Talk:Karma/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Walls of text

This talkpage has become unreadable. Frankly, Robert, I think your walls of text here are bordering on WP:DISRUPTIVE - if not already over the limit. Sorry to say so. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I know what you mean. Sorry about that. Not intentionally certainly.

Extended content

Best solution I think is to collapse most of it. Most is in response to challenges by Mark which I think would be minority views anyway, e.g. I would imagine that probably not many people would think that Buddhists believe that Karma is a result of divine judgement, but Mark seemed convinced that some Buddhists do think this and kept challenging me on this point - so I ended up doing a lot of detailed replies for that which probably won't interest most readers. Also, I just tend to write quickly (touch typing) and end up with a lot of text which doesn't work so well on Wikipedia, though it works fine in other places like emails fine, my correspondents like the detailed replies. Also works fine in facebook, and quora - those both auto collapse all except the first few sentences of each comment so it doesn't matter that my comments are often many paragraphs long. Others also do the same, long multi-paragraph comments - in the more philosophical, scientific, and academic discussions there.

I've just collapsed a fair bit of my recent posts here, sometimes adding short summaries of the content before them, hope that helps. Including most of this one also, facebook style. Robert Walker (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've also collapsed a long dialog between myself and Mark that had no other contributors - that's intended as like archiving, not to hide his posts, just to make the page more readable as I don't want to archive entire talk page up to then. Hope it is okay to do that. Robert Walker (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should just try to be to the point. People will tend to ignore your comments. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:11, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay - well I've collapsed some more, and also in my last comment, have deleted mention of a very minor point that I think confuses the reader, to discuss at this stage - it can be sorted out later on.

My main issue here, then, is the bias involved in introducing the very long discussion from a Western perspective, as long as the Buddhism and Hindu sections combined, right at the start of the article, and before the reader has had a chance to read the original ideas as they are presented in the Eastern traditions.

Undoubtedly a notable paper. But should Kaufman's ideas in this paper he presented to the 2005 conference on "Revisioning Karma" take precedence over traditional views of Karma as understood by 22% of the world's population.

It's a subject area where it is no surprise for secondary sources to contradict each other. And it is easy to find secondary sources that contradict the things Kaufman said (several cited in Karma in Buddhism).

For that matter, also he says himself, that he hasn't made a special study of the Eastern traditions. His paper's main focus was on a project to abstract an idea from the Eastern traditions and see if he could adapt it to solve problems in Western theology. He concluded that the project was impossible. He just says as an aside that he thinks the problems he identified in this project should also apply to the original traditions.

But like philosophy, it is a subject where you can't expect secondary sources to give a single viewpoint. So, you need to be especially careful not to present any author's views on the subject as a "view from nowhere". So - just because Kaufman says that these are issues with Karma - doesn't mean that they are.

It should be presented as "Kaufman says that these are issues with the ideas of Karma".

Article shouldn't say, as it does now, that "These are issues with the ideas of Karma." as a "view from nowhere". That can't be right.

That's my main issue. I can support any individual things said here with citations, e.g. quotes from his paper, and for the views that contradict his statements - just see Karma in Buddhism. I'm not using that as a citation. It is just that it is a good scholarly article on the subject and gives numerous citations which you can follow up if you need to find out more. (CORRECTION - WAS A GOOD SCHOLARLY ARTICLE - most of it has now been deleted).

Sorry, if this is too much text. But I just don't know how to present something like this more succintly.

If that can get sorted out, first, then other things can then be dealt with later. Robert Walker (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Please also, everyone note, I have only made rather minor edits of this article, all of which I thought at the time would be uncontroversial, but were reverted by Mark - there is nothing left of mine.

Also, after they were removed, I never attempted to reinstate those edits - nobody could say I'm a disruptive editor! Robert Walker (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Karma in Buddhism

Oh I see User talk:Joshua Jonathan that you have just removed most of the Karma in Buddhism article. Including the important characteristics section. I would like to protest at that. It was an excellent article, I see you said it was unreadable - but others commenting on the article in its talk page found it excellent. And it's been there for years now, and here you come and remove more than half of it, without so much as a single request for more citations or challenge or discussion of its structure on its talk page first.

I am here writing as someone who just found that article useful. I had nothing at all to do with editing that article, my only edit of it was to fix a broken link

And you did it with almost no comments, no prior discussion with the other editors who have been working on the article for ages, deleted entire sections without comment or prior discussion or asking other editors to give more citations to support the sections they contributed to the articlee.

The only short (uncited) comment on the talk page you make, to cover all your edits, about intention rather than action being central to Buddhist ideas of karma makes no sense. Why did the Buddha offer himself as victim to Angulimala to prevent him from killing his own mother, in that sutra, if action is not an important factor in Buddhist ideas of karma? What is your sutra or secondary sources support?

I hope you will excuse me if I don't find your particular style of engagement with your fellow editors on wikipedia a good example to follow as a wikipedia editor myself. Robert Walker (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karma article! The Karma in Buddhism article has its own talk page. Thank you JimRenge (talk) 03:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned it here because Joshua Jonathan said that I should write less on the talk page. But his style of editing clearly is to edit the article without inviting discussion at all before the edit. So - I think surely it is better to write on the talk page than to just edit the article without discussion! My style, as you can see here is to write a lot on the talk page, but only make edits to the article itself that I think will be uncontroversial. Or after agreement on the talk page. As a result I have no remaining edits on the article, because the few edits I did, which I thought would be uncontroversial were immediately removed, and I did not attempt to reinstate them. I have also commented on the Karma in Buddhism talk page where I have registered the strongest protest possible at his actions and recommended that he restore the original article as it was before his changes and discuss them step by step. Robert Walker (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Revisioning Karma - not saying they are wrong - just a minority view

Thought I'd just say this as it came up in a talk page discussion elsewhere. I'm not saying at all that the Western academics in the "Revisioning Karma" conference are wrong in an absolute sense. They just say things that are inconsistent with the ideas of Karma as understood by the majority of Easterners, that's all. Doesn't mean either is right or wrong.

