Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

ellisonz

(27,755 posts)
3. No.
Sun Jan 29, 2012, 03:10 AM
Jan 2012

This supposes that there is a you, there is a me, and there is someone...Buddhists do not have a concept of "blasphemy."


Incorrect understandings of karma in the early sutras

In Buddhism, karma is not pre-determinism, fatalism or accidentalism, as all these ideas lead to inaction and destroy motivation and human effort. These ideas undermine the important concept that a human being can change for the better no matter what his or her past was, and they are designated as "wrong views" in Buddhism. The Buddha identified three:

Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering, including all future happiness and suffering, arise from previous karma, and human beings can exercise no volition to affect future results (Past-action determinism).
Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
Ahetu-appaccaya-vaada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).[26]

Karma is continually ripening, but it is also continually being generated by present actions, therefore it is possible to exercise free will to shape future karma. P.A. Payutto writes, "the Buddha asserts effort and motivation as the crucial factors in deciding the ethical value of these various teachings on kamma."[27]
[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_in_Buddhism#Incorrect_understandings_of_karma_in_the_early_sutras

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

No. You would just be an asshole. OffWithTheirHeads Jan 2012 #1
ring, ring YankeyMCC Jan 2014 #7
No, it wouldn't be blasphemy. white_wolf Jan 2012 #2
No. ellisonz Jan 2012 #3
No obamanut2012 Jan 2012 #4
I don't think Newest Reality Jan 2012 #5
Yes timeandmotion Jan 2014 #6
I would say that blasphemy would be considered wrong speech in the eight fold path and liberal_at_heart Jan 2014 #8
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»Buddhism»According to your opinion...»Reply #3