Bill!,<br/><br/>I'd love to leave it at that, but I have to correct you on your
mis-understanding of karma in case other readers think this is what karma is. I
think the problem lies in the many forms Buddhism is practiced. As you know,
there really isn't such a thing as a universal form of Buddhism (Theravada,
Mahayana, Zen, Vipassana, Shingon, Son, Chan, Nichiren etc.). In many Buddhist
countries Buddhism is practiced like the folk-religion that preceded it (in the
form of rituals, beliefs, divine being etc). I've seen this in Thailand myself,
yet the Buddhism as practiced in the forest tradition there (vipassana) is
nothing like the Buddhism as practiced by the ordinary Thai household. I think
the former is what has coloured your perspective of Buddhism. For example you
wrote:<br/><br/>"My opinion is 'karma' is used in the Buddhist religion a
carrot and stick to persuade you to act 'good' and not 'bad'. It is described
as something 'automatic' so that
if you do something 'bad' it will result in 'bad' things happening to you. In
that respect it is used in much the same way as is 'heaven' and 'hell' in
Christianity".<br/><br/>This is not the Buddha's view of karma as written in
the sutras. The sutras say nothing about good or bad things happening *to* you,
but more about your state of mind (suffering or peaceful) as created by *your*
thoughts/acts. There's a world of difference between that and what your view of
karma is. 'Karma' is just a description of what is plainly observable if we
investigate our own thoughts and actions and resulting state of mind. Buddha
also taught that you can't look at someone else's life to determine their karma
- it only applies to ourselves (a bit like the "Is that so" story from Zen).
It's much closer to a scientific analysis of 'what is' than a spiritual or
religious belief.<br/><br/>>..Karma,
sharma<br/><br/>Dharma!<br/><br/>Mike<br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/><br/>Sent
from Yahoo! Mail for iPad
