|
|
Tidak. Karma adalah tindak-balas terhadap apa yang kamu lakukan, fikirkan dan tidak melakukan sesuatu.
Kalau kamu melakukan sesuatu (baik ataupun buruk), kamu akan mendapat tindak balas tertentu.
Kalau kamu memikirkan sesuatu (niat baik dan buruk), kamu akan mendapat tindak balas tertentu.
Kalau kamu sepatutnya melakukan sesuatu (perkara yang baik dan sepatutnya) dan kamu memilih utk tidak melakukannya, kamu akan mendapat tindak balas tertentu juga.
Perbezaan antara pembalasan dan tindak balas adalah - bukan kesemua tindak balas yang kamu akan terima adalah berbentuk benda yang baik. Kadang2 kamu melakukan sesuatu yang baik tetapi mendapat balasan yang tidak baik dan adakalanya kamu melihat orang yang jahat mendapat balasan yang baik (spt sihat dan menikmati kehidupan yg baik) dan kamu akan terfikir kenapa dia buat jahat tetapi hidup secara baik (tanpa balasan setimpal).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the video is correct. Karma is Sanskrit for "Action".
The root word is "Kar".
In Hindi "Tum kya "kar"e ga? means what are you doing or working on etc.
Tum hara "Karm" kya hai? is what is your job?
So linguistically, Karm or Karma is related to doing or action and not "punishment".
Another Sanskrit word for work is "Karya". This is a noun. Sounds similar to Hindi "Kare ga" and Malay "kerja" or English "career"
In Arabic the root word "kar" appears in an-identified person mention in the Quran: Dzul "KAR" Nain where Dzul is "person" Kar is "actions and epic" and nain is just "two".
The punishing must more relate to the LAW which is "Dharma"?
It is logically the Dharma onto the Karma....but the big question remains...Who do the evaluation and the punishment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by radhi
I think the video is correct. Karma is Sanskrit for "Action".
Are you a linguist? A Sanksrit Specialist? No? Then your opinion does not matter on how the pronunciation is.
Karma is reference to Action, Reaction and Consequence as it is referenced in RELIGIOUS BOOKS like Bhavagad Gita. Base your statement accordance to religious books as this is a religion column.
Furthermore, in Buddhism, Karma is referred to as Kamma (which in Indian languages like Tamil, means Lust). What pronunciation used by the Arabs has NO RELEVANCE whatsoever here to Hindu philosophy.
It is logically the Dharma onto the Karma....but the big question remains...Who do the evaluation and the punishment?
IF you throw a ball toward a wall and the ball bounce back and hit your face, do you come to a conclusion that someone had throw the ball toward you deliberately? 
A person who does not understand Karma is a person who stands in a dark room and throws a ball into the Darkness. The ball hits a wall and bounce back, hitting him in return and he comes to a conclusion that there was someone else there who caught the ball and throw it back to him.
The World is the Wall and your actions are like those of throwing the ball toward it. Question NOT who throws the ball back to you but question more on what you wish to throw (contribute) to the World. That is your choice and accordance to your own choice, your future (good and bad) will be determined. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....just a perpective from my point of view.
I just think the first video got it right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. The first video got it right.
The message in the video is what I said about the wall and the ball also. What we give to the World, the World will give it back to us.
It is not about some gods punishing or rewarding humans (like some religion) nor does it says that we must do some spiritual work (like praying) to find happiness. The Happiness is within us, all we have to do is change our perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
KARMA = Reaction 
contohnya dulu2 penganut tuhan menindas non-believers...... < ACTION
kini non-believers sudah mula memberikan penentangan pd tuhan2 palsu kamu orang < REACTION
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Reborn_Stupid
contohnya dulu2 penganut tuhan menindas non-believers...... < ACTION
Bagi contoh penindasan apa yg dilakukan oleh orang Hindu dan Buddha terhadap non-believers? Ataupun Judaism ataupun agama2 lain SELAIN DARI Islam dan Christianity?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Meanings of KarmaPosted by dhivan thomas jones on Sat, 8 February, 2014 - 19:33
dhivan thomas jones
This is another of my ‘editor’s opinions’ column - my aim being to make a distinction that is helpful for Buddhists trying to understand what karma means and to what extent they go along with everything they hear about it.
***
The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview. In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact, it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of karma as another manifestation of dependent arising (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably to appropriate consequences:
Not in the sky, nor in the midst of the sea,
Nor by hiding in a mountain cave:
No place on earth is to be found
Where one might escape one’s wicked deeds.