It is not the place of wikipedia to say who is right or wrong here.

See Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#There.27s_no_such_thing_as_objectivity

"This most common objection to the neutrality policy also reflects the most common misunderstanding of the policy. The NPOV policy says nothing about objectivity. In particular, the policy does not say that there is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense—a "view from nowhere" (to use Thomas Nagel's phrase), such that articles written from that viewpoint are consequently objectively true. That is not the policy, and it is not our aim!"

So what we have here are the views of a small group of Western academics. Who are not necessarily in agreement amongst themselves, and not at all in agreement with many other Western academics or Eastern academics. This is absolutely normal of secondary sources and to be expected in a subject like religion or philosophy (obviously rarer in science).

Their view as I best understand it is that the Eastern ideas of karma need to be revised. Seems to be a C21 movement as best I can tell. But the vast majority of those who believe in karma have no idea that there is this group of academics saying that their beliefs are wrong and need to be revised. And what's more, their papers are very little cited, even amongst Western academics. Not compared to the amount of citation and discussion you'd expect if their thesis was widely accepted.

As I best understand from Kaufman's essay, he thinks - sincerely I'm sure and with what he considers to be good reasons, and as a respected academic - he thinks that the idea of Karma is based on the idea of "deserved suffering" and is essentially fatalistic and that there is no way you can avoid the effects of your past wrong doing. And no way you can help others avoid the effects of their past wrong doing. And concludes, naturally, that it is not a useful ethical viewpoint to have and is best forgotten.

He does not mention Nirvana or Moksha, the idea that you can be free from the cycle of existence, which is central to the Eastern ideas. And does not mention the idea you can purify your past karma as far as I can remember. Or the idea in Buddhism at least that the actions that lead to karmic effects arise, originally out of ignorance and confusion.

So - these are notable papers and deserve mention. But such a minority view, of just a dozen or so academics - it shouldn't be used to frame the entire article. Yes they think that their views are "the truth". But it is not the place for a wikipedia editor, even if you agree with them - to promolgate their ideas here as "the truth" as a "view from nowhere". They have to be attributed. And if it is a minority view, even if it is one you may happen to be sure is correct, still, it must be presented, clearly, as a minority view.

Readers of the article are likely to be most interested in the views of Hindus, Jains, Buddhists etc on Karma

Readers of this article are likely to be more interested to know how Karma is understood by Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists and others who believe in the idea and who lead their lives in accord with it.

And of course, would be interesting to know about this view -that currently is a minority view, of some Western academics - properly attributed. All that is just fine. But presenting their view as "the truth" and using it to frame the article - that is wrong. It is not what wikipedia is attempting to achieve, to identify the one true view and to find the correct view to frame every article here.

Majority view of those who believe in Karma - that there is a path to freedom from Samsara

The majority view is, as understood by nearly all those who believe in karma - is that there is also a path leading to freedom from Samsara. Either as Nirvana for Buddhists or as Moksha for others. So it should be presented like that at the start.

Majority view of those who hold this view - that each person has their own path to follow

And the majority view here, as understood in all the Eastern religions, is that every person has their own dharma - Which is a hard term to translate but basically it is the path that you hold to. So you find out what your "dharma" is - what path you need to follow, and follow it. Not bothered by other people having other paths to follow. Different from the idea in the West that you need to find an "absolute good" and then once found it applies not just to you but everyone. So should be presented like that.

Revisioning Karma should be presented as a minority view in the discussion section

So, Revisioning Karma - as a minority view - that can go in its own section at the end. Should be there. But labeled as the views of a group of academics who have this idea that the ancient ideas of Karma basically need to be rewritten and are investigating how to do that.

They don't claim to be representing the views of contemporary Buddhists, as the title of the conference shows, "Revisioning Karma".

Balanced by presentation of views of other scholars who hold that Pali Canon is authentic teaching of the Buddha

And I think it should be balanced by a section on the views of some other scholars, especially Eastern.

In the case of Buddhism, for instance, some scholars at least hold that the Pali Canon is the authentic teachings of the Buddha.

They have good reasons for their views also. They have studied how Buddhist monks are able to memorize the entire Pali Canon, all 16,000 pages, and recite the whole thing word perfect (it's in the Guinness book of records). And - the evidence from the sutras themselves, that the monks, at the time of the Buddha - they had the example of the leader of the Jains who died and his followers were not able to agree what it was that he taught, in detail. So they took care to memorize the teachings of the Buddha while he was alive. And then after he died, they then compared all their versions of his sutras in the first Buddhist Council - and agreed on a final version of each one, which they then changed in unison -the whole process taking seven months. And this was repeated at intervals, until finally they were written down 450 years later.

So - that's reasonable evidence on the other side, that it's at least possible that the Pali Canon is essentially unchanged. Only because of the direct evidence that even today there are monks able to memorize the entire Pali canon word for word - that combined with the internal evidence makes it at least possible that these scholars are right in their views. They explain the simpler teachings in the canon as earlier teachings that predate the Buddha which were memorized by the monks along with the Buddha's teachings, and attributed to him. And other minor changes of course since the time of the Buddha before the texts were written down.

