Christianity vs karma

[Danoh]

This is the only karma tune I dig:

Hah; I'll say one thing for Boy George; the man has good taste.

I was in a club once with my girlfriend; who was a big fan of his.

We're out in a hallway making out when in walks the Boy and his band Culture Club.

The Boy puckers his lips and throws a kiss at me, lol

My stupid girlfriend; she thought that was so cool.

Great lyrics and music though.

At some other time; we run into Sharon Stone while we're driving down Wilshire Blvd. She pulls up in in this baby blue Bentley convertible...gives me that famous look of hers...

THEN the girlfriend gets mad - lol, but it was ok for the Boy to throw a kiss.

Got rid of her just a while after that.

A little bit of Karma Chameleon, lol

 

[patrick jane]

I was in a club once with my girlfriend; who was a big fan of his.

We're out in a hallway making out when in walks the Boy and his band Culture Club.

The Boy puckers his lips and throws a kiss at me, lol


My stupid girlfriend; she thought that was so cool.

Great lyrics and music though.

At some other time; we run into Sharon Stone while we're driving down Wilshire Blvd. She pulls up in in this baby blue Bentley convertible...gives me that famous look of hers...

THEN the girlfriend gets mad - lol, but it was ok for the Boy to throw a kiss.

And while you were driving to Wally World, Christie Brinkley pulled along side you in a red convertible and waved and blew a kiss too, right ?

 

[Danoh]

And while you were driving to Wally World, Christie Brinkley pulled along side you in a red convertible and waved and blew a kiss too, right ?

It was an anecdote - hah, I could care less who believes it; especially you.

 

[meshak]

Danoh, you seem to live in affluent place where many celebrities live.

 

[csuguy]

Should the first quote be connected to the second quote? So, they aren't seeking to detachment in order to escape consequences but they are seeking detachment because attachment brings suffering and the lack of karma is more of an indirect result?

The Buddha was concerned with suffering. His spiritual journey is said to have been started with the Four Sights: a sick man, an old man, a dead man, and an ascetic. After living a very sheltered life as a prince, these encounters with suffering are said to have shook him to such a degree that he gave up his comfortable, rich life, left his wife and family, and followed the path of an ascetic - inspired by their apparent peace and tranquility in the face of suffering. He hoped to find in their teachings and practices an escape.

It wasn't so simple, however. He learned great meditation techniques and is said to have taken asceticism to such an extreme that he could survive on a single grain of rice per day. By doing so he found a taste of what he was seeking - in meditation he is said to have reached a place of peace and tranquility beyond suffering. However, this was only a temporary state; gone as soon as one left meditation. Something different was needed, though he didn't know what - so he left the ascetic life and began to live more moderately.

From there he pursued enlightenment, he sought the knowledge of how to permanently escape from suffering. Accordingly to legend he sat underneath a tree and mediated until he was enlightened. He was confronted by demons and gods in the process. Whatever happened, the results are the Four Noble Truths:

1. The truth of suffering (dukkha) - life is suffering
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya) - our desires and ignorance
3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha) - detachment via enlightenment
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga) - the Eight-Fold Path

There are many different aspects that can be evaluated here. The relationship between how desires lead to suffering, how enlightenment can help us to detatch ourselves from the objects of our desires and avoid suffering, and how this all relates to karma and the cycle of samsara. And then of course there is Nirvana. While there is plenty of variation in interpretation of these things; the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path are fundamental to Buddhism and practically universal. Of course, there are a few interesting derivatives that are pretty unique within Buddhism - like Tibetan Buddhism.

Here are a couple texts I used in my classes on Buddhism, if you are interested:

1. Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience (2nd Edition) by Donald W. Mitchell

2. What the Buddha Taught (Revised and Extended Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada) by Walpola Rahula

3. Siddhārtha by Hermann Hesse

The last one is actually a really well written fictional novel based loosely upon Siddhartha's (the Buddha's) life. Extremely well written and highly recommended.

