Karma
 

From the Wikipedia:

CONCEPT
The explanation of karma can differ per tradition. Usually it is believed to be a sum of all that an individual has done, is currently doing and will do. The results or "fruits" of actions are called karma-phala. Karma is not about retribution, vengeance, punishment or reward; karma simply deals with what is. The effects of all deeds actively create past, present and future experiences, thus making one responsible for one's own life, and the pain and joy it brings to others. In religions that incorporate reincarnation, karma extends through one's present life and all past and future lives as well. It is cumulative.

VIEWS
Throughout this process, many believe God plays some kind of role, for example, as the dispenser of the fruits of karma.Other Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.

LAW OF KARMA
The "Law of Karma" is central in Dharmic religions. All living creatures are responsible for their karma — their actions and the effects of their actions — and for their release from samsara. The concept can be traced back to the early Upanishads.

The esoteric Christian tradition, Essenian and later Rosicrucian schools teach it as the "Law of Cause and Consequence/Effect." However, this western esoteric tradition adds that the essence of the teachings of Christ is that the law of sin and death may be overcome by Love, which will restore immortality.

Karma is action, nothing more
 

Karma- (Sanskrit) This term is key in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and is even used (or misused) in today's Western cultures.

Karma is often associated now days with some kind of cosmic law of retribution, but its literal meaning is simply 'action'. Because all actions take place in a universe in which every thing/event is interrelated to all other thing/events, it has come to mean also the law conditioning action, that is, cause and effect.

Alan Watts notes "Karma does not mean 'Fate,' except in the sense that man cannot escape from the effects of his own deeds, though so far as the deeds themselves are concerned he is free to choose." So here one's karma is simply the circumstances under which one lives, resulting from choices.

The three main kinds of karma are chains of causes and effects which come from actions of the body (deeds), the mouth (speech) and mind or consciousness. One's present experience is a product of all of these three kinds of actions in the past; likewise, future conditions depend on what one does in the present. Can be compared to the statement of Jesus that you reap what you sow.

As you pointed out, people often mistakenly use the term "karma" to mean retribution or revenge.

It is neither.

You're right in that karma comes close to meaning: "you reap what you sow."

You beat me to the correct definition. I was going to post it in that silly revenge thread... :)

Alan Watts totally blew my mind in the early 1970's. Saw a couple of films of his and read 2-3 books. I still have his "Taboo against knowing who you are," Perhaps one of the most easily read and enlightening books I've ever read.

B

That was part of my motivation for starting this thread.

Great minds....:D

It strikes me that Karma and the belief in heaven and hell are equivalent in their socio-psychological-moral function. They both serve to affirm that the universe is ultimately just and that moral action is worthwhile because it 'really counts'. In addition, they serve to explain that the societies we live in are just.
I don't see any evidence that either of the explanations are true. They may be comforting but in my experience, a lot of ammoral people live satisfying lives and good people suffer. Both systems depend on existence either before or after this life. I don't see any reason to think there's any existence beyond this one.

Can we live in an unjust universe?

That is a question that each man and woman must answer for himself/herself.

The answer determines not only what kind of life that person will live, but also it will determine, in no small measure, the kind of world/society that we will all live in.

The answer, however, cannot be debated.

It cannot be proved, by any of the standard methods of proof that we now posses.

It is or it is not.

Is there any correlation between the necessity of the actual social mechanisms acheiving justice, and diminished belief in an overall just universe?
Has the decline in the belief in heaven and hell in Europe and the US been correlated with more social justice? Is there some measurable point in social justice at which the belief in post-death justice becomes unnecessary?

Just-ness is never just. It's a concept we like to tilt in our favor, hence, a just world is one where everything is hunky-dory, for us, the way we like it.

The world at present is just, only not the way we like it.

I'm reading that right now- it is quite interesting. Good stuff :)

Karma in simple terms means what you sow, so shall you reap........... it is based on the concept from ancient Hindu texts that if you commit a sin in this life, your next life is where you will pay the interest for that sin. Only when you are sin free, you are freed from the endless cycle of birth and death.............Buddhism follows the same principle.

The one advantage of Karma over Hell/Heaven, is it explains variations in the justices of birth.

With your first 3 paragraphs, you are telling us that Karma explains this, that or the other. However, the question that is not asked is whether this explanation is correct or not. Question is whether we are so desperate for an answer so we don't have to say the dreaded 3 words "I don't know" that we are willing to accept an answer, any answer as long as we have an answer or whether we are only willing to accept an evidence based answer.

Do we have a choice as to whether the universe is unjust or just? If you don't like it, can you get onto another universe? If not, what difference does it make? All you can decide is whether you want to live or not. If not, you can check out. If so, the universe you see is the universe you get.

I see no evidence that the universe, independent of human social efforts to create justice, is just.

The question as to what difference it makes is a tricky one, as far as I can see. It can make all the difference in the world, or it can make no difference at all. It is almost synonymous with the question of whether there is a God or not.
Schopenhaur had an interesting take on the question of checking out. He seems to have thought something like, "If the injustice of the universe is leading you to check out, your making a stupid mistake. You should instead, just resign yourself to the injustice, because checking out is not solving the problem which was caused by beginning with the assumption that the universe should have been just."