So don't say either are right here. Just present the views as they are understood by those who hold them

So - you don't say that any of the views presented are "right". That's not what we do in wikipedia. We simply set out what the views are, attribute them carefully - and that's the end of it.

So - that's all I'm saying here.

And to give most prominence to the views as held by the majority of those who believe in karma and frame the article about their views, with the "Revisioning Karma" ideas, properly labelled, in a discussion section at the end. Along with whatever other discussions one might want to add.

And that if we do include this "Revisioning Karma" we should also include the views of scholars in Buddhist, Hindu and Jain traditions who think that their ideas do not require this "Revisioning".

And present their ideas also without any statement to the effect of whether they are wrong or right, just present all the most significant views here, and attribute and that is that. It is not the place of wikipedia to tell the reader what conclusions to draw from all this. Just give them the material as it is in the sources, as best we can, for them to think over for themselves.

So hope this helps just wanted to clear up some misunderstandings and to present what I've been saying more clearly. Thanks Robert Walker (talk) 12:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Reichenbach 1989 paper on karma, Vedanta, and role of God as an administrator of dispensing karma

Raj2004, You left the following message on my talk page for this article, which I post here for convenience.

(Raj2004) I object to part of your source stating "concludes it is a theory that is not derived from reality and cannot be proven, considers it invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality / other observable facts about society, treats it as a convenient fiction to solve practical problems in Upanishadic times, and declares it irrelevant." The other statements are accurate. Your source is contradicted by the statements of the Brahma Sutras, a major Vedantic text which declares karma as the reason for explanation of evil/inequality and dependent on Ishvara. This view is also contradicted by Professor Bruce R. Reichenbach; see Theistic Explanations of Karma, pg. 146 of Causation and Divine Intervention by BR Reichenbach at http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm citing Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sutras,III, 2, 38, and 41. In fact, Professor Reichenbachstates on p. 146 of that article "

`Sankara argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can supersensuous, nonintelligent qualities like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, God (Isvara).(13)

Reichenbach's work, and Adi Shankara's views, are already summarized in this article, in various sections. One should not read one sentence out of context, and rush to imply that that statement is the entire position of a school of philosophy (in this case Vedanta). Reichenbach doesn't do that. His long paper uses the word Vedanta only once, spelled as Vedaanta, and that too to ask the question - Are we not reduced to a monism it rejects in Advaita Vedaanta?

Reichenbach's paper is not asserting or concluding or summarizing Vedanta's position on karma theory. Using his paper to assert so, is misconstruing his work. It also violates wikipedia's original research policy.

I have added a summary sentence from Brahmasutrabhasya to accommodate your concern. Yet, please note that the sutra presents, then debates, a far more and many more sophisticated arguments on karma doctrine. Halbfass offers the best review and summary, which along with Reichenbach's publications, is also already included in this article. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 16:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with part of Professor Halbass' statement as stating that Vedanta does not consider karma as not an explanation for explaining evil. I apologize for the error in citation for the Reichenbach paper. But all major teachers of Vedanta, Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva agree that karma is an explanation for the problem of evil and cite the Brahma Sutras, for example:

Relevant excerpts from the Karma in Hinduism article:

Ramanuja, in Sri Bhasya 1.1.1., [commentary on the Brahma sutras] reiterates that inequality and diversity in the world are due to the fruits of karma of different souls and the omnipresent energy of the soul suffers pain or pleasure due to its karma [The distinction between the fruits of karma, i.e., good and evil karma, are due to Vishnu as the supreme Enforcer of karma yet souls alone have the freedom and responsibility for their acts.

According to Madhva, *** God enforces a rule of law and, in accordance with the just deserts of jivas, gives them freedom to follow their own nature.[39] Thus, God functions as the sanctioner or as the divine accountant, and accordingly jivas are free to work according to their innate nature and their accumulated karma, good and bad. Since God acts as the sanctioner, the ultimate power for everything comes from God and the jiva only utilizes that power, according to his/her innate nature. However, like Shankara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras as mentioned earlier, Madhva, agrees that the rewards and punishments bestowed by God are regulated by Him in accordance with the good and sinful deeds performed by them, and He does so of out of His own will to keep himself firm in justice and he cannot be controlled in His actions by karma of human beings nor can He be accused of partiality or cruelty to anyone.

Raj2004 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Also your addition is misleading and inaccurate as the Brahma Sutras was commentated by Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva who all believed that karma was dependent on Ishvara:

Some scholars, particularly of the Nyaya school of Hinduism and Sankara in Brahmasutra bhasya, have posited that karma doctrine implies existence of god, who administers and affects the person's environment given that person's karma, but then acknowledge that it makes karma as violable, contingent and unable to address the problem of evil. Arthur Herman states that karma-transmigration theory solves all three historical formulations to the problem of evil while acknowledging the theodicy insights of Sankara and Ramanuja.

You have conveniently forgotten the Herman reference emphasizing theodicy and karma:

Arthur Herman states that karma-transmigration theory solves all three historical formulations to the problem of evil while acknowledging the theodicy insights of Sankara and Ramanuja.

Therefore, Professor Wilhelm Halbfas's characterization of Vedanta's views on karma as invalid for its failure to explain evil / inequality is incorrect.

Raj2004 (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004,

You are conflating three different sub-schools of Vedanta. Madhva is from Dvaita (dualism) Vedanta school, Shankara from Advaita (nondualism, monist) Vedanta school, and Ramanuja is from Vishishtadvaita Vedanta school. Their literature take on each other, question the other’s premises and reach different theses. Do not conflate and misconstrue three different sub-schools of Vedanta. The problem of evil is one of the interesting debates in sub-schools of Vedanta. Shankara, for example, offers a series of arguments to show that these four premises are mutually contradictory - (1) God exists, creates and controls every aspect of human/universe’s existence, (2) God is omnibenevolent, (3) God is omniscient, and (4) God is omnipotent. One of these premises is false, he reasons, because evil /suffering /inequality exists in our world. A compassionate God would not allow suffering or actions that cause suffering, no matter what, assuming God knows everything and is all powerful. Your cherry picking a phrase from his Brahmasutrabhasya out of context misconstrues and misrepresents him.

