or divine justice and tries to reinterpret everything in the bible instead using karma, non self, wheel of life, samsara and nirvana - then raises all sorts of issues where the concepts don't fit together properly.

Such a discussion, if a significant one as this one clearly is - would belong in the Buddhist section. So in the same way - I suggest, respectfully, that this belongs in the Western section. Also - I think it should make clear where the ideas used in the argument depart from the corresponding Buddhist ideas.

Here it is with some qualifications added to show where it departs, just the first two paras:

One of the significant controversies with the karma doctrine is whether it always implies destiny, and its implications on free will. This controversy is also referred to as the moral agency problem; the controversy is not unique to karma doctrine, but found in some form in all theistic systems (Buddhism of course is not a theistic system however).

The free will controversy can be outlined in three parts:[50] (1) 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 (In Buddhism however, then karma is not predestined, your actions are not determined by past karma, only your conditions, there is no idea of necessary punishment, or deserving suffering). Are crimes and unjust actions due to free will, or because of forces of karma? (In Buddhist teaching they are due to free will) (2) 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? (Buddhists do not assume a moral agent behind karmic effects. They are just unfortunate or fortunate results from the past) Or, should one blame oneself for bad karma over past lives, assume that the unjust suffering is fate? (Budddhists are not interested in whether to blame oneself or not for karma - it is a practical religion with the aim simply to take the situation as it is as your starting point) (3) 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? (Buddhists of course do not consider that karma from the past determines ones action and sufferings and the path is to do with finding a way to free oneself from the cycle of samsara).

But that is so clumsy as to be unmanageable. I don't know what you can do about it except just to put it in the Western section. Perhaps with a note to say that it is based on Western concepts rather than the Buddhist ideas as such. Robert Walker (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hope that makes sense! Robert Walker (talk) 23:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Walker,

I have read your comments. I am reflecting on them. Your comments read like your personal views about Karma in a sect of Buddhism. Please cite scholarly sources for each of your concern(s), as those verifiable sources will help guide a way to improve this article.

Your comments are focussed on Karma in Buddhism (which may best be incorporated in the dedicated article). Karma concept is not exclusive to Buddhism. It is also a central concept in Hinduism, Jainism and others.

The discussion section is not relevant to Western section. It is before Eastern Interpretations section, because the discussion about karma and free will, transferability and indeterminacy is central, historic and widespread in Eastern scholarly sources and Western scholarly publications on Karma. The discussion is relevant and notable to all - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others. It also helps set the context for the article content that follows starting with Hinduism section.

Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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. However, you can check out the Karma in Buddhism article which goes into all these points in detail.

Particularly, see Karma_in_Buddhism#Characteristics for some of the main points - it is quite short, and gives sources.

Does that answer your question about sources? These points are common to all the Buddhist schools and covered in the sutras - but a Buddhist scholar would be best to give the sources for them if you want more details.

Yes my comments are focused on Karma in Buddhism because that's the only form of Karma I know about.

Yes - I know there is a great deal of discussion of these topics. For sure it would be good to have a discussion section here. Even at the time of the Buddha time there were many ideas about karma.

It would be good to have a proper informed discussion of karma and comparison of the different ways it is understood in different traditions and problems with it. But this isn't it.

The issue is with the section calling these ideas Buddhist without any sources to back up the claim that they are Buddhist ideas - and within a framework of non Buddhist concepts.

Indeed if you check the sources given for many of the comments here - they come from a series of articles whose authors - as best I can tell (they are rather technical theological articles) - are looking at the possiblity of applying the Eastern idea of karma to give an explanation of why a just and good God can permit a world with evil and suffering in it. The main article I read when I followed up the sources for this section didn't claim to be an overview of Eastern ideas of karma - but rather an application of them to theology. That's why it is imbued throughout with ideas from Western theology that do not fit well with Eastern ideas.

So - if this material is included -it needs to be made clear where it comes from and what the discussion is - and given its proper context, and because the sources are articles by Western Christian theologians - at least the ones I followed up - that is another reason why it belongs in the Western section.

I hope that is clear, but sorry I am only a Buddhist practitioner and not a scholar and can't write such a section myself.

