Has the concept of Karma been highjacked by the Neo movement?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I wonder if the concept of Karma has been highjacked and modified by the Neo movement? Today its Karma this and Karma that. Dont do anything for fear of Karmic retribution. What you send out comes back times three.

Yet for all this Karma talk it seems the very concept of Karma has been highjacked. Tell someone of its origin in Budhist concept or Eastern Mystesicm and they look at you like your a nut. Tell them it came into the US and Western Europe from the Hippi movement of the late 60's and the same stare of bewilderment.

I think on many fronts it became Western after the Beetles came back and the world found out about thier enlightened experience.

When I think back to the concept of Karma and Pagansim I can recall elders telling me that was nothing more than the hippi fad. I honestly don't even remember talking about it until the mid to late 1980's.

What I was taugh of Karma was that it was something that accrued over time and may take several lifetimes to balance out. It was seldom if ever aligned to immediate or quick retribution.

But now that seems to be the 'Accepted" defination of Karma, immediate or semi-immediate return. More of the shake and bake, I need it now or want to see results immediately mentality.

[Zephyrstorm]

I think that the Western concept of Karma is a different animal than the Karma of the East.

I'm not sure if its exactly a high-jacking so much as a misunderstanding created by a difference in paradigm. I tend to use the Western concept of Karma in casual slang, but when discussing the actual concept I make it clear that I believe in "cause and effect" rather than the Law of Three or Karma as a literal concept.

[wolfjan1]

As I remember some of those lyrics(proving my age again) The beetles talked of the shock of the real world after coming back from their enlightenment.
"Instant karma's gonne get you.
gonna slap you right in the face
better get yourself together brother
Join the human race"
Perhaps we should go back and listen to those lyrics. Maybe All of the lyrics post enlightenment, and hear what they had to say. Might be an interesting experience.

[Theres]

my short answer is yes, absolutely.

the 'Neo movement' has highjacked just about everything, from ceremonial magic to classical mythology to Jungian psuedo-psychology to late Victorian utopianism, etc, etc, etc, so why should karma be immune?


As I remember some of those lyrics(proving my age again) The beetles talked of the shock of the real world after coming back from their enlightenment.
(pssst... that wasn't The Beatles)

[Novembers River]

my short answer is yes, absolutely.

the 'Neo movement' has highjacked just about everything, from ceremonial magic to classical mythology to Jungian psuedo-psychology to late Victorian utopianism, etc, etc, etc, so why should karma be immune?


Agreed. Key in on the "neo".

I'm not a Wiccan or any other neo-pagan path, but the thought that comes to my mind with this thread is, it is wrong?

The use of "highjacked" puts a negative connotation on the question. But is it negative to adapt? And who is being offended by this use of the concept of karma? Buddhists? Hindus? Somehow I doubt it.

[SphinYote]

The use of "highjacked" puts a negative connotation on the question. But is it negative to adapt? And who is being offended by this use of the concept of karma? Buddhists? Hindus? Somehow I doubt it.

Exactly.

Though I'm not sure the negative take comes so much from the use and reinterpretation as it does from the lack of knowledge of people regarding the origins of the concepts in question.

Me, I like to know origins of things, I think it is fun, and respectful to the various movements in question. But ideas are always in a state of flux, and we have to remember that those "origins" that we look back to have origins of their own, which are no longer known and may be conceptually as different as the transformations tha we watch taking place now.

As for karma, I think it has been tied so much with JudeoChristian ideas of "reap what you sow" and these have been tie in with "an eye for an eye" and a lot of legal values. Spiritual beliefs don't exist in a vacuum and they often transform based on culture-bound understandings of how things work or should in entirely different (or sometimes not so different) circumstances.

Its an interesting phenomenon to watch, in this particular case I don't see anything inherently negative or wrong with that lack of knowledge of origins. Just change. Though in other situations, my opinion might be different (just look at the thread on worshiping deities from different pantheons for a whole lot of different inflections on the issue).

Yote

[aluokaloo]

I use to see karma as what goes around comes around, but over time I realize that it also has important lessons to teach, I was teased horrendously to tears everyday. So I started learning not to shun other people just because they weren't popular or cool. To me it's not just what goes around comes around, it's also learning to be in someone else's footsteps, and gain a greater understanding, whether it happens two lives ago, or in this one now. I'm not entirely sure if that's the whole of the lesson, or the lesson at all it's simply how I see it. Plus this world changes, why shouldn't spiritually change too?

[Toby Stimpson]

Yes, yes it has :)...