 

[kmoney]

The Buddha was concerned with suffering. His spiritual journey is said to have been started with the Four Sights: a sick man, an old man, a dead man, and an ascetic. After living a very sheltered life as a prince, these encounters with suffering are said to have shook him to such a degree that he gave up his comfortable, rich life, left his wife and family, and followed the path of an ascetic - inspired by their apparent peace and tranquility in the face of suffering. He hoped to find in their teachings and practices an escape.

It wasn't so simple, however. He learned great meditation techniques and is said to have taken asceticism to such an extreme that he could survive on a single grain of rice per day. By doing so he found a taste of what he was seeking - in meditation he is said to have reached a place of peace and tranquility beyond suffering. However, this was only a temporary state; gone as soon as one left meditation. Something different was needed, though he didn't know what - so he left the ascetic life and began to live more moderately.

From there he pursued enlightenment, he sought the knowledge of how to permanently escape from suffering. Accordingly to legend he sat underneath a tree and mediated until he was enlightened. He was confronted by demons and gods in the process. Whatever happened, the results are the Four Noble Truths:

1. The truth of suffering (dukkha) - life is suffering
2. The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya) - our desires and ignorance
3. The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha) - detachment via enlightenment
4. The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga) - the Eight-Fold Path

There are many different aspects that can be evaluated here. The relationship between how desires lead to suffering, how enlightenment can help us to detatch ourselves from the objects of our desires and avoid suffering, and how this all relates to karma and the cycle of samsara. And then of course there is Nirvana. While there is plenty of variation in interpretation of these things; the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path are fundamental to Buddhism and practically universal. Of course, there are a few interesting derivatives that are pretty unique within Buddhism - like Tibetan Buddhism.

Here are a couple texts I used in my classes on Buddhism, if you are interested:

1. Buddhism: Introducing the Buddhist Experience (2nd Edition) by Donald W. Mitchell

2. What the Buddha Taught (Revised and Extended Edition with Texts from Suttas and Dhammapada) by Walpola Rahula

3. Siddhārtha by Hermann Hesse

The last one is actually a really well written fictional novel based loosely upon Siddhartha's (the Buddha's) life. Extremely well written and highly recommended.

That's interesting info but I'm not sure I see a clear answer to my question. I asked it because what you said about people seeking to avoid consequences/karma sounds like something that would stem from impure motives, which according to what you say would then generate negative negative karma. But if the lack of karma is an indirect or coincidental to the path toward detachment then it's more understandable.

 

[csuguy]

That's interesting info but I'm not sure I see a clear answer to my question. I asked it because what you said about people seeking to avoid consequences/karma sounds like something that would stem from impure motives, which according to what you say would then generate negative negative karma. But if the lack of karma is an indirect or coincidental to the path toward detachment then it's more understandable.

They are directly related; karma is what keeps one in the cycle of samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth.

life is suffering (1st noble truth) - or more specifically, one cannot avoid suffering in life. Birth is suffering, being sick is suffering, growing old is suffering, dying is suffering, etc.

As part of life, desires lead to suffering (2nd noble truth). For even something/someone who brings you joy must ultimately leave you - and this separation causes you suffering. Wanting something/someone you can't have causes you suffering. Clinging to life causes you suffering. At the same time, desire attaches one to samsara. Our desires motivate our actions, which results in karma - which further perpetuates life and the sufferings associated with it. It is also worth noting that when one dies, one's final thoughts/desires/emotions are a strong determining factor in rebirth - in the kind of life you will live next. Will you be a ghost, a human, a god? Will you be born into wealth and excess, or into poverty and slavery?

However, through enlightenment, by understanding that there is no permanent self, no soul, that everything and everyone is in a constant state of flux (like a river) so that nothing is what it was before, and what is now will not be - through this understanding into the nature of things, one can detach themselves from ignorant desire that causes suffering (3rd noble truth). Thus even when is physically ailed by sickness, injury, death, etc. One does not suffer - because they have detached from the 'deception' of self. When their 'loved' ones die, they do not suffer because they do not regard them as real.

