Many times since I've been living here I've been told that rich people are rich because of "good karma." With this type of logic it would mean that a poor person is "bad" because of mistakes in their past lives. Ok.
It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. Everyone accepts their fate and never seeks a change. It is a great method of control, but is it true to Buddhist philosophy?
Karma
Started by frond, 2005-11-01 15:09
#2
thaibebop
Space Cowboy without a Ship Posted 2005-11-02 00:07:49
Very good question. I do not think it's part of Buddhist philosophy but people in power have come to this logic and used it. Although I have no evidence to offer at the moment to support my claim.
#3
ArtfulD
Senior Member Posted 2005-11-02 00:36:26
How about this one....I have quite severe physical problems with bone structure of my spine, neck, legs etc, arthritis in general...but am also wealthy....Confuse those little Buddha minds! Was I bad or good in my previous life?!
#4
Abandon
Odd member Posted 2005-11-02 02:06:17
you could have put this in the karma thread that we have going ...
If you are generous, but give with a stingy heart, or regret/resent doing it, then you are reborn wealthy but unable to enjoy the wealth. If you take life - you will have a short life next time. If you injure beings - you will be sickly If you are angry - your next life you will be ugly If you are envious - you will have no authority in the next life If you are not generous - you will be poor If you are obstinate and arrogant - you will have a low rebirth If you do not ask questions - you will be slow witted That's one of the ways it was laid out by the Buddha. I don't necessarily like it, or agree with it, but I do not want to start rationalising it away just because it offends me. #5
chownah
Titanium Member Posted 2005-11-02 10:42:19 Pandit, on 2005-11-02 02:06:17, said: you could have put this in the karma thread that we have going ... If you are generous, but give with a stingy heart, or regret/resent doing it, then you are reborn wealthy but unable to enjoy the wealth. If you take life - you will have a short life next time. If you injure beings - you will be sickly If you are angry - your next life you will be ugly If you are envious - you will have no authority in the next life If you are not generous - you will be poor If you are obstinate and arrogant - you will have a low rebirth If you do not ask questions - you will be slow witted That's one of the ways it was laid out by the Buddha. I don't necessarily like it, or agree with it, but I do not want to start rationalising it away just because it offends me. #6
Abandon
Odd member #7
robitusson
Senior Member Posted 2005-11-02 19:21:46 frond, on 2005-11-01 15:09:32, said: Many times since I've been living here I've been told that rich people are rich because of "good karma." With this type of logic it would mean that a poor person is "bad" because of mistakes in their past lives. Ok. It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. Everyone accepts their fate and never seeks a change. It is a great method of control, but is it true to Buddhist philosophy? Being rich is not necessecarily good and being poor not always bad. I know this sounds obvious but it is true. Life and society and peoples circumstances are way more complicated than that and always prone to change. The Buddha also pointed out that riches and wealth are not sources of happiness. Karma is not an ultimate truth. It is subject to change. This means if you are born rich and healthy then your karma could "run out" and your situation could change. The concept that religion is a system of control over the masses is an outdated meme at this stage. #8
chownah
Titanium Member Posted 2005-11-02 22:07:09
I think that the only way that karma can 'run out' is when you attain nibbana...until then it just keeps on happening.....as long as you maintain your sense of the existence of your self and continue to intentionally act...then karma will continue to be active....I think.
#9
ArtfulD
Senior Member Posted 2005-11-02 22:32:30
Education plays a large part in not being controlled by religion no matter what faith is involved. Is not saying if you do X then in the next life you will suffer Y a form of making people refrain from doing X?
The concepts in posts above are interesting, but I dont feel its offending to question or rationalize something. Indeed the concepts above are just different attempts to rationalize various aspects of life. Its not a matter of wishing to insult someones religion when questioning something, or indeed feeling insulted at the answers, but a matter of finding out a religions thoughts on said question. Out of all the religions, Buddhism is one I would study more on. But it doesnt mean I wont question what it teaches me as I go along. #10
sabaijai
Thaitanium Member Posted 2005-11-03 10:36:54 chownah, on 2005-11-02 15:07:09, said: I think that the only way that karma can 'run out' is when you attain nibbana...until then it just keeps on happening.....as long as you maintain your sense of the existence of your self and continue to intentionally act...then karma will continue to be active....I think. It's common for westerners to confuse action (kamma) with result (vipaka). Every kamma has vipaka. The kamma is finished when it occurs. Likewise the vipaka. You don't 'carry' kamma throughout life or lives, nor do you carry vipaka. Vipaka arises when conditions are ripe. Even people who appear to be 'good' may experience akusala vipaka (unwholesome result) in their lives, and people who appear to be 'bad' will experience kusala vipaka (wholesome result) - all stemming from akusala/kusala kamma in their respective pasts. Thus it's impossible to judge the sum of another person's kamma simply by looking at their wealth, status, or physical condition. #11
cobra
Posted 2005-11-03 11:07:11 frond, on 2005-11-01 15:09:32, said: .. It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. #12
Heng
some grey dots Posted 2005-11-05 00:45:41
People draw these conclusions themselves, it's not about control. Not all wealthy people give back to the community, but there are plenty who donate large sums to temples and Thai-Chinese charity organizations (like the Ruam-kathanyu and Poh Teck Tang).... it's not strange that poor folks think that all this giving comes back to these folks in reward for being so generous.
