Hacker News Reader

Comment by noduerme | Hacker News Reader

Buddhist societies are not exceptionally just, despite thousands of years of attempting to achieve balance, and not least because there's a hierarchy that naturally develops among practitioners, and many injustices in daily life are written off as a result of dharma. Buddhism just abstracts reality into something slightly more palatable that doesn't require as much action on your part. Tip that into westernized self-help 'mindfulness' and you have a perfect antidote to the nagging guilt of self-reflection and responsibility for the state of affairs in the world.

View on HN

> are written off as a result of dharma

Dhamma is generally understood as teaching or nature. Kamma, (often mixed up with karma, a Hindu notion that is close in some aspects, but really not the same) is, in simple terms, cause and effect with respect to an individual. All injustices are a result of cause and effect (at least, I hope you think so) but where I will agree is that it shouldn't be the basis for doing nothing - unless doing nothing is the best choice, and knowing that is the trick, isn't it, Buddhist insight or not.

> Buddhism just abstracts reality into something slightly more palatable that doesn't require as much action on your part.

I can't say that's a good summation of what Buddhism is or does, it might be best to get the basics right (the terms above are a good indication) and then move on to telling others what you think a system is for, or its impact on society… I don't remember Buddha promising a societal utopia but perhaps my memory is deceiving me.

Minor nitpick - kamma and karma are the same thing, but different languages. Kamma is Pali and karma is Sanskrit.

To be even more detailed, karma is the action rather than the effect, which is called karma vipaka. The English word karma means something more fluid - depending on context.

Thanks, I do know but in general English speakers use the word karma and then ascribe the Hindu reading to Buddhism, so I was answering that.

As to the cause and effect part, again, I wasn't about to start on a "there are no causes and no effects, only conditions…" path as it would only muddy the water for the person I'm responding to, but I don't mind the nitpicking, it's a good point and glad to see reasonable challenges in the comments.

Edit, I didn't mean to put this all on the English!

Injustice seems like something relative to particular frames of reference.

I've noticed when I know the reason for something my anger subsides.

I'm not necessarily arguing that judgements aren't valid, just that they depend on particular frames of reference.

Karma is a hell of a justification ;)

My impression is that Buddhism, like all faiths, has that surface level of justifying why there is evil and how to get free of it - so there’s that inner peace [0] - but there’s also this call to action, to reduce suffering, to work on peace outside yourself - that’s compassion, and Jesus and Buddha were all about it, even if their followers sometimes lose the plot. (I’m too ignorant to speak of Muhammad).

As far as the corruption of religion into preserving social hierarchies goes, I like to think that the capacity to be co-opted by a state is a feature, not a bug: a viral transmission vector. These holy texts might not have survived without a corrupt state maintaining it.

[0] Nellie McKay has a song by this name on her album “get away from me”, it’s a fantastic critique of this focus on “inner peace”

I'm highly skeptical of people who claim to have found salvation in Jesus, and righted all their former wrongs. I never know if they're telling themselves that, or just trying to convince me it's true. But I've lived in Buddhist countries and watched the same pattern of individual behavior juxtaposed with belief. And you're right, they both rendered unto Caesar and probably survived and propagated as a result. And to be clear, neither one is malicious or bad in its basic construction - telling people to be mindful or live according to ethical ideas. What does suck though is that both of them try to pretend that ethics spring from their written dogma, rather than teach people that ethical behavior is a rational and completely natural response. And by making it part of dogma they rob people of credit for having ethical impulses. So you want to help the poor - you're being "Christian" as opposed to being a rebel, or a good person. They deprive the individual of authentic agency in this regard. And an individual deprived of that agency passes down the dogma; and after generations it loses meaning.

Buddhism, like any philosophy, is meant to be studied. I wouldn't assign to it what belongs to (mis)interpretation of its teachings. Even within Buddhist societies it's understood differently by different people, with many (most?) choosing not to practice any form of mindfulness, but rather preferring to worship. It doesn't matter that the superstition is discouraged, it's more easily accessible: status and amulets, offerings, people receiving blessings while on a submissive posture, women not allowed in certain areas, etc. And probably due to its nature, the philosophy meets the practitioner where the latter feels comfortable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com