Furthermore, by ceasing to desire, one no longer produces either wholesome or unwholesome karma - only neutral karma. The ultimate result of this is that one is able to free themselves from samsara, the cycle of death and rebirth. One's existing karma does not simply disappear, however - the Buddha himself continued to experience injury, sickness, and death after his enlightenment. However, if I'm not mistaken, through meditation they believe they are able to process through their existing karma.

So you see, there is a direct connection between karma, nirvana, and desires. Karma leads to continued life, death, and rebirth - which perpetuates suffering. Even wholesome karma ultimately leads to suffering. After all, even a god, who may live a pleasurable life for hundreds of thousands of years, will still ultimately die and be reborn in Buddhism. Karma results from desire - whether good or bad. These desires are in turn rooted in ignorance. Through enlightenment one can understand these things are illusory - even one's self. Through this enlightenment and through meditation on these things, one can reach a state where they are detached from such desires - and this state where one has 'put out' their desires is called Nirvana.

Understanding this you can see why my two statements were not contradictory: they are attempting to escape from the consequences of karma: the cycle of death and rebirth, a cycle of suffering. This is accomplished through enlightenment to reach Nirvana: putting out one's desires that generate karama, which are rooted upon false perceptions.

 

[way 2 go]

Hello way 2 go and all following......

Karma is deep and all-encompassing subject, since all life is a series of actions and corresponding re-actions, cause/effect, sequence/consequence, interdependent movements.

I still have yet to understand this logic of relation or equation above. :idunno:

what is wrong with the statement

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

But don't forget,...Paul understood that 'God' (the source and power of law, or even law itself ) cannot be mocked,

and yet you mock him (see below)

since sowing and reaping continue (seedtime and harvest, cause/effect)....as long as there is a living soul that thinks, speaks and acts....since all actions carry their relational effects and consequences. Hence, no matter how you slice or dice it, or throw in your 'theological construct or definitions'.....the law is universal.A trumped up or presuppositional theological dogma or 'belief' cannot abrograte or nullify what is law,

what law , your made up law of karma ?

The law as in biblical law is written .

karma is a lie so calling evil good and good evil it is up to the believer.

Isa_5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

and neither does a doctrine of 'vicarious blood atonement', since it wholly does away with personal responsibility to atone for one's own sins (by repentance, reformation), and even still, all the blood of a thousand animals or men, cannot take wash away sin. This is just a fact. (the issue of one's faith that blood can be efficacious, is another extended issue, covered elsewhere). - in all cases of rectification however, repentance is essential as the full act of returning to God or divine law....the return to right doing. There is no substitute for this....as faith without works is dead.

this is where you mocked God by the way

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

faith, faith in what, karma has nothing to have faith in except ... karma.

since only 'God' has immortality ('immortality' here referring specifically to the divine nature). This blows the ECT doctrine out, which I've contested elsewhere on 'principle' alone for starters.

too many errors in what you wrote so I will only write about this

God has immortality as in God has always existed
Joh 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
we on the other hand have been created to exist forever
just like the angels .

I'd encourage any interested to nibble on whats been shared already as a pretext, if possible, and perhaps challenge their own belief or understanding of 'justice', since karma by its own lawful action is perfectly just

God is just.

karma is made up so anything can be called good.

....so that ultimately there is perfect justice in the universe.

universe is dirt and energy inanimate.

How could there be justice any other way, since the law operates in perfect accordance to its own inward dynamic and compensating action?

God has said saints will judge

1Co 6:2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases?
1Co 6:3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life!

God will be the final judge not unpredictable karma

Of course, since God is LOVE, there is always grace present,

In this love you always talk about is there judgement , vengeance , punishment?

Heb_10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

so that karma is still governed in the light of that divine providence whose will is only for the utmost good, welfare, evolution and progress of all sentient beings....and how could Love be otherwise?