I like the Ruam-kathanyu myself, and if I didn't know better, I too would think that frequent donations do come back to you in some way. 
Edited by Heng, 2005-11-05 00:49:05. #13
perijon
Advanced Member Posted 2005-11-06 17:30:29 frond, on 2005-11-01 18:09:32, said: Many times since I've been living here I've been told that rich people are rich because of "good karma." With this type of logic it would mean that a poor person is "bad" because of mistakes in their past lives. Ok. It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. Everyone accepts their fate and never seeks a change. It is a great method of control, but is it true to Buddhist philosophy? 
#14
newkidindablock
Newbie Posted 2005-11-13 22:41:43 frond, on 2005-11-01 15:09:32, said: Many times since I've been living here I've been told that rich people are rich because of "good karma." With this type of logic it would mean that a poor person is "bad" because of mistakes in their past lives. Ok. It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. Everyone accepts their fate and never seeks a change. It is a great method of control, but is it true to Buddhist philosophy? #15
newkidindablock
Newbie Posted 2005-11-13 22:45:11
Hi Frond,
I am new to this forum and will soon be moving over from India to Bangkok… You have part of the answer in your own question! Karmic laws work across many lives….Our measure of time is only our current life span of about 65 to 70 years on an average. If you try to rationalise Buddhist philosophies and laws of karma over one’s current life, it looks unfair and the rich-poor difference and their 'place' as you said, appears we need to treat them as you suggested. However if the rich (or it also means the spiritually evolved) gloat over their superiority, then they may not have the same richness in their next life. The law says that you need to help the poor with charity, kind words, while also living with moderation, dicipline and humbleness..this is to ensure the rich will continue to get rich (it could even mean richness in understanding, spirituality and nearness to God) Hence proverbs like: “The measure of a person’s greatness is by the way he treats small men”. The Divine law states that , it is in giving that we receive. These proverbs and laws are not ‘controls’ as you have said, they have been used to inform the common man, the householder , of the ‘right way’ …a lot of the depth in those Buddhist philosophies is left to the true seeker. It applies to all religions not just the Buddhists…surprisingly all the ancient religions have some amazing amount of commonality …given that they didn’t have internet and forums to discuss…so the laws were developed to make the illiterate and uneducated of that time , understand the simplified laws and assimilate in their lives. The eventual goal is to lead a harmonious life and attain nirvana or nibbana. -Sridhar #16
thaibebop
Space Cowboy without a Ship Posted 2005-11-14 15:11:31 perijon, on 2005-11-06 17:30:29, said: frond, on 2005-11-01 18:09:32, said: Many times since I've been living here I've been told that rich people are rich because of "good karma." With this type of logic it would mean that a poor person is "bad" because of mistakes in their past lives. Ok. It seems like this type of attitude is helpful in controlling society by putting people in their place, i.e. the rich person should be respected because he/she's on top, the poor person should be defiled because he's/she's at the bottom. Everyone accepts their fate and never seeks a change. It is a great method of control, but is it true to Buddhist philosophy? Sorry to nit pick but Buddhism is very far off from Middle Eastern. It's orgins are in India, thus Asia. It spread east into Asia. Major Middle Eastern Religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. because of it's peaceful nature and acceptance of the inevitable, but I am also a gamling man; and I firmly believe that it's the "choices we make, not the chances we take that determines our "DESTINY". Step outside this planet and have a good look from out there, you really get the feeling that this place is so insignificant in comparison to the whole. No one lives forever, enjoy it while you can, in this artificial environment we have created for ourselves. Human nature never changes, it's perpetual! #17
Neeranam
Titanium Member Posted 2005-11-15 12:41:21 Quote The Buddha also pointed out that riches and wealth are not sources of happiness So why are people with good karma born rich(monetary)? Or are they? #18
Abandon
Odd member Posted 2005-11-15 16:52:55
hehe
maybe Mara saves his most deluding tricks for those with the best karma |
Sponsored by: |