The inevitability of karmic consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing, lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an unpleasant human situation or in hell. Good actions, on the other hand, such as generosity (especially giving to Buddhist monks), makes merit and leads to good rebirth in a pleasant human situation or in heaven. Western Buddhists, while aware of the traditional teachings on karma, are generally more inclined to understand the law of karma in a psychological sense, as a reminder that good actions will produce pleasant experienced consequences in this life, and that bad actions will lead to unhappiness. My contention in this article is that in fact we should understand that ‘karma’ here is being used in two ways, and has two quite distinct meanings, which traditional Buddhists have not necessarily noticed, but which is important for western Buddhism.
I will call the two meanings of karma universal and psychological. When western Buddhists talk about the law of karma, they often have in mind only one meaning of the term, and that is the psychological meaning of karma. In its psychological meaning, the law of karma in Buddhism amounts to this: intentional actions of body, speech and mind have psychological consequences for the agent, such that good actions bring positive experiences in their train, and bad actions bring negative experiences. For instance, if I make a habit of going to the monastery and giving food and money to the monks and nuns, then this generosity has certain consequences: I feel happier, because my concern has been habitually directed beyond myself; I feel inspired, because my giving to the monks has brought me into contact with Dharma-practitioners; I feel my life is more meaningful, because my generosity has brought me into connection with the sangha in a general sense. Conversely, if I make a habit of fiddling my tax-return and stealing packets of coffee from work, then there will be certain consequences: I feel unhappier, because of the edge of anxiety that HMRC will catch up with me, or the kitchen manager at work will notice my theft; I feel more anxious, as I need to be careful who I am honest with, especially at work; I feel my life is a struggle, because I’m not able to relax into every moment with a good conscience.
The psychological meaning of the law of karma is extremely important for understanding how practising ethics has good consequences and leads to a happier, more integrated sense of self. This is the best basis for further progress on the Buddhist path. As an aside at this point, it is worth noticing that Buddhist ethics is based on the axiom that ‘actions have consequences’, but a good action is one that has good consquences for everyone, not just for oneself. The law of karma follows from the ethical axiom, but the psychological consequences for onself should not be the only considersation for our actions. But perhaps for a lot of us the promise of greater happiness acts as a prompt to remember to be good.
However, when traditional Buddhists talk about the law of karma, they usually have in mind something different to the psychological meaning of karma, which I will call the universal meaning of karma. In this more traditional meaning, the law of karma amounts to a theory about universal moral justice: intentional actions of body, speech and mind will have felt consequences in this life, or, more likely, in future lives. According to the universal law of karma, if I make a habit of going to the monastery and giving food and money to the monks and nuns, then such generous acts create merit, which is something like a positive balance on a cosmic balance-sheet, and which, after I have died, will come to fruition in my having a pleasant rebirth, perhaps in a well-off family, perhaps in a Buddhist country, or perhaps in a heavenly realm. Conversely, if I fiddle my taxes and steal the coffee, then such acts of taking the not-given will create demerit, which is something like a negative weight on the cosmic balance-sheet, which, after I have died, will have the result of putting me into a less pleasant rebirth, perhaps in a family of thieves, or among tax-collectors or coffee-growers, or perhaps in a hell-realm.
The universal law of karma is part of Buddhist cosmology; beings move between the various realms of existence – human, divine, hellish, animal – as a result of their karma. Due to universal impermanence, all beings arise and pass away continuously, and the effects of both good and bad actions only last for a certain period of time before they are exhausted. Hence the gods may fall and the inhabitants of hell may find their way back into the daylight, all through the law of karma. This universal karma is a system of cosmic justice, whereby moral acts never fade into oblivion, but register in the fabric of reality, their moral quality conserved until the very universe rewards and punishes good- and evil-doers.
My thought is that the Buddhist tradition has never distinguished these two meanings of the law of karma, the universal and the psychological. I think that the reason is that the universal idea of karma has its origin in ancient Indian religious and philosophical thought, and was not originally a psychological doctrine. In the Brahmanical religion of before the Buddha’s time, karma meant ritual action. For instance, a son might perform karmas at the funeral of his father, to ensure the deceased person’s passage to the world of the ancestors. Such karmas involved placing ritual items in the ritual fire, and it was believed that correctly performed ritual karma effected the nature of the universe. Around the time of the Buddha, the Jains formulated a new teaching about karma. For them, karma was a kind of substance that clung to one’s soul and kept one in conditioned existence and transmigration. Good karmas were purer than bad karmas but better than both was no karma. Again the effect of karma was inherent in the nature of the universe, but now the effect was individualised and ethical. Then the Buddha gave this individualised and ethicised idea of karma a psychological turn, so that the most important kind of karma was mental intention, and it was not a kind of substance but something more abstract.[ii]
So although the psychological sense of karma has always been part of the Buddhist teaching, it has not usually been distinguished from the universal sense of karma. But actually, the two meanings of karma have very different implications. The universal law of karma is a matter of religious belief. It is not possible for ordinary people to understand the workings of universal karma; as the Buddha said, the workings of karma are unthinkable. It is simply a matter of trusting that this is the way that the universe works. Moreover, a belief in the universal law of the karma is tied up with a belief not only in rebirth but also in the various realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology. All in all, the universal law of karma is a matter of religious belief.