Rom_5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

but karma does not need Christ death

If God is absolutely and ultimately omnipotent...then there is no soul that God could not draw, influence, woo or sweep into his infinite embrace in both an individual and universal sphere, since God includes, encompasses and maintains all.

God's omnipotence does not remove your freewill

Joh_3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

 

[freelight]

seedtime and harvest.......

seedtime and harvest.......

Now, with regards to what is required of Christians, we are required to give our lives. We are required to persistently seek what is right and good. Then we are rewarded with eternal life.

Matthew 7:21-27 21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [n]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ 24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and [o]acts on them, [p]may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the [q]floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. 26 Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not [r]act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.”​

Romans 2:6-11 [God] will render to each person according to his deeds: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress [e]for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.​

Yet even this paradigm includes the karmic law of good works being rewarded or compensated. Which is why I shared my earlier posts with links to show that the law of karma is universal, no matter how its variously defined or appropriated, since all actions are relative to certain factors of cause and effect (reward/punishment). The law of karma carries into all dimensions of existence, all creation...wherever actions commence, or have 'effects'. Hindu/Buddhist/Jainist schools go into deeper complex explanations of various kinds of karma, as you've touched on previously.

I find Way 2 go's thread title as misconceived, since 'karma' is not in contest with anything,.....its a principle found in the Bible as well, and is not inimical to Christianity in principle, while the eastern understanding of karma has different implications and has a different world-view than Christianity, of course. Still, early Christianity had some groups that held to some kind of rebirth, no doubt from eastern influences and esoteric schools, so philosophically 'karma' and 'rebirth' (reincarnation) are reasonable, except when coming into conflict with a more dogmatic orthodox brand of Christian theology crystallized later, whose eschatology and soteriology could not accept it.

I've recently been centering more with a Theosophical view of karma, since it brings the eastern definitions and blends these with the ancient wisdom taught in all schools, and presents esoteric philosophy in a way perhaps a bit more understandable to western minds. The 'law of compensation' I've shared from the Padgett messages may be of a more 'christainized' version and more palatable for some. Still, 'God' (law) is not mocked,...what is sown shall be reaped....since karma is intrinsic to existence.

 

[csuguy]

While there is some overlap between the idea of karma and Christianity, this is merely a superficial likeness. Karma is an impersonal force/law that always reciprocates one's wholesome/unwholesome actions to the same degree. You have said earlier in this thread that this can be considered a perfect justice system of sorts.

This does not work well with Christianity, however. While Justice is certainly good and important, it is not ideal. The Law makes one aware of sin so as to utterly condemn it, but the Law makes no one righteous. Under Justice, it is an eye for an eye - but if we carry this out mechanically, everyone will end up blind.

Christianity is rooted in love, not justice. Justice is carried out with respects to love: love for those who have been harmed, love for those who are threatened with harm, but also love for one's enemy, love for the sinner. It is far more preferable that one repent of their sins and for them to be forgiven, in God's eyes, than for them to receive their just rewards. Of course, when one refuses to turn from sin but continues in their sinful ways - nothing is left for them but justice.

Justice is not the ultimate good, love is. We should prioritize reconciliation with one another and with God over making sure someone gets what they deserve.

 

[freelight]

what is wrong with the statement

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

It makes no sense at all.

and yet you mock him (see below)

I do not mock Paul or 'God' (universal law).

what law , your made up law of karma ?

"What a man sows, that also shall he reap". You've been given ample resource materials to learn what karma is.

The law as in biblical law is written .

No, I'm not referring to Mosaic law. I'm speaking of law as in an 'ordering principle' that exists and operates in Nature, that governs all actions.

See: Karma: The Law of Order and Opportunity

karma is a lie so calling evil good and good evil it is up to the believer.