Reichenbach, in his 1989 publication, builds on this theme. Starting with last paragraph on page 145, through first paragraph of page 147, he summarizes the dilemma. Reichenbach summarizes it thus,

“If the law of karma is violable or contingent, worship of divinity has its place, but the law of karma no longer solves the problem of evil.”

This is one essential aspect of the thesis in Reichenbach’s paper, and of Vedanta school, which must be included for neutral point of view summary. That is what the current article does. On Arthur Herman, I added that reference to this article a while ago. In an encyclopedic article, we should not pick a winner or take sides. We must summarize all significant sides. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004, You left the following message on my talk page, "Quote what the major teachers of Vedanta said, not on Professor's beliefs".

I sense that is what you are doing, but once again, that is original research. Peruse content section of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Reliable secondary and tertiary publications are better sources. Halbfass is such a source. You started this dispute by quoting Reichenbach, but check once more his 1989 paper. Reichenbach cites Halbfass the most. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 18:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You are clearly incorrect. Although Madhva, Shankara and Ramanuja disagree on various points, they all agree, that karma is dependent upon Ishvara and Ishvara controls the disposition of karma.

Raj2004 (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the Brahma Sutras a canonical text, which all teachers of Vedanta comments and hold is less important than what a 20th century professor says? Citing primary sources from actual teachers of Vedanta rather than Halbfass such Sri Bhasya as well as Adi Sankara's commentary are NOT original research. They are original first author material.Incredulous and unbelievable as you are not an expert on Vedanta as you are not a practitioner of Hinduism nor Vedanta.

Also, Arthur Herman, who was a professor of philosphy (http://www.amazon.com/The-Problem-Evil-Indian-Thought/dp/8120807537) who had stated that view of theodicy and karma expresses the Vedanta view correctly. We should not summarize all significant sides when Professor Halbfass is contradicted by Professor Herman, Ramanuja's Sribhasa commentary and Adi Sankara. Sorry, you are just wrong on this point based on the overwhelming evidence. Please note that I agree with Professor Halbfass on other points of Vedanta such as "actions in current life have moral consequences and liberation is possible within one's life as jivanmukti." Ramanuja and Madhva believed that liberation was only possible after death.

Raj2004 (talk) 00:37, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004,

You have misunderstood Herman, just like you misunderstood Reichenbach. Herman does not contradict Halbfass. You allege, "when Professor Halbfass is contradicted by Professor Herman". Can you identify the pages where Herman contradicts Halbfass?

You are suggesting "Citing primary sources from actual teachers of Vedanta is NOT original research". Relying solely on primary sources can be problematic, but primary sources are fine when supported by secondary sources. You are doing neither. The problem is neither Brahmasutra nor bhasya on Brahmasutra state what you are alleging. You are claiming bhasya 1.3.4 or 1.1.1 concludes "something something", but you are not offering any source that can verify that conclusion. You need to provide reliable published source(s) that can be verified, before such content can be added to this article.

I have already offered multiple peer reviewed scholarly sources. You dismiss them as "20th century professors"!! Let me offer one more. See Krishan's 1997 book, The Doctrine of Karma: Its Origin and Development in Brahmanical, Buddhist, and Jaina Traditions (ISBN 978-8120812338). In chapter 13, from pages 153-158, you will find his summary of Vedanta school views on karma. He too contradicts you. He too agrees with those "20th century professors"!! He summarizes Shankara's conclusion as, "karma belongs to the empirical world". He touches upon the debate on relevance of divine in karma in the context of its fruition, but clarifies that different sub-schools of Vedanta's conclude, "souls have the freedom and moral responsibility for their acts" and "no karma can be extinguished except by means of liberating knowledge or full fruition", and so on. In Krishan's book, the most intense discussion on the role of Ishvara (God, divine) is in Chapter 11, in Samkhya school of Hinduism's discussion of karma. But in that school of Hinduism, after a complex analysis and debate, prakrti is held primary. On page 146 of Krishan, it states “fulfillment of karmas is dependent on ahamkara (ego), and not Ishvara.”

In summary, you are pushing your personal opinion about Brahmasutra and commentaries on it, and you have yet to offer one reliable source that reaches the conclusion that "karma is dependent upon Ishvara and Ishvara controls the disposition of karma" either in Brahmasutra or in various commentaries on Brahmasutra by Vedanta scholars. Wikipedia requires verifiability in reliable sources, per wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please provide reliable published source(s), preferably with page numbers. If you don't, there is nothing we can act on, to help improve this article. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article and did not intend to be combative. I respect Professor Krishnan whom you cited but he states such views supporting my arguments about Sri Bhaysa, for example. Krishnan states on p. 156 that "the distinction between good and evil karma is of divine origin. See, http://books.google.com/books?id=_Bi6FWX1NOgC&pg=PA155&dq=Ramanuja+karma&cd=4#v=onepage&q=Ramanuja%20karma&f=false

I respect your citation of Krishnan and will review to see if I have further appropriate sources. If I can find further sources, I will add. Thanks.

