Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Karma: practical or fanciful?

What can be perceived as bad luck to some, can be easily explained by karma, a fundamental doctrine in Buddhism.


Can karma be practically accepted in American consumerism ideology, and if so, how does it fit into daily personal life? Moreover, is karma a legitimate law to incorporate into your own life, or better left for Buddhists?


Karma is very complicated and can only be articulated properly by a true Buddhist, but to get a better understanding of the different functions, here are some of the classifications of karma:
www.buddhadnet.net



  • Reproductive karma. This function plays itself out at the time of birth. Was your birth out of happiness, bitterness, rape, or something else? This will ultimately effect your fate.
  • Supportive karma. This function can assist in giving health, wealth, and happiness or pain and sorrow depending on your reproductive karma.
  • Obstuctive karma or counteractive karma. This function is based on your personal choices and actions which are balanced by good and bad karma.
  • Destructive karma. This function is mostly bad and will become prevalent in your life if you continually do evil.

“In this world nothing happens to a person that he does not for some reason or other deserve.” This statement is seemingly irrational at first glance because of the bad things that happen in life. Does this mean that every ‘bad’ thing I do can cause destructive [upaghataka] karma?


I discovered karma when I stopped spitting my gum on the ground. I hated stepping in gum, but then I realized that I was spitting gum wherever I pleased. When I started making sure I spit my gum in the garbage, so that no one could step in my gum, I stopped stepping in gum.


Is happiness truly that easy to obtain? Can we truly escape the evil in life? I think that we can do our best to avoid unhappy things as much as possible. In fact, I have had a change of attitude since I have been exposed to new ideas that have made my existence more pleasant. One idea that I feel follows the laws of karma is that if you want something, go get it. I know it sounds easy, but sometimes it really can be. If your current situation is unhappy or unpleasant, change it. For example, if you wake up not feeling good, do you best to feel better. Satisfy yourself while maintain peace with others.


Unfortunately bad things will still come your way because your life must be balanced with good and bad. Only a devote Buddhist may be able to bypass pain and suffering, because of intense studies of the Four Noble Truths that help them maintain positive energy daily. I do feel it is possible to pleasantly follow the dance of life and enjoy positive energy by following karma,
but also by making good things happen yourself.


Ayn Rand, whom I truly admire, says “No one’s happiness but my own is in my power to achieve or to destroy (798)” I think that her views on rational self interest are somewhat linked to karma because karma says that you can make your own happiness. In this world, all we have is ourselves; therefore, we can only make ourselves happy! The same is true for our misery, we should not bring bad things on ourselves and others. This coincides with the laws of karma because if we bring evil on others, we will also suffer from it.


However, in this consumer driven world of material wealth, karma plays itself out daily because we are solely responsible for our own happiness or misery. The world we live in today continually allows us to follow our own desires. With this freedom, responsibility must follow. You can follow your personal desires as long as they do not bring evil upon others, and this is practicing karma practically. Karma, in its ultimate sense means “all moral and immoral volition.” Remember that everything you choose has a reaction, so make your choices wisely.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Wikipedia vs. Encyclopaedia Britannica

The Internet revolution? This next generation of the Internet has more and more minds connected. What happens when so many people can join together and create? This does happen on a day-to-day basis at Wikipedia, the first Internet dictionary that anyone can edit, which has become vastly popular. Is it because of good marketing, or just the fact that people love the idea that so many different minds have shaped this dictionary? Personally, I would never quote Wikipedia in a scholarly essay because I do not feel that Wikipedia is a credible source. I would trust an Encyclopaedia Britannica over Wikipedia because Bitannica has been in existence longer, and it is published annually. Reading this article entitled "Internet Encyclopaedias go Head to Head" written by Jim Giles opened my mind about the fact that Encyclopaedia Britannica also has some errors just like Wikipedia, but not nearly as many.
I think that students, especially in late elementary or junior high school really need to be taught about what is and is not a credible source on the Internet, otherwise, these children will not know valuable scholarly skills that will help them succeed using the Internet. The next generation Internet is exciting, but because there are so many websites, it is becoming harder and harder to find what is credible and what is garbage. Wikipedia is still a credible source, but not on the scholarly level. It should be reserved for quick on-line encyclopedia questions that have free answers.