Perhaps others can step in here? Robert Walker (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

One thought. It might make it a lot clearer to add this as an introductory para to the section:

"Western scholars have been interested in study of ideas of Karma as an application to the "problem of evil" - an attempt to explain why a good God can permit a world with suffering and evil in it. The lawyer and philosopher Whitely Kayfmann Whitley R.P. Kaufman, Philosophy, Global Studies - bio page, wrote an article "Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil" Karma, rebirth, and the problem of evil Whitely Kayfmann, in which he examines the possibility of using such ideas to construct a "theodicy" - a resolution of the problem of evil. He also argues that this problem of evil is not restricted to Western religions but should be a problem for all religions. He makes it clear that his discussion is not based on the details of the original doctrines, which he doesn't have the expertise to examine - but "Rather, my method will be to examine a simplified, idealised version of the karma-and-rebirth doctrine, one abstracted as far as possible from particular historical or doctrinal questions.". He concludes that it doesn't work as a theodicy - but "I leave it as an open and important question whether a mystical interpretation of the doctrine might be a better way to approach the profound mystery of human suffering".

Just an idea - does it help? I wonder if that - or something like that as an intro para might make the whole section clearer - and then - well then it doesn't matter much where it goes if it is clear what the source is and the context of the discussion - but arguably better in the Western section. While a more general discussion would need to draw on published papers by scholars with expertise in the Eastern religions.

It is a rather intricate discussion, and I've just picked out a few quotes there - enough to show that he doesn't claim any scholarly understanding of the Eastern doctrines, and that his main aim is the application to an issue in theology - at least, that is where it originates - though he also argues that the problem of suffering and evil should be an issue for all religions.

However - it is worth noting I think that in Buddhist teaching it is not considered to be an issue to solve the "problem of evil". We have no reason to invoke a just creator God - so it is not a problem in the same sense. Indeed, it already has an explanation. In Buddhist teachings the origin of suffering is confusion and ignorance. Notably, he doesn't mention this in his article as a possible explanation for the origin of suffering - but according to the four noble truths - that is what the Buddha discovered was its cause. Obviously it is not an adequate discussion of the Buddhist ideas if it does not mention the Buddha's own explanation of the origin for suffering. I don't think it is intended to be as that is not the author's speciality.

(Oh just to explain - problem with citations here for a non scholar is that the sutras are so vast. Many Christians or Muslims would have no trouble citing bible or koran. But the sutras are like a library of numerous books. Even many scholars won't have read them all and chances are they specialize on a particular sutra. You tend to go by what your teachers say - which is in turn grounded on the sutras, for the most part).

Kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Robert Walker,

Buddhist and Hindu literature is indeed vast. A huge collection has not even been translated in English. Some which has been translated is flawed, or controversial, as translations tend to reflect the culture, prejudices and perceptions of the translator.

How does one construct an encyclopedic article? and how not to? The second question is easier to answer - An encyclopedia is best not constructed from opinions, views, agendas, or original research. Then how? One answer is that an encyclopedic article must be built by agreeing to some rules. For wikipedia, these rules include, but are not limited to, verifiability in widely accepted scholarly sources, no original research, no synthesis and neutral point of view between significant schools of thought on any topic. It is these rules that make it difficult to address every 'personal objection or opinion someone offers without scholarly sources'. In other words, much of what you write is compassionately interesting yet difficult to address. The complexity of the topic of karma, and the vastness of beautiful literature on this topic in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others, adds another degree of difficulty.

You do make a very good, actionable point - this article needs a summary on 'karma and the problem of evil' in the discussion section. Kaufman indeed has written on this (for example, in his 2005 article in the journal Philosophy East and West, Vol. 55, No. 1). Others have too. The quote you provide is interesting, but not a neutral, complete and balanced summary of scholarly debate on 'karma and the problem of evil' for the general reader of an encyclopedia. Yet, Kaufman is a respected source and the summary should include relevant parts of his published work along with those of other scholars.

I had intended to summarize the discussion on 'karma and the problem of evil' in a short paragraph or two. I haven't yet. Your reminder is timely. I intend to soon, in October if time permits. Hopefully, someone else will, and save me some effort. If not, I will.

Thank you and kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed as you say the translations are often flawed. Also many terms such as dukkha, for instance have no equivalent English translation which adds to the difficulty (what we call suffering is just one aspect of dukkha, as most happiness for instance, is also dukkha, through impermanence, because we can't guarantee that it will last for ever). Also the Buddhist sutras themselves are in any case often profound and easy to misinterpret. That's why you need a scholar and why I would not want to answer a request for sources by just searching for material myself. But the Karma in Buddhism article is good - it uses quotes from teachers in many traditions who are themselves well versed in the sutras, along with quotes from scholars.