Raj2004 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Also according to Reichenbach, Bruce R. (April 1989). "Karma, causation, and divine intervention". Philosophy East and West (Hawaii: University of Hawaii Press) 39 (2): 135–149 [145]. doi:10.2307/1399374. Retrieved 2009-12-29, the Wikipedia article Existence of God states that "In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara, an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta, argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara)."

Since Sankara's Advaita school is the dominant school of Vedanta, it is safe to argue that the majority of Vedanta thinks karma as dependent on a supreme Being.

Raj2004 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004, (1) wikipedia articles such as Existence of God are not reliable source; (2) We already discussed that Reichenbach paper. Once again, do not take Reichenbach's statements out of context. You must read the whole paper. His first two statements of the paper on page 135 start by accepting "karma theory affects our environment". Then Reichenbach describes the interlink between karma residues and how that impacts future environment/circumstances on page 136-137. Next he explains how Indian traditions are similar in their karma theory; on page 142, lines 18-21, he states, "For all except Jainism (for whom the moral quality is also embodied in the physical), the causation under consideration is the passing on of a moral, psychic, or dispositional quality rather than a physical quality." On page 143, he asks, "But how do human actions condition the environment"? What you quoted earlier, and repeated it in distorted form again above from a wikipedia article, is the discussion of various offered answers, including by Shankara on page 145, followed by the conclusion that (a) either divinity causes human actions to affect the environment, and if so "the law of karma is violable or contingent, worship of divinity has its place, but the law of karma no longer solves the problem of evil." (page 147); or (b) divinity has no role, followed by a statement of alternate theories. What you are doing is innocently picking a few sentences out of context to misconstrue Reichenbach. (3) Reichenbach does not conclude, "Vedanta thinks karma as dependent on a supreme Being". You are. Doing so is synthesis and original research. Wikipedia's policy is "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I will reread Reichenbach and let you know if I have further comments. But you have not answered my citation of Krishnan's commentary on Ramanuja's Sri Bhaysa?

Thanks. Raj2004 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed Reichenach and on p. 145 attributes Sankara's views as follows:

There must be some sort of theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, For example, `Sa.nkara argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can supersensuous, nonintelligent qualities like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, God (II`svara).(13)

However on p. 148, Reichenbach admits problems with the theistic view espoused by Sankara: However, the problems of explaining the causal operations of the law of karma and of accounting for the precise moral calculations it requires led to the appeal to a theistic administrator. But the theistic view has its own problems, not of causation, but of the status of the law of karma.

Please take a look. Raj2004 (talk) 16:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004, It is Krishan, not Krishnan. Reichenbach is presenting Shankara's bhasya (commentary on views), not Shankara's views. A bhasya, in ancient Indian scholarship, was typically a throughly reasoned commentary where the author (such as Shankara) would acknowledge an earlier text or other scholars, pose questions, analyze various possible answers, and then discuss it in light of the previously published scholarship. A bhasya should not be taken out of context, nor should modern reliable scholarship. You appear to be taking statements out of context. You have ignored what Krishan writes about Shankara's view on karma. You mention Krishan's Ramanuja's bhasya at 2.2.3, as if Ramanuja and Shankara are identical, but ignore the very next sentence of Ramanuja on Krishan's page 156 as well as the rest. This is cherry picking, pushing a point of view approach that is inappropriate in an encyclopedic article. Neither Krishan nor Reichenbach conclude anywhere, your strange theory, "it is safe to argue that the majority of Vedanta thinks karma as dependent on a supreme Being."

I wrote earlier: there are over a thousand scholarly reliable publications on karma (I know, you allege that is not so here, but respectfully your allegation is untrue). Shankara features prominently in 20th and 21st century peer reviewed literature on karma theory. Read a few of them, from start to finish, to discern the widely accepted view of scholars on karma in Vedanta. In particular, in the context of our dispute here, read Upadesasahasri. You will find Shankara's views on karma, as well as on Isvara (he writes, isvaro 'smi and aham isvarah at 2.3.1, 2.10.8 - which, means "God is me, I am God", and by "I" he means the abstract, "in each human being"). Upadesasahasri is a primary source. Here are two secondary source suggestions, in the context of our dispute: (1) H. G. Coward, The Perfectibility of Human Nature in Eastern and Western Thought, ISBN 978-0791473368, Shankara on karma may be found from pages 147-152 and elsewhere. (2) N. V. Isaeva, Shankara and Indian Philosophy, ISBN 978-0791412817. If you review the literature, without cherry picking, you will reach the same conclusions on karma in Vedanta school of Hinduism, as the one in the current article. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 14:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Mark - please be more respectful of Raj2004! Especially your last comment, repeated use of "your strange theory", "allegations", "untrue", "cherry picking" etc etc. It is not actually respectful to say: "Respectfully, your allegations are untrue". When I read things like this I tend to believe the editor who is being attacked rather than the attacker, especially here on wikipedia talk pages. And have also felt the brunt of your approach to other editors on this page myself. Surely you are both sincere in your views on this matter. So if we can all Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith maybe some progress can be made. Robert Walker (talk) 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, as a general point, what you are discussing is way out of my depth here, but in our previous discussion on this page I found that at least one popular Hindu teacher, author of many books, considered that Ishvara plays a role in bringing out the effects of Karma, and used that as an argument for his existence. So - the question has to be - not - does anyone believe this as quite clearly some do - but - is this a new tradition that has arisen newly - or is it an ancient one that has been there since early times? And how pervasive is it, how many Hindus believe this way? And what's the scriptural support for it, what is its background? It doesn't make sense to just dismiss it as a tradition and say that it isn't there at all. It needs explanation and understanding.

