Our good karma

The word "karma" (P., kamma) is certainly a popular word but it is not like a one size fits all sock. The Buddhist notion of karma differs from other ideas of karma. Briefly stated, the Buddhist notion of karma mainly applies, not so much to good fortune (e.g., winning the lottery) but to one's ability to understand the Buddha's teaching or Dharma. It is by correctly understanding Dharma that goodness is even possible. How many Buddhist practitioners from monks to a layperson, for example, have the necessary good karma to fully understand the Buddha's recondite teaching?  Not very many is my guess.

Karmic laws (P., kamma-niyāma) are only a special instance of causal laws such as physical laws or biological laws, including psychological laws (citta-niyāma) and laws pertaining to spiritual laws (dhamma-niyāma). In the big picture, karmic laws only state tendencies rather than inevitable consequences.  I hasten to add, that the meaning of niyāma is not so much about "law" as it is about a way or a tendency to a specific end.  

Karma as dhamma-niyāma is closer to Buddhist karma.  Our right or wrong understanding of Dharma depends upon our karma.  What if our way or niyāma is that of a Wall Street broker or a hardcore materialist?  Would we expect such a person to understand the Buddha's ideas of conditioned and unconditioned including rebirth?  Hardly.  Having good karma, in the example of Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Zen, meant being able to comprehend the essence or nature of absolute Mind.  On the other hand, having bad karma might mean not understanding Buddhism at all; being nonplused by the idea of the unconditioned Mind. 

Comments

[n. yeti]

William Bodri peddles Dharma like dried fish in the marketplace. Zennist has never, to my knowledge, done so. So sorry, but I see no similarity in their approach.

[JB]

Written by a (former?) Wall Street broker:
http://www.amazon.com/What-Enlightenment-William-Bodri/dp/0972190740

Very close to the approach espoused by the Zennist.

Enough said.