Isa_5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Again, more ignorance of what karma is. Show me where I have called evil good and good evil. This is absurd.

this is where you mocked God by the way

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Not mocking 'God' (reality, truth, Law). I've challenged the blood-atonement doctrine elsewhere and it violates the law of self-responsibility and usurps the law of karma, since remember....every soul is responsible for its own sins and to atone for its own sins thru repentance, reformation, restitution, etc. While 'blood atonement' has certain symbolic or metaphorical meaning or value,....no amount of animal or human blood can wash away sins - such is only 'figurative' language applied subjectively. Such a doctrine is no substitute for right doing....without true repentance a blood sacrifice is valueless, and then its value is still only assumed by 'faith'.

faith, faith in what, karma has nothing to have faith in except ... karma.

Since karma is universal, so is its respect. What you sow, you will reap,....you cant evade that.

God is just.

karma is made up so anything can be called good.

The law of 'action'(karma) is just a fact of conditional existence.....its not made up. The law is just in that each are compensated and receive the consequences for their actions. Nothing is more just!

universe is dirt and energy inanimate.

Yet its all governed, guided, directed by intelligent law.

God will be the final judge not unpredictable karma

If you want to include a personal God serving as a Judge, that is fine,...but each are still reaping what they sow....as long as they sow....as thoughts, words and actions have their corresponding effects (law still governs, moderates and adjusts).

In this love you always talk about is there judgement , vengeance , punishment?

Heb_10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay." And again, "The Lord will judge his people."

Note, that the law already takes care of all souls, since they are ever being rewarded or punished for their own actions. God who is love is ever gracious by nature. Judgment, vengeance, punishment are already built into the law of karma....if you want to use those 'terms',.....remember....souls will be "judged according to their works" (judged according to karma).

Rom_5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

but karma does not need Christ death

No matter who dies for who, you still must reap what you sow, and are judged according to your work (karma), do you follow?

God's omnipotence does not remove your freewill

Agreed,...I was just sharing a Universalist view where some assume that ultimately a soul's will surrenders to the divine will, since there is some support for Unviersalism in the Bible. It was just something to consider, the INFINITY of LOVE.

 

[Zeke]

If the lower levels of Karma seem impersonal its no different than the OT laws demands on the flesh when seen from that state of mind, its true purpose is only seen once the Divine reason is grasp for the time spent under it, Galatians 4:1-3, Luke 15:45. When that doesn't fully happened in the heart the mind stays in control of the Identity which plays its mortal games of one path being the supreme way, yet when one reaches the top the other paths are shown to have also reached it.

To say love is only found in the christian religion is really nearsighted, based on a broad brush stroke that's has tried to paint over some of the eastern thoughts the Bible was built upon.

 

[way 2 go]

It makes no sense at all.

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

I do not mock Paul or 'God' (universal law).

Jesus is God
not some made up law of karma

and yes you mock him

"What a man sows, that also shall he reap". You've been given ample resource materials to learn what karma is.

you get life with Christ or punishment .

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

trust in karma will get you eternal punishment

No, I'm not referring to Mosaic law. I'm speaking of law as in an 'ordering principle' that exists and operates in Nature, that governs all actions.

karma which is made up so anything goes

Again, more ignorance of what karma is. Show me where I have called evil good and good evil. This is absurd.


Not mocking 'God' (reality, truth, Law). I've challenged the blood-atonement doctrine elsewhere and it violates the law of self-responsibility and usurps the law of karma, since remember....every soul is responsible for its own sins and to atone for its own sins thru repentance, reformation, restitution, etc. While 'blood atonement' has certain symbolic or metaphorical meaning or value,....no amount of animal or human blood can wash away sins - such is only 'figurative' language applied subjectively. Such a doctrine is no substitute for right doing....without true repentance a blood sacrifice is valueless, and then its value is still only assumed by 'faith'.

you using a fantasy called karma saying having good karma will save you
and that the atonement of Christ who is God profits us nothing
that is an example of evil good and good evil

Isa_5:20 Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!


repentance does not atone for sin that must be your lies of karma speaking
since you leave out Christ who said his blood was for remission of sins.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Since karma is universal, so is its respect. What you sow, you will reap,....you cant evade that.

in this life people evade it all the time.