Also, another general point, Western scholars often disagree so it's not right, I think, to bring up a particular Western scholar and say that because he says "such and such" that therefore "it is so", as sometimes happens in these talk page dicussions. There may well be other sources that say the opposite. Though you say there are thousands of sources, you haven't yet mentioned very many. Hope this helps. Robert Walker (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Robert is right. You are wrong about the term "bhasya," as there many meanings. The traditional predominant view of "bhasya" is as Oxford University defines as "A detailed explanatory work or commentary, especially on technical sūtras." Typically, a bhasya is a scholar's commentary synthesizing views of his school and reflecting his opinion. Sankara was summarizing previous views of the Advaita school which he belonged and believed in. Therefore, his view of karma dependent on Ishvara is his view. Raj2004 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I never said Ramanuja and Shankara are identical. You think a practicing Hindu won't know the difference between the Advaita and Vishishtadvaita teachers? You are misrepresenting my views. It can't be a strange theory where practicing Hindus including the great and late Swami Sivananda, a great teacher of Advaita, espoused the Advaita view that karma as dependent on Ishvara. You have to remember that Advaita was a theistic reaction to Buddhism that arose in the 7th centure AD, so it is you are misrepresenting and cherry-picking the views of Vedanta on karma depedent on Ishvara. Raj2004 (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sankara never said that "I am God." You are representing a view that is incomplete about Advaita. The individual soul and the UNiversal soul (God) are essentially identical, but due to Maya (ignorance), the individual soul forgets this. Only when the individual soul attains moksha, he/she realizes its essential self and attains union with God. Raj2004 (talk) 01:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

You did not read p. 156 of Krishan carefully. God, according to Ramanuja, administers the dispensation of karma due to individual's good or bad deeds, but souls have free will to choose good or evil. Raj2004 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Raj2004 (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Swami Sivananda, a leading teacher of Advaita stated this about karma in "God exists" from http://www.dlshq.org/download/god_exists.htm#_VPID_36 :

The apparent differences that we observe in the world among the ways in which the individuals are made to experience pleasure and pain are not to be attributed to Isvara as their Inner Ruler but to the Karmas of the individuals themselves. Injustice and cruelty cannot at any time be imputed to the universal Lord, who is the same to all beings. God, in the process of the dispensation of justice, takes into consideration the nature of the actions done by the different individuals in their previous births. The circumstances in which God places individuals are suited to the nature of their deserts. God is not, strictly speaking, any arbitrary creator of the world but the primary principle responsible and necessary for the expression of an environment fitted to the manner in which the Karmas of the individuals have to fructify themselves in various ways. The life of an individual is determined, therefore, not by any caprice on the part of Isvara, but by its past deeds,-good, bad or mixed. The question of a first creation of the world by Isvara, where no individuals could have existed to account for the nature of the world to be manifested, cannot arise, for there is no such thing as first creation. The factor of time cannot be set prior to creation.

Raj2004 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

In support of Raj2004 . First this quote seems to be clear on Ramanuja, so placing the idea back at least as far as the early C12:

Ramanuja in his bhasya 2.2.3 clarifies that the distinction between good and evil karma is also of divine origin... In the bhasya on sutra ibid. he observes "The souls... endowed with all the powers imparted to them by the Lord and with the bodies and organs bestowed by him... apply themeselves on their own part, and in accordance with their own wishes, to works either good or evil. The Lord, then, recognising him who performs good actions as one who obeys His commands, blesses him with piety, riches, worldly pleasures, and final release; while him who transgresses his commands he causes to experience the opposites of all these"

Karma in Vedanta

And this quote seems clear on Sankara:

Sankara argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can supersensuous, nonintelligent qualities like apuurva or ad.r.s.ta by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, God (Isvara).(13)

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/reiche2.htm

Seems to be only one possible interpretation there, that they both supported the idea that the fruits of karma are administered through the agent of Ishvara Robert Walker (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2015

karma me pogodila kada sam odbila spolni odnos sa dečkom...... od sada mu se više ne diže :(

78.0.211.218 (talk) 13:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: this is the English Wikipedia - you need to make requests in English
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker

I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Result was no outcome and I've developed some Work arounds for lengthy talk page comments which should help in the future. Robert Walker (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2015

I suggest to add link to very usefull book about Karma of respectful Guru Sant Kirpal Singh

http://www.ruhanisatsangusa.org/pdf/LifeDeath.pdf

Thank you! AlexShabd (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2015

Section 5.3 on Buddhism has a grammatical error in the sentence: "In the Buddhist tradition, karma refers to actions drive by intention...". I believe the word "drive" was meant to be "driven". The current use of "drive by" would only make sense in something like a "drive by shooting" or similar. Unless I'm mistaken, there is no such thing as a "drive by intention". Dccharron (talk) 12:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - that is exactly what the next word (Cetanā) means - thanks for pointing that out

Cause and effect, causality

Talking about "causality" and "cause and effect" about ancient philosophies is a serious mistake. I wish I was knowledgeable enough to do the necessary editing, for now all I can say is that it's absurd, and casts doubt about the article. I ignore the Eastern equivalents, but some words that wouldn't be anachronic are : fate, grace, cause (NOT cause and effect), worth, merit, destiny, reward, consequence...--84.97.206.198 (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Thoughtfull observation. Not that I have a solution at the moment, but it's a good point to ponder. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2016

the first sentence does not say what karma is

My proposal is:

Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म; IPA: [ˈkərmə] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed [1] creates a backlash;

Master493 (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Master493: Welcome to wikipedia. Your request is not accepted because the first sentence does say what karma is. "Creates a backlash" is your opinion/original research. Please read wikipedia's content policies such as WP:V and WP:OR. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable in an external, reliable source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Indian religion concept

India is not name of religion. It is Hindu religion. Hinduism is not of India only. Sabin lamsal (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sabin Iamsa: See this. In scholarly literature, Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism etc are routinely classified as Indian religions. Per WP:RS policy of wikipedia, we need to stick with the scholarly sources. No Hindu POV pushing please. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Action

change ((action)) to action and ((reaction)) to reaction — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:218:8BFF:FE74:FE4F (talk • contribs)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Karma: "It's all her own fault."

