There are perfectly sensibe aspects of karma. Karma means “action” or “deed”, with the implication that actions have associated consequences, that it is useful to consider to be part of the action. It reflects the common principle: as you reap, so you sow.
Karma means (unfortunately) something more than that to buddhists. The view you described is something smart people came up with to make it acceptable for themselves. Original buddhist karma is ultimate balance of good and evil in the universe.
Yes, I am aware of that. Karma is still a useful concept, though. Despite its baggage it is still something good to have in your ontology—at least IMHO.
I don’t have a problem with that principle—what I don’t like is the possible misinterpretations. As outlier notes, the original concept of karma has pretty distasteful consequences, and while the idea of reaping what you sow is useful, dressing up the concept as “karma” risks associating it with some of the original concepts. I’ve actually debated with people who believe that those who are suffering or in bad circumstances deserve it, because they were evil in a past life, and to help them would be to “mess up” their karma...!
I read (in What To Expect, maybe) that until the 50s or so, doctors generally would not give pain relief during childbirth. Not so much because of concern over side effects, etc. but for reasons as above.
Painful childbirth was seen as a divine curse upon womankind—a punishment for Eve’s role in the Original Sin. Therefore ameliorating said pain would be immoral.
There are perfectly sensibe aspects of karma. Karma means “action” or “deed”, with the implication that actions have associated consequences, that it is useful to consider to be part of the action. It reflects the common principle: as you reap, so you sow.
Karma means (unfortunately) something more than that to buddhists. The view you described is something smart people came up with to make it acceptable for themselves. Original buddhist karma is ultimate balance of good and evil in the universe.
Yes, I am aware of that. Karma is still a useful concept, though. Despite its baggage it is still something good to have in your ontology—at least IMHO.
I don’t have a problem with that principle—what I don’t like is the possible misinterpretations. As outlier notes, the original concept of karma has pretty distasteful consequences, and while the idea of reaping what you sow is useful, dressing up the concept as “karma” risks associating it with some of the original concepts. I’ve actually debated with people who believe that those who are suffering or in bad circumstances deserve it, because they were evil in a past life, and to help them would be to “mess up” their karma...!
Repugnant.
I read (in What To Expect, maybe) that until the 50s or so, doctors generally would not give pain relief during childbirth. Not so much because of concern over side effects, etc. but for reasons as above.
Painful childbirth was seen as a divine curse upon womankind—a punishment for Eve’s role in the Original Sin. Therefore ameliorating said pain would be immoral.
Ugh.
Mess up the helper’s karma, or the helpee’s? (IAWYC that it’s repugnant in both cases. Even if it were true.)
Mess up the helpee’s, I think… blech! I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks so.