But God will Judge everyone
Heb_10:30 For we know him who said, "Vengeance is mine; I will repay."

Mat 25:46 And these will go away into eternal punishment...

The law of 'action'(karma) is just a fact of conditional existence.....its not made up. The law is just in that each are compensated and receive the consequences for their actions. Nothing is more just!

you assume conditional existence bible says otherwise
and karma is made up, law of sin very real.
bible also says eternal dwelling with God or apart from God

no middle ground

If you want to include a personal God serving as a Judge, that is fine,...but each are still reaping what they sow....as long as they sow....as thoughts, words and actions have their corresponding effects (law still governs, moderates and adjusts).

How nice of you to let the creator of everything play in your karma sandbox.

Rev 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death."

Note, that the law already takes care of all souls, since they are ever being rewarded or punished for their own actions.

lies

God who is love is ever gracious by nature

your god of karma is loving people into hell

. Judgment, vengeance, punishment are already built into the law of karma....if you want to use those 'terms',.....remember....souls will be "judged according to their works" (judged according to karma).

made up karma has judgement,vengeance, punishment according to what standard?

Jesus is going to judge, not karma,
by his standard of righteousness .

No matter who dies for who, you still must reap what you sow, and are judged according to your work (karma), do you follow?

why thank you for trying to make Jesus sacrifice meaningless .

 

[csuguy]

If the lower levels of Karma seem impersonal its no different than the OT laws demands on the flesh when seen from that state of mind, its true purpose is only seen once the Divine reason is grasp for the time spent under it, Galatians 4:1-3, Luke 15:45. When that doesn't fully happened in the heart the mind stays in control of the Identity which plays its mortal games of one path being the supreme way, yet when one reaches the top the other paths are shown to have also reached it.

The Law is only part of the OT and of Christianity. But even the Law, properly understood, is not impersonal - for it too is rooted in love. However, even if one were to concede that the Law, in of itself, were impersonal, the Law is not God Almighty - who is very personal, who wants to be our God and who wants us to be his people, who wants to save us and to teach us to do right, who sacrificed his Son that we might be saved. Karma at no level can compare to this.

To say love is only found in the christian religion is really nearsighted, based on a broad brush stroke that's has tried to paint over some of the eastern thoughts the Bible was built upon.

I never asserted that love was isolated to Christianity - merely that love is the core thereof. Scripture even goes so far as to assert that God is love.

However, I will assert that Buddhism does, in fact, lack love. They speak of 'loving kindness' and the like to be sure - but a truly practicing Buddhist cannot love. Love requires attachment - it requires carrying about the well-being of others, and even suffering for their sake. The greatest act of love is to die for another. This is entirely contradictory to Buddhism.

 

[freelight]

loving compassion, selfless service.............

loving compassion, selfless service.............

I never asserted that love was isolated to Christianity - merely that love is the core thereof. Scripture even goes so far as to assert that God is love.

However, I will assert that Buddhism does, in fact, lack love. They speak of 'loving kindness' and the like to be sure - but a truly practicing Buddhist cannot love. Love requires attachment - it requires carrying about the well-being of others, and even suffering for their sake. The greatest act of love is to die for another. This is entirely contradictory to Buddhism.

I disagree, for The 4 Sublime States taught by Buddha are -

Love or Loving-kindness (metta)
Compassion (karuna)
Sympathetic Joy (mudita)
Equanimity (upekkha)

While the concept of 'love' within Buddhism has different nuance, inflections and contextual over-lays,...I think the Buddha taught in some ways very similar to Jesus philosophically, as can be seen in certain sections of the gospels....and their teachings have been compared, whole books written about them. ALSO,...the path of the Bodhisattva and their 'vow' to serve towards the liberation and enlightenment of all sentient beings, is certainly a gesture of 'love'(selflessness) and 'compassion', don't you think? One of my favorite Bodhisattvas is Ksitigarbha.