Who thought hamfisting an image of a starving child with this caption under it into a theological discussion was tasteful? Frankly for a protected article that's just embarrassing. It's a gross misrepresentation of the subject and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:42C0:D7C8:10E8:B151:7D91:E14 (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Abecedare (talk) 01:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Definition in lead is incorrect

The lead says that the "intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect)." This isn't so, nor is what the source says (the Encyclopedia Britannica I gather) - karma has no effect in an individual's present life, it's purely an influence on future rebirth.PiCo (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

PiCo: The lead looks like a reasonable summary to me. I checked the Britannica article you mention, and it states "future" in the generic sense. The article never says "has no effect on present life", or "purely an influence on future rebirth". The Britannica article mentions "future births", and given how central rebirth and cyclic existence is to Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and other traditions of Indian religions, this is something to be expected. Future includes future in the present life and future lives post-rebirth. For more, please see the Stephen Phillips book on this topic published by Columbia Univ Press, and other scholarly sources that cover the topic in greater depth. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I got the impression from that sentence fragment I quoted that the lead was restricting the effects of karma to an individual's present life, without reference to rebirth. I believe that karma in fact refers exclusively to future rebirths, not this present life. Todd Lewis in Kevin Trainor's edited volume "Buddhism" says that Hindu reincarnation "asserts that those born in the highest varna deserve their status owing to their superior karma, the accumulated merit derived from their deeds and behaviour in past lives" - there's a paraphrase at the bottom of this page in a different book by Trainor. Gombrich in "The World of Buddhism" defines Hindu karma as "ritual action", in Buddhism as "Morally significant action" (action taken with moral intention). The EB and the other sources used in the first line of the article are correct but inadequate - karma is tied to reincarnation and only has meaning as a process governing rebirth. Do you have the full title of the Stephen Phillips book you mention?PiCo (talk) 06:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

PiCo: It is never a good idea to use passing mentions or comments of a concept in one religion, in a book dedicated to another religion, that too in a different context, to make sweeping claims and conclusions about that concept in the other religion. In this case, you are referring to a chapter on "class and hierarchy" in a book titled Buddhism: The Illustrated Guide to draw sweeping conclusions about the concept of karma in Hinduism (if you want to learn about class and hierarchy in Buddhism, Trainor's chapter is a source, but also see other sources such as chapter 8 of Richard Gombrich's Buddhist Precept & Practice for NPOV). The topic of karma in Hinduism has numerous scholarly publications, just go to your local university library or do a search on jstor / google scholar / etc and read some of the numerous scholarly publications out there. Just like Britannica, I checked Trainor and I do not find support for "future life only" in Trainor either. If you insist, please identify the page number and please quote the sentences from the appropriate RS on this talk page. Stephen Phillips book is titled, Yoga, Karma, and Rebirth: A Brief History and Philosophy. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Soapboxing

@Abecedare: I don't know why it is soapboxing. Karma proponents believe that the poor are poor because they deserve to be poor, the crippled are crippled because they deserve to be crippled, the starving are starving because they deserve to be starving. It is a fairly well accepted idea in Hinduism and various sorts of New Age beliefs (including Blavatskyan Theosophy and Anthroposophy). You see, the rub about Mother Theresa helping the ill and dying in India wasn't conversion to Christianity, no, she was ruining their karma by helping them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: If you wish to add to the article's discussion of that critique you are welcome to do so with proper sourcing and attribution. Using the image of a particular starving child and a glib caption instead, is as clear an example of soapboxing as I recall coming across. Abecedare (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abecedare: {{quote|When Mother Teresa first began ministering to the sick and the dying of Calcutta, she and her Sisters of Mercy were often beaten and resisted by Hindus who believed that a diseased man withering away in a gutter was fulfilling his ''karma'' and must not be helped. He must suffer and perhaps die unaided because this was what it meant to fulfill ''karma''.<ref name="Mansfield2011">{{cite book|first=Stephen|last=Mansfield|title=Where Has Oprah Taken Us?: The Religious Influence of the World's Most Famous Woman|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ibfifD9gOB0C&pg=PA89|date=10 October 2011|publisher=Thomas Nelson|isbn=978-1-59555-415-4|page=89}}</ref>|Stephen Mansfield}} Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the poorly sourced redflag claim you inserted into the article. I would AGF but given that you are an experienced editor, right now I am finding it difficult to distinguish your contributions to this article from trolling. Pinging @Joshua Jonathan and Ms Sarah Welch: for a second opinion. Abecedare (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The quote seems to be taken out of context. Mansfield is writing about TM, and argues taht the meaning of karma has been altered in the west. The quote illustrates an argument Manfield makes, namely that karma must take its course, and may not be interfered with. He then argues that religious Hindus oppose charity for the extreme poor, because they have to fulfill their karma. So, you can't take that quote out of that context, c.q. the argument Mansfield makes. And for that argument, the idea that (some) Hindus believe that karma must take its course, no matter what, I'd like to see the sources of Mansfield. There must be better sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:44, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about other sources, however, this is what my professor Bart van Heerikhuizen told us during his course. Anyway, I was an Anthroposophist, and the view about the handicapped was: ok, it's their own fault, but we are prepared to help them evolve. So, I would leave out the part with "no help should be offered", but it is certainly true that karma means that poverty, disease, hunger, etc., are one's own fault (due to bad deeds in a past life). Rudolf Steiner has books about that, but directly citing him has been deemed original research by the Arbitration Committee. That karma means "the sufferance you have is due to your bad deeds in a past life" isn't controversial. See WP:BLUE. Karma is a brilliant theological explanation for "Why are some born rich and some born poor?" and "Why do people suffer?". Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: Your additions were soap indeed. The "Oprah"-titled source you mention is not the quality of peer-reviewed scholarship we must use here. I concur with JJ and Abecedare. In ancient Buddhist, Hindu and Jain texts, Karma neither means nor implies "poverty, disease, hunger, etc., are one's own fault". Please see the English translations of Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita etc (1500 to 2500 years old) if you wish to know their ancient views – partly correct and partly flawed – as to what causes diseases, hunger etc. For this and other wikipedia articles, we must seek and stick to summarizing what the vast majority of peer-reviewed scholarly sources are stating. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, then my professor was wrong. He stated that helping the poor is a Western concern, which the Hindus do not share, because they believe in karma. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:28, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu: Their oldest scripture, the Rig Veda in hymn 10.117, teaches helping the poor, the hungry, any stranger who seeks/needs help. Dāna is a key ethical and karma empowering premise in Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism, and their texts – both Indian and those written outside India – discussed and championed charity and helping all humans in need of help, even animals and birds and all creatures that suffer (dukkha) in any form. Now, let us keep this talk page focused on this article please, per our WP:TALK guidelines, and avoid WP:FORUM-y discussions. Your cooperation is requested. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't doubt there are people who take such a pessimistic view in karma; and, indeed, Ramana Maharshi also had comparable views. But there is indeed also karuna, and the Congress Party. Multiple perspectives exist. By the way, I never knew that Anthroposophists blamed handicaps on past wrong-doing. I only knew this stance 'there is a human soul beyond the handicap; reach that soul'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