By contrast, the psychological law of karma is not a matter of belief, but is something that we can observe and test for ourselves. Indeed, most of us have to some extent learned to do good and avoid evil just because of our past mistakes. But mostly this psychological law of karma appeals to our intuitive sense of morality as well as being easily testable through actual experience. The truth that good actions have good consequences which are experienced in the here and now seems to be part and parcel of the Dharma, which is said to be evident, timeless, inviting, guiding, to be experienced individually by the wise.
My sense is that Western Buddhists are generally more inclined to think of the law of karma in the psychological sense. This makes sense, as the psychological sense of karma is practical and empirical. The universal sense of karma is, by contrast, religious and indeed a matter of metaphysical speculation, since our knowledge of it is dependent on the the Buddhist tradition. It seems to me, moreover, that the universal meaning of the law of karma is incompatible with the scientific world-view in many ways, and for this reason many western Buddhists actually do not believe in the law of karma as universal justice, while nevertheless the law of karma as a clear psychological teaching is central to their conception of the Dharma. So the distinction of psychological and universal meanings of the law of karma is important for clarifying what is distinctive about western Buddhism.
Dhammapada, verse 127, my trans.
[ii] Richard Gombrich traces the origins of the Buddha’s teaching of karma in Brahmanical and Jain traditions in What the Buddha Thought, Equinoxe, London, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two Meanings of KarmaPosted by dhivan thomas jones on Sat, 8 February, 2014 - 19:33
dhivan thomas jones
This is another of my ‘editor’s opinions’ column - my aim being to make a distinction that is helpful for Buddhists trying to understand what karma means and to what extent they go along with everything they hear about it.
***
The law of karma is a fundamental principle of the Buddhist worldview. In brief, karma refers to the idea that intentional actions have consequences for the agent, in this life and in future lives; in fact, it is karma that leads to rebirth. Buddhists understand the law of karma as another manifestation of dependent arising (paṭicca-samuppāda), the law of cause and effect, whereby everything that exists arises due to specific conditions. In this sense, the law of karma is a sort of natural law, so that actions are naturally followed by consequences, not as the result of divine judgement. But they will follow: the Buddha emphasised that actions lead inevitably to appropriate consequences:
Not in the sky, nor in the midst of the sea,
Nor by hiding in a mountain cave:
No place on earth is to be found
Where one might escape one’s wicked deeds.
The inevitability of karmic consequences is a large part of the way that traditional Buddhism has presented its ethical teachings. Evil actions, like killing, stealing, lying and so on, are bad karmas and will lead to rebirth in an unpleasant human situation or in hell. Good actions, on the other hand, such as generosity (especially giving to Buddhist monks), makes merit and leads to good rebirth in a pleasant human situation or in heaven. Western Buddhists, while aware of the traditional teachings on karma, are generally more inclined to understand the law of karma in a psychological sense, as a reminder that good actions will produce pleasant experienced consequences in this life, and that bad actions will lead to unhappiness. My contention in this article is that in fact we should understand that ‘karma’ here is being used in two ways, and has two quite distinct meanings, which traditional Buddhists have not necessarily noticed, but which is important for western Buddhism.
I will call the two meanings of karma universal and psychological. When western Buddhists talk about the law of karma, they often have in mind only one meaning of the term, and that is the psychological meaning of karma. In its psychological meaning, the law of karma in Buddhism amounts to this: intentional actions of body, speech and mind have psychological consequences for the agent, such that good actions bring positive experiences in their train, and bad actions bring negative experiences. For instance, if I make a habit of going to the monastery and giving food and money to the monks and nuns, then this generosity has certain consequences: I feel happier, because my concern has been habitually directed beyond myself; I feel inspired, because my giving to the monks has brought me into contact with Dharma-practitioners; I feel my life is more meaningful, because my generosity has brought me into connection with the sangha in a general sense. Conversely, if I make a habit of fiddling my tax-return and stealing packets of coffee from work, then there will be certain consequences: I feel unhappier, because of the edge of anxiety that HMRC will catch up with me, or the kitchen manager at work will notice my theft; I feel more anxious, as I need to be careful who I am honest with, especially at work; I feel my life is a struggle, because I’m not able to relax into every moment with a good conscience.