Generally wikipedia somewhat discourages using quotes from religious teachers Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Religious_sources "Absent evidence of stature or a reputation for expertise in a leading, important religious denomination or community, the view of an individual minister or theologian is ordinarily not reliable for representing religious views." - but in the case of the Buddhist teachings, there are many teachers with plenty of evidence of stature and reputation for expertise, thoroughly versed in the sutras, and they can be the best, most authoritative sources for us - especially using material from reputable and expert teachers in a recognized Buddhist lineage who have experience explaining the teachings to Westerners in English.

Ok, okay so you are knowledgeable enough about the Western scholarship to do that? Then that would be interesting. Yes I understand that Kaufman is a respected source - but at the same time someone who says himself in the article I quoted that he does not have expertise in the details of Eastern philosophy and religion.

I think need to be sure to make clear in this section that "the problem of evil" does not occur in Buddhist scholarship by Buddhists (unless you find a source for it but I'd be astonished if you do - as for it to be a problem, you'd need first to show that the 4 noble truths are invalid, and if you'd done that in a way you found convincing enough way for it to be a problem, I don't think you'd call yourself a Buddhist any more). Also, to touch on the four noble truths and on the Buddha's teaching that suffering all originates in confusion and ignorance and that Buddhism doesn't have any need for the hypothesis of a creator deity so the problems of the motivation of a creator deity again are not a concern. That much - that the Buddha taught that all suffering originates in ignorance / confusion, and that Buddhism has no need for a creator deity - should be easy enough to find sources for that.

Then it can be an interesting section on the problem of evil for non Buddhists and whether karma has anything to say about it. How does this sound?

Also - one thing I don't know - is the "problem of evil" in this sense a problem for Hindus and other Eastern religions - as in the general sense of the question: why is there suffering in the world? If so - do they have the same perspective on it as theists in the Abrahamic religions where they think in ters of judgment and blame and regarding the original cause of suffering as evil rather than ignorance or confusion? Or do they have another slant on it which is neither of those? Could be interesting to compare and contrast if they have another approach to the issue. Thankyou and kind regards, Robert Walker (talk) 23:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem with recent section reordering

I respectfully disagree with the recent re-ordering of sections by Mark.muesse for the following reasons:

• Mark has placed the "Discussion" section, which primarily contains interpretations and commentary on the theory of karma by Western philosophers and/or academics, before the sections that clarify the meaning of karma within the Indian traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.). I believe it is far more appropriate (i.e. helpful to readers) to first explain the meaning of the term as it applies to the Indian traditions, and then provide the comparison with Western concepts.
• The section heading "Discussion" is not a clear heading. The section mostly contains Western commentary on the theory of karma, mixed in with some differences among the Indian traditions. The article should always clearly distinguish between commentary based on comparison with western concepts, and differences of interpretation within the Indian traditions.

Therefore, I suggest the following order for the sections (for the short term at least):

• 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)

I am interested to see what other editors think. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. That seems the logical layout to me also. And when readers are trying to understand the Eastern concepts - they are hard enough to understand anyway when you are used to the Western ideas. They are best presented "as is" as presented in the Eastern traditions, and then the Western attempts at reinterpreting and commentaries and comparisons left to later once the original ideas are presented. AFter all that is where the ideas originated.

Also - for each section a reader needs to know - does this section present the original ideas as they are understood and explained in the Eastern traditions - or does it present commentary and comparison with Western ideas? And if the Western commentary was done with some particular Western objective, as in the case of Kaufman's paper which asks if Eastern ideas of Karma can solve a major issue in Western theology - again reader needs to know that also.

Done that way the Western sections are of interest to everyone including those in the Eastern traditions who may be interested to know how their ideas are sometimes used or interpreted by Westerners.

So anyway this is to "vote up" your proposal Dorje, thanks for putting it so clearly! Likewise interested to see what the other editors think. Best regards. Robert Walker (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. It's not vlear to me why the "Discussion"-section precedes the usage in Hinduism and Buddhism. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed the next few sections to assist with readability because it is mostly content written by me (sorry I'm rather verbose at times) and this page is getting over long. Hope that is okay

There are I think just two comments by anyone else, by Mark Muesse, - if you want to - I suggest you copy them out of the section and put them where-ever is more appropriate. Robert Walker (talk) 14:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)