+1. Religious premises and ideas always draw a diversity of interpretations. For example, a Christian pastor in South Africa named Daniel François Malan – with a masters in Philosophy and a doctorate in Divinity – interpreted Jesus Christ's teachings to be supporting apartheid (racial segregation) and all the social discriminations that blighted the South African history and modern humanity. Malan's interpretations of Christianity did not end in his sermons, he entered politics, became the prime minister and is credited with enacting and enforcing the racial discrimination template that we remember now as the apartheid. For more, see e.g. Robert Vosloo's article in Routledge Companion to Christianity in Africa. In Christianity-related articles, and in a mainstream article about a concept in Asian religions such as this, we need to carefully focus and summarize the mainstream and what the vast majority of scholarship is stating, not the minority or fringe interpretations/opinions/fiction/blogs/etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019

Please add "Distinguish" hatnote template for "Kama". 114.75.206.95 (talk) 04:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. -- Dane ^talk 03:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Karma

There is a simple saying.. As u sow, so u reap... This explains the whole concept of karma.. He/she who believe in karma, believes their actions.. Shankar Goms (talk) 19:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello 185.28.91.57 (talk) 13:02, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@Joshua Jonathan: The lead of this article has started for a long time with "Karma means action, work, or deed." That is what it means in Sanskrit (and should be mentioned in the etymology), but in English, that is not what it means; check any English dictionary. This is the English Wikipedia, and we use the English definition. --Macrakis (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a Sanskrit word, and the article has a broader scope than the 'principle of karma'. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course it is a Sanskrit word. But the English Wikipedia is not a Sanskrit dictionary. Along the same lines, we don't start the Croissant article with "Croissant means crescent. In cuisine, the term more specifically refers to a kind of pastry." Moreover, we don't write about terms, but about things or concepts (cf. WP:REFERS). Let's look at a few English definitions of karma:

• OED: Buddhism and Hinduism. The sum of a person's actions, esp. intentional actions, in this and previous states of existence, regarded as determining that person's fate in future states of existence.
• Merriam-Webster: the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence

That is, it does not mean "action, work, or deed" divorced from its context. --Macrakis (talk) 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Typical, that you refer to dictionaries, while stating that Wikipedia is not a dictionary... Better use revant secondary sources, which place "karma" in a broader context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Even in dictionaries, the definition as "action, work, or deed" is not used. Anyway, the secondary sources currently in the article make it clear that it means "an action and its consequences" in the context of Indian philosophy. I've made a small edit in that direct, though it can certainly be improved. PS The EB11 is a great literary work (I have a paper copy on my bookshelf), but hardly a modern reference (1911!). --Macrakis (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's quite old indeed; I know who added it. That's also why this particular definition opens the article; the editor in question is one of the best on Hinduyism-related topics.

The MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion, KARMAN: HINDU AND JAIN CONCEPTS, opens with the Law of Karman, and then gives an elaborate etymological and historical overview of the development of the notion of karma, and the development into the 'Law of Karma'. Anyway, I understand why they opened the lead with this 'etymological definition': to make clear that there is much more to 'karma' than just this 'principle of karma'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Every reference work has its house style. Some systematically start with etymologies, for example. Wikipedia does not. --Macrakis (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

I do not think that it is controversial that Karma affects future lives reincarnation cycle(it is said in some school it may extend future lives ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boutarfa Nafia (talk • contribs) 22:08, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Certainly in many Buddhist schools that are uncertain of rebirth it is felt unimportant that it affects future lives. See Wake up to Your Life 2001 by Ken McLeod, pp. 127-132. Focusing on future lives (rather than the present moment) can be a distraction in many Buddhist lineages. Geocmoore (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)