View attachment 23608

 

[freelight]

While there is some overlap between the idea of karma and Christianity, this is merely a superficial likeness. Karma is an impersonal force/law that always reciprocates one's wholesome/unwholesome actions to the same degree. You have said earlier in this thread that this can be considered a perfect justice system of sorts.

This does not work well with Christianity, however. While Justice is certainly good and important, it is not ideal. The Law makes one aware of sin so as to utterly condemn it, but the Law makes no one righteous. Under Justice, it is an eye for an eye - but if we carry this out mechanically, everyone will end up blind.

Christianity is rooted in love, not justice. Justice is carried out with respects to love: love for those who have been harmed, love for those who are threatened with harm, but also love for one's enemy, love for the sinner. It is far more preferable that one repent of their sins and for them to be forgiven, in God's eyes, than for them to receive their just rewards. Of course, when one refuses to turn from sin but continues in their sinful ways - nothing is left for them but justice.

Justice is not the ultimate good, love is. We should prioritize reconciliation with one another and with God over making sure someone gets what they deserve.

It still remains that karma has within it its just compensation and that just happens to be by universal law....its how the universe works. Actions have consequences,.....an intelligent principle or law undergirds and directs the orderly process of things, - action, sequence, consequence......sowing/reaping.....seedtime/harvest.

Even if 'God' is love and love is the Supreme LAW that controls/directs all other laws....then even karma of course is presided over by this over-arching love, for by the suffering of sin and the cognizance of its penalties,.....the sinner repents and corrects his path to the better way, lest his suffering continue. Karma must ever be as long as actions continue unless you can live above karma or abide in a higher more transcendental law that over-rides it (such as pure love, and compassionate action that seeks no reward or recompense).

While I agree with your sentiments, I think you're highlighting different nuances of emphasis between Christian and Buddhist philosophy or terminology, while I take a more liberal path of complimentarity or eclecticity. I disagree that 'karma' is some vindictive "getting what they deserve" law, for its just a matter of fact that what we sow we reap; actions have consequences. Karma is also the law of balance/equilibrium and opportunity....since we can learn, grow, progress thru our experience of life....as our actions and their results are the most intimate teacher.

 

[csuguy]

I disagree, for The 4 Sublime States taught by Buddha are -

Love or Loving-kindness (metta)
Compassion (karuna)
Sympathetic Joy (mudita)
Equanimity (upekkha)

While the concept of 'love' within Buddhism has different nuance, inflections and contextual over-lays,...I think the Buddha taught in some ways very similar to Jesus philosophically, as can be seen in certain sections of the gospels....and their teachings have been compared, whole books written about them. ALSO,...the path of the Bodhisattva and their 'vow' to serve towards the liberation and enlightenment of all sentient beings, is certainly a gesture of 'love'(selflessness) and 'compassion', don't you think? One of my favorite Bodhisattvas is Ksitigarbha.

View attachment 23608

They may use the term 'love'/'loving kindness' - but these must be understood within the context of Buddhism and the Four Noble Truths. When they speak of love/loving-kindness, it is not, and cannot be the same kind of love that Christianity talks about. Love that involves truly caring about another, an altruistic love in which you are willing to sacrifice of yourself for their well-being - this love is entirely incompatible with Buddhism.

This is for a few reasons. The first obvious contradiction is the fact that love is an attachment, an attachment which - to some degree - will result in some suffering (though likely a suffering heavily out-weighed by joy). The Buddha explicitly teaches to rid yourselves of such attachments for the very purpose of avoiding the suffering associated with it.

The second reason is because love leads to doing good and, potentially, bad deeds for the sake of one's love one. This produces karma and keeps one in the cycle of samsara. Again - this contradicts the fundamental teachings of the Buddha, which is to put an end to such desires (Nirvana).

Thirdly, Christian love is love for others. You act for their sake. But Buddhism denies the self - and the other - as illusory. Who do you love? Buddhism says there is nobody to love, not even the self.