The psychological meaning of the law of karma is extremely important for understanding how practising ethics has good consequences and leads to a happier, more integrated sense of self. This is the best basis for further progress on the Buddhist path. As an aside at this point, it is worth noticing that Buddhist ethics is based on the axiom that ‘actions have consequences’, but a good action is one that has good consquences for everyone, not just for oneself. The law of karma follows from the ethical axiom, but the psychological consequences for onself should not be the only considersation for our actions. But perhaps for a lot of us the promise of greater happiness acts as a prompt to remember to be good.
However, when traditional Buddhists talk about the law of karma, they usually have in mind something different to the psychological meaning of karma, which I will call the universal meaning of karma. In this more traditional meaning, the law of karma amounts to a theory about universal moral justice: intentional actions of body, speech and mind will have felt consequences in this life, or, more likely, in future lives. According to the universal law of karma, if I make a habit of going to the monastery and giving food and money to the monks and nuns, then such generous acts create merit, which is something like a positive balance on a cosmic balance-sheet, and which, after I have died, will come to fruition in my having a pleasant rebirth, perhaps in a well-off family, perhaps in a Buddhist country, or perhaps in a heavenly realm. Conversely, if I fiddle my taxes and steal the coffee, then such acts of taking the not-given will create demerit, which is something like a negative weight on the cosmic balance-sheet, which, after I have died, will have the result of putting me into a less pleasant rebirth, perhaps in a family of thieves, or among tax-collectors or coffee-growers, or perhaps in a hell-realm.
The universal law of karma is part of Buddhist cosmology; beings move between the various realms of existence – human, divine, hellish, animal – as a result of their karma. Due to universal impermanence, all beings arise and pass away continuously, and the effects of both good and bad actions only last for a certain period of time before they are exhausted. Hence the gods may fall and the inhabitants of hell may find their way back into the daylight, all through the law of karma. This universal karma is a system of cosmic justice, whereby moral acts never fade into oblivion, but register in the fabric of reality, their moral quality conserved until the very universe rewards and punishes good- and evil-doers.
My thought is that the Buddhist tradition has never distinguished these two meanings of the law of karma, the universal and the psychological. I think that the reason is that the universal idea of karma has its origin in ancient Indian religious and philosophical thought, and was not originally a psychological doctrine. In the Brahmanical religion of before the Buddha’s time, karma meant ritual action. For instance, a son might perform karmas at the funeral of his father, to ensure the deceased person’s passage to the world of the ancestors. Such karmas involved placing ritual items in the ritual fire, and it was believed that correctly performed ritual karma effected the nature of the universe. Around the time of the Buddha, the Jains formulated a new teaching about karma. For them, karma was a kind of substance that clung to one’s soul and kept one in conditioned existence and transmigration. Good karmas were purer than bad karmas but better than both was no karma. Again the effect of karma was inherent in the nature of the universe, but now the effect was individualised and ethical. Then the Buddha gave this individualised and ethicised idea of karma a psychological turn, so that the most important kind of karma was mental intention, and it was not a kind of substance but something more abstract.[ii]
So although the psychological sense of karma has always been part of the Buddhist teaching, it has not usually been distinguished from the universal sense of karma. But actually, the two meanings of karma have very different implications. The universal law of karma is a matter of religious belief. It is not possible for ordinary people to understand the workings of universal karma; as the Buddha said, the workings of karma are unthinkable. It is simply a matter of trusting that this is the way that the universe works. Moreover, a belief in the universal law of the karma is tied up with a belief not only in rebirth but also in the various realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology. All in all, the universal law of karma is a matter of religious belief.
By contrast, the psychological law of karma is not a matter of belief, but is something that we can observe and test for ourselves. Indeed, most of us have to some extent learned to do good and avoid evil just because of our past mistakes. But mostly this psychological law of karma appeals to our intuitive sense of morality as well as being easily testable through actual experience. The truth that good actions have good consequences which are experienced in the here and now seems to be part and parcel of the Dharma, which is said to be evident, timeless, inviting, guiding, to be experienced individually by the wise.