Is it good? No...

[MonSno_LeeDra]

SphinYote wrote:



I think it has been tied so much with JudeoChristian ideas of "reap what you sow" and these have been tie in with "an eye for an eye" and a lot of legal values


But that's not Karma (Eastern usuage). If one looks at Karma and its association to Buddhism and the search for Nirvana then the Judeo-Christian concept doesn't work. Karma is about action and reaction and the effort to achieve nothingness ie Nirvana. To literaly remove oneself from the influences of mundane life.

I think part of the problem is Karma is being used as a catch phrase to justify the inclusion of Judeo-Christian dogma that has been carried into non-Judeo-Christian religions, Actually non-Abrahamic religions.

It's being used as a esoteric cover for carring in ones Christian beliefs into a Pagan format.

Theres wrote:



my short answer is yes, absolutely.


I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately it's not the politically correct pagan answer nowdays.



(pssst... that wasn't The Beatles)


You know when I spelled that initialy it didn't look right to me but instead of using a few more minutes of "Work" time on the job I tried to cut corners. Rush rush rush, will bite one in the back side everytime. he he he

Zephyrstorm wote:



I think that the Western concept of Karma is a different animal than the Karma of the East.


Therein lies the problem. Karma is an Eastern concept with its rules and understanding. It's simply another example of the taking of an idea without trully knowning its meaning. An exotic word that was infused into American culture at a time when exotic words made it sound more hippish and outside the norm.

aluokaloo wrote:



Plus this world changes, why shouldn't spiritually change too?


It did in America. A religious concept that has been around for quite a few centuries was changed to make it fit with the New-age movement in America. ie the age of Aquarius and the Hippi movement.

It was Americanized at the expense of its actual truth. The root civilization and usuage in eastern religions remains unchanged only to the extent that Nirvanna has now become more aligned with the Christian heaven than the "Nothingness" originaly taught. But that change occured within the religion not from without.

[Philosophia]

I think nearly everybody and everything nowadays is "Neo" so the concept of modern karma nowadays would also be highjacked to suit the society we live in today. Now whether this is bad or not depends upon if your a traditionalist. If you are then of course this will be bad and disrespectful. But if your not, then its a means of expanding the concept to embrace the changing definitions.

[Lyrien]

SphinYote wrote:

Therein lies the problem. Karma is an Eastern concept with its rules and understanding. It's simply another example of the taking of an idea without trully knowning its meaning. An exotic word that was infused into American culture at a time when exotic words made it sound more hippish and outside the norm.



Bold mine.

This is what has happened, in my opinion. This spreading of misinformation is not restricted to karma or spirituality; it's found everywhere. The same could be said of self initiated wiccans. The original source is quite different, but common usage has changed.

Someone brought the word to the US, with or without a complete understanding of the concept and the word spread, each time having the meaning diluted until the common perception was not quite the original meaning.

Wrong? I don't know the answer to that question. Wrong for eastern philosophy, yes. Wrong for pagan concepts? That depends.


I'd love to give a really coherent response, but I've got 91208465192846519 (two kids) distractions at the moment. So please cut me some slack on what I'm trying to convey here; I've got monkeys hanging from my arms. LOL

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Belleshazar wrote:



I'd love to give a really coherent response, but I've got 91208465192846519 (two kids) distractions at the moment. So please cut me some slack on what I'm trying to convey here; I've got monkeys hanging from my arms. LOL


No problem here. Been thier done that. Luckly my children are grown and now I can spoil my grandaughter then give her back to mom and dad. he he he



Wrong? I don't know the answer to that question. Wrong for eastern philosophy, yes. Wrong for pagan concepts? That depends.



Question, that one may change a words meaning to match their desired use is true, does it make it acceptable or correct to do so? If so then why then is it wrong to use the defination of "Witch" or "Satanist" as defined by the Christian church?

All words clearly changed to match a defination as defined by those changing the words meaning. If it's good for the goose its good for the gander.

[HetHert]

Hey there MonSno,

Yes to your question of hijacking.

I'd like to see what the rest of the class thinks about the concept of returns that so many westerners buy into and call Karma.

If Karma is a vehicle for balance as you said for the west, is it unrealistic to expect Karma by eastern definition and philosophy to be transplanted without evolution into the western realm?

Also, in today's day and age where we move faster and expect faster results would not the concept of returns then evolve with humanity to keep up with its ever changing needs and desires?

Western life style is so inherently different from the land and world where Karma was first defined, what kind of system would we have to be defined to bring eastern philosophy into the western world? How can we get the pieces to work together for the western machine?