Fourth, Christianity is concerned with doing good deeds, where the reward is eternal life. Buddhism says that good deeds are rooted in ignorance, and instead seeks to rid the mind of the illusions that give rise to the concepts underlying good and evil. And they do this so that they can escape from the eternal cycle of death and rebirth. They seek to die once and for all, never to reborn into a state of suffering.

In truth, Buddhism is about as opposite from Christianity as you can get.

Mahayana Buddhists vow to put off their own enlightenment for the sake of helping others on their spiritual journeys. But they too must ultimately give up love, give up attachment to others, if they are to reach Nirvana.

 

[csuguy]

It still remains that karma has within it its just compensation and that just happens to be by universal law....its how the universe works. Actions have consequences,.....an intelligent principle or law undergirds and directs the orderly process of things, - action, sequence, consequence......sowing/reaping.....seedtime/harvest.

Yes - there's nothing wrong with this concept per say, but it is clearly not compatible with Christianity. Karma is a mechanical law and has no room for mercy. It cannot compare with the personal God of Christianity, who not only acts on nature and on humanity, but interacts with us - forming a dialogue.

Even if 'God' is love and love is the Supreme LAW that controls/directs all other laws....then even karma of course is presided over by this over-arching love, for by the suffering of sin and the cognizance of its penalties,.....the sinner repents and corrects his path to the better way, lest his suffering continue. Karma must ever be as long as actions continue unless you can live above karma or abide in a higher more transcendental law that over-rides it (such as pure love, and compassionate action that seeks no reward or recompense).

Karma is not guided by love, not in Buddhism at any rate. Love, as spoken of by Christians, has no place in Buddhism - for Christian love is all about attachment to others, to their well-being, and of sacrificing of one's self - even suffering if need be - for their sake. An individual in Buddhism may recognize that his actions are bad and will bring him harm, and thus change his ways. This is good. But Karma takes no note of it. What has been done will be revisited upon that individual no matter how much they repent and beg for mercy. Karma cannot show mercy, it knows not love.

While I agree with your sentiments, I think you're highlighting different nuances of emphasis between Christian and Buddhist philosophy or terminology, while I take a more liberal path of complimentarity or eclecticity. I disagree that 'karma' is some vindictive "getting what they deserve" law, for its just a matter of fact that what we sow we reap; actions have consequences. Karma is also the law of balance/equilibrium and opportunity....since we can learn, grow, progress thru our experience of life....as our actions and their results are the most intimate teacher.

Recognizing where there is honest agreement between different religions, sects, and philosophies is a good thing. But this must be done honestly - and not artificially. We must honestly recognize the divides between these religions, sects, and philosophies as well.

I do not claim karma is vindictive. Rather I claim it is mechanical - like a Law, as you call it. It is neither vindictive or compassionate - it knows neither because it is an impersonal force that is incapable of bending one way or the other.

 

[Selaphiel]

This discussion will not get very far unless you discuss what 'love' actually entails. It is concept where the English language is rather poor and limited, as love can refer to many different forms of relating to others. It is not a given that love requiers desire and attachment. As far as I understand it, metta is defined as 'love without attachment'. A love that is the universal in the sense that it wishes the well being of all things. Agape is not that dissimilar, it is wishing the well being of others, which does not necessarily mean attachment to them. And of course, the simple distinction between eros and agape in much of Christian theology is not very satisfactory. The reality is far more complex. The difference might be that that some form of eros/desire is part of the Christian form of love (but eros must be freed from the false conception of it as mere possession of the other).

Point is that there are rather complicated concepts at the bottom of this discussion.

The biggest difference between the two religions is the end goal. An extinguishing of the person is incompatible with Christianity, it only seek to extinguish a false self, that is the self that is wrongly oriented away from God and neighbor. The other would be the impersonal karma versus the personal God that is love and who is merciful.

 

[PureX]

I realize there are a number of ways of understanding karma, but for myself, I just view it is the reflection, back at me, of my own effect on the world around me.