My sense is that Western Buddhists are generally more inclined to think of the law of karma in the psychological sense. This makes sense, as the psychological sense of karma is practical and empirical. The universal sense of karma is, by contrast, religious and indeed a matter of metaphysical speculation, since our knowledge of it is dependent on the the Buddhist tradition. It seems to me, moreover, that the universal meaning of the law of karma is incompatible with the scientific world-view in many ways, and for this reason many western Buddhists actually do not believe in the law of karma as universal justice, while nevertheless the law of karma as a clear psychological teaching is central to their conception of the Dharma. So the distinction of psychological and universal meanings of the law of karma is important for clarifying what is distinctive about western Buddhism.
Dhammapada, verse 127, my trans.
[ii] Richard Gombrich traces the origins of the Buddha’s teaching of karma in Brahmanical and Jain traditions in What the Buddha Thought, Equinoxe, London, 2009.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote from above :-
Not in the sky, nor in the midst of the sea,
Nor by hiding in a mountain cave:
No place on earth is to be found
Where one might escape one’s wicked deeds.
The biggest different between Eastern belief system (Hinduism and Buddhism) and Western belief system (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) is that the core of eastern belief system is RESPONSIBILITY.
You can scrape away every dogma and ideals from Hinduism and Buddhism but you cannot scrape away the sense of responsibility that these religions push down the throats of their believers - especially when comes to taking the responsibility for their actions.
A Muslims and Christian can escape ANY punishment of his worldly crime by "repenting" his sins and "turning a new leaf" in his belief system but there is no such thing in Hinduism or Buddhism. Even if one turn away from his or her sins, he or she MUST face the proper reactions to his or her past actions.
This is return forces a sense of responsibility that one cannot deny (taking responsible to) in Hinduism and Buddhism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Author |
Post time 22-1-2017 12:20 PM
From the mobile phone
|
Show all posts
Sephiroth replied at 22-1-2017 04:19 AM
Quote from above :-
Totally agree with you bro |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cuba u buat benda yg jahat....ia kembali masa kita hidup...
kenapa ramai sakit sehingga x boleh di ubati....tanya mereka apa mereka lakukan...ada yg malu dan x nak mengaku...
haiwan pun kita jgn cedera dgn sengaja.....
hari itu saya nampak cicak...dlm bilik sembayang saya....cicak ini kadang2 memberi jawapan kalau kita berfikir sesuatu utk jawapan...so, rapat sangat dgn cicak2 ini..... ia akan muncul hampir2 depan saya....cicak x ganggu dan saya biarkan ia hidup....ia dtg dan hilang mcm itu aja...jadi x perlu aniaya benda2 ini...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
u getting old ...body out of shape...u no longer young..hence you hate religion...when you old ....all gone...no friends and etc...u seek GOD..it matter of time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by GhostWalking at 26-1-2017 06:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some people (especially Christians and Muslims) thinks that this is just a qoute and Karma doesn't have any effect on them because they repented or pray 5 times a day. And yet, we see the effect of Karma every day.
Anyone remember Ahmednijab from Iran? The loudmouth who yap away about how great Islam is and have been threantening the Middle East with War and Nuclear fire. Remember him? It took a single Earthquake which leveled most of Iran to end that mad-man's daydream of rebuilding a Muslim empire.
Then there was North Korea. Same $hit. Great Army, threat of war and nuclear missiles. Famine came in and its people were eating grass.
Nepal choose to ousted its Hindu government and Hindu heritage and openly support China (Atheist) government. What happened to them? About three month after the Communist party establish its government, a major Earthquake turn the country to a stone-aged kingdom - and they have been begging to the World for aid to this day.
And let's not forget Malaysia. Those loud-mouth Muslims here (the people AND the BN supporters) think that they could deny the rights of non-Muslims (Christians, Buddhists, Hindus and the aborigines here) by bringing in more and more Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Indons and many more and giving them citizenship. What happens now? Most of East coast is having monthly floods, there are landslides everywhere, tribe wars (between Mynmar people and the Bangladeshis) in the streets and not enough with that, China is muscling into our territory and Malaysians are selling lands to them so they can build foreign conclave here. Very soon, they will house foreign troops in these conclave which will determine how Malaysian government will rule their country and how the Straits of Malacca should be governed.
The Malays WILL lose their independance once again for their stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Post time 19-9-2016 12:10 PM
变色卡
.jpg){kind=small}
![[Edisi pungpakkepung] Azri Iskandar dan kekasih baru?](https://uf.cari.com.my/forumx/mforum/block/62/62a9916c86939915da4c31ecede21a19.jpg)