:weirdsmil

[Lyrien]

Belleshazar wrote:



No problem here. Been thier done that. Luckly my children are grown and now I can spoil my grandaughter then give her back to mom and dad. he he he



Question, that one may change a words meaning to match their desired use is true, does it make it acceptable or correct to do so? If so then why then is it wrong to use the defination of "Witch" or "Satanist" as defined by the Christian church?

All words clearly changed to match a defination as defined by those changing the words meaning. If it's good for the goose its good for the gander.

Again with the monkeys, but I did want to comment.

I do understand what you are saying, but with your example the words are meant to be derogatory by the Christian church where, while possibly insulting, karma isn't being used in a derogatory fashion. I think with paganism, especially eclectic pagan paths, evolution of spirituality is quite prevalent and encouraged. This is why I said that it depended. I guess it's in the eye of the beholder, so to speak.

I am not bothered by the use of the word, but then I view spirituality as completely interpretive. I can understand how someone who does not view spirituality as I do could be upset by the usage, though.

[Raven Mystic]

I wonder if the concept of Karma has been highjacked and modified by the Neo movement? Today its Karma this and Karma that.

I guess so. :apumpkin: But so what? Is it good? That's for Neo-Pagans to determine. Why be so critical?

[MonSno_LeeDra]

Raven Mystic wrote;



That's for Neo-Pagans to determine. Why be so critical?


I would agree to a degree but its also my beliefs and heritage that's being raped in the process. Coming from a family trad thier are many things that go back and are carried forward in time.

30 years ago I would be more inclined to say ok its a new belief as the time required to research it is great. Many of the truths held by family trads and older groups pale as we see the assesability to knowledge increase and become simpler.

The availiability of legimate proof and scholarship makes it difficult to stand by and see things be corrupted because someone lacked the drive to actually research and discover. IMHO that's not being enlightened that's being the "FOOL"

What's trully detestable to me is that the "Fool" is painted accross my heritage because the "Neo" group is seen as legit because the falsehood is tolorated in the name of "Its thier spiritual path" and by what right do we have to question thier persceptions.

I was taugh that the "Path" "The Old Way" etc was the way of the wise and enlightened. The discoveries and truths may now be proven wrong but they were based upon truths that were researched and arrived at threw observation. Knowledge that evolved as the knowledge gained in scope or more knowledge became available.

They were not taken from another or given credence simply because someone heard about it or copied what another said. We did not change the meaning of something to match our beliefs, we searched for the turth and allowed our beleifs to evolve if the truth changed.

One step upon the road to wisdom is creditability. Creditability is gained threw questioning and analysis that supports your results. Granted at times we had to use our own personal persceptions and enlightements to understand it both Spiriutaly and physically. Yet Wisdom is the accumulation of knoweldge and ability to utilize that information IMHO. If my knowledge base is wrong or corrupt I seek to discover the truth yet in searching I do not submit to the notion that its all right or change or take just to suit myself.

I find it quit ironic that in one breathe the collective group can cry thier words are being used unjustly or incorrectly when it paints them in a less than fair glow. If another group takes and changes their "definiation of a phrase, word, etc its wrong and unjust. Yet, at the same time steal or change another groups words and understanding to met their own agenda and that's thier right in the name of their religious pursuit.

I'm sorry but that's one point of this thread. Don't claim an injustice against your beliefs or disparaging of your character when one group does it to you but claim its justifiable when you take anothers concepts and change it to met your description.

Belleshazar made valid statements and conclusions and inspired certain questions and searchings for me. I hope I did not come accross as "Critical" or demeaning for that was not my intent in this exchange.

[Lunar Raven]

Some people use different concepts and ideas from all sorts of things..not just religion. Someone may identify an ultimate higher power as "god," but may not follow any religion. Does that make them a highjacker of the concept of god? Of course not..the term "God" is used in many different religions and beliefs. It's with everything now days. People *should* just believe what makes sense to them..regardless of what religion (or whatever) it falls under. If it helps to label it as something, or assign a word to it..so be it. But if many neo-religions believe in the concept of karma, I hardly see how it's *highjacking*. Even if their version of karma is a bit different, it's still essentially the same idea..but perhaps simply interpreted a bit differently. I don't see anything wrong with that..

Besides, everyone interprets *everything* in their own way..and that will continue. Meanings have always seemed to change over time to fit society/individuals. It's sort of the same thing with the Bible. Some take the bible's words literally, and others see it as more of a book with metaphorical messages. All in all, whether a *newer* religion borrows a concept, or modifies it slightly to fit a specific belief system, I don't see it as a hijacking or anything negative. Religions and other belief-systems have done this forever, each having their own defined terms and concepts (many of which were borrowed from other religions/beliefs). I don't see it as a hijacking..but more of an adaption.

[elfmage]

Maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but I disagree. It hasn't been hijacked, per se, it's simply been appropriated. There's a significant difference, in my mind - it still exists in its original form within the continued practice of Buddhism and Hinduism, whilst another concept of it simultaneously (but differently exists within NeoPagan traditions.

[The Amityville Ghost]

Personally I don't believe in Karma (which I always define in the original Eastern sense). I don't agree with the American Neopagan definition of the term, but I do accept the idea that "what goes around comes around" and for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction (Newton's Third Law of Motion). I don't accept the idea of things coming back on us threefold, however.

In another post in the Theology section, I described how the doctrines of Yezidism are misinterpreted by Western Satanists who have, in turn, adopted these misinterpretations into their own systems and claim that such is actually what Yezidism teaches (much like what has been done to the doctrine of Karma). It would seem that many Westerners are very quick to adopt exotic ideas without fully understanding them, and twist them to mean whatever they want them to mean (like Humpty Dumpty).

However, I take the same attitude in this situation that I take in the Yezidism versus Satanism question; if people are happy believing in their own watered-down version of another religion's beliefs, then so be it. There's no (legal) way to stop them, and why should they be stopped? They have as much right to believe whatever they like, just as the religions they adapt from do. But, and I want to stress this, it is very important that they be intellectually honest and admit that what they believe is not what the religion of origin teaches. Just as I believe Satanists should be honest and admit that Yezidism is a completely different religion from theirs, believers in the Neopagan concept of "Karma" should be honest and admit that their "Karma" is not the Karma of Hinduism and Buddhism.

As long as a person is intellectually honest about their religious beliefs, I don't have a problem with them. I only have a problem when people make inaccurate claims about the origins of such beliefs. If one redefines Karma or the book of Al-Jilwah to mean whatever they want it to mean, one should not claim that their definition is authenticated by the original source material.

[Nitefalle]

I agree muchly with Amityville Ghost (but then, I'm a Recon, so the difference between historical/factual evidence and personal UPG is pretty much tattooed on my ass). I have studied Hinduism and the original concept of Karma and I agree with it much more than the Western concept of Karma. It does irk me a bit when I see newbies speaking of karma as if it is one and the same as the Wiccan Rede. It irks me even more when people speak about accruing "good karma", as if there is a difference between "good" and "bad" karma. :smash: But what can you do? You can't make people learn, you can't make people want to learn. If they ask me, I can tell them the difference, but other than that I leave it alone.

[wolfjan1]

As I remember some of those lyrics(proving my age again) The beetles talked of the shock of the real world after coming back from their enlightenment.
"Instant karma's gonne get you.
gonna slap you right in the face
better get yourself together brother
Join the human race"
Perhaps we should go back and listen to those lyrics. Maybe All of the lyrics post enlightenment, and hear what they had to say. Might be an interesting experience.
Ok, excuse me. John and/or George, but most likely John lennon sang those lyrics.

[Phoenix Blue]

That's for Neo-Pagans to determine. Why be so critical?
Because it's wrong. If I were driving on the wrong side of the road, wouldn't you want someone to correct me? Likewise, if I appropriate such a concept as Karma and distort it to mean something it doesn't, wouldn't you want someone to correct me?

The topic of whether a concept is correct or incorrect doesn't defenestrate itself just because the topic happens to drift into religion.

There is a correct meaning for Karma, which is defined by the Hindu faith. There is also a less correct meaning for "karma" (lowercase "k") that has been appropriated by popular American culture and by neoPagans in turn. The latter is "what comes around goes around," whereas the former (in my understanding) refers to one's path through lifetimes.

[Nitefalle]

Yes, Karma (capital "K") according to Hindu faith carries from one lifetime to the next, there is nothing instant about it. All Karma you are living in this life currently is from another lifetime completely. There is also the Western misconception that one would only want "good" Karma (though in the Hindu faith there is neither good or bad Karma, it just is), but really you don't want ANY Karma at the end of your lifetime, because even if one would deem it "good", it still means that you have to live it through another lifetime. The ultimate goal is to break free of the cycle of birth & rebirth - this is why many monks of Eastern faiths are aescetics, living away from society. They don't want any Karma whatsoever so that they can be released to nirvana.