Greetings, Ms. Piazza-Georgi!

First off, *excellent* reply in the important "Respect" thread, I think (as
were others); and funny how it ties in with this one, as well (see below).

You write:

<< I'd like you (or someone) to react to my parallel between karma and the OT
God's vengefulness. It was an idea that had just occurred to me, and I wonder
if it is totally off the wall or whether it has some merit that could be
further explored. >>

Actually, I'd been waiting to hear what Geeta (whose last name I don't know;
no disrespect implied in the use of first name) had to say first, since she's
experienced the concept directly, in modern Hinduism. As I'd sort of
expected, there's a big difference between religious doctrine -- *any*
religious doctrine, I daresay -- as it exists (1) (a) among the philosophers
of a religion (b) at a given time, and, (2) in actual practice, within given
systems of oppression (patriarchy, racism, etc.). My reply to your "karma"
point, then, comes out of study of a number of religions which include the
concept, *not* out of a life lived within systems associated with it. (To my
mind, *all* human faiths have something of value to offer, or they wouldn't
propagate in the first place; not always a something we may personally
*like*, but something well worth *understanding*, at the very least.)

Your original "karma" comments ran:

<< All these are of course our pitiful attempts to explain the big ultimate
problem, that of evil - which every religion, every thinking mind, has to
struggle with. God's "vengeance" is not that different from the Hindu concept
of karma, except that the latter makes us think that we *as individual souls*
deserve suffering for the sins of
 our past lives, rather than we *as a family, clan or race* for the sins of
our people. (Interesting, when you think about it, that here the
Judeo-Christian tradition is more communitarian than the Hindu tradition!) >>

My (slightly snarky) reply originally ran:

***

I realize that you're describing a *modern Christian* interpretation, not the
original meaning of, say, the Exodus texts we looked at before. Still
(sidestepping the question of whether that form of human rights violation the
UN calls "collective punishment" can justly be described as "communitarian"),
I think you're inadvertently mischaracterizing Hindu thought here. That's
surely not your fault: largely thanks to Madame Blavatsky (on whom be
peace!), the west has badly distorted the (several) notion(s) of "karma."
Please forgive a brief attempt at clarification? :)

The Sanskrit term "karma" simply means "deed" (or, as the Vedantists have it,
"work") -- it's a fancy way of saying that one's actions have consequences.
In Hindu reincarnative thought, "karma" is believed to affect "future lives"
by determining the conditions of rebirth itself (though not what one will do
about it). Beyond that, in some *Buddhist* approaches "good karma" as well
as bad is believed to bind one to the wheel of reincarnation, hence is to be
avoided.

Anyway, the difference between this notion -- broadly, that attachment to
limitation binds us to its conditions -- and the notion of "divine
punishment" for "sins," strikes me as fairly dramatic...particularly where
one's "sin" consists of being insufficiently worshipful toward The One And
Only Proper Deity (much less the "original sin" of incarnating as a human
being in the first place). Furthermore, by concentrating on deeds rather
than beliefs, all notions of "karma" would seem to vary strongly from
traditional "Christian" (certainly from Pauline) thought.

One of our posters recently suggested that no one is responsible for anything
beyond her own individual religion; another one, having departed Hinduism
itself, reminds us that there are bonehead interpretations of all human
beliefs (in the majority, all too often). From your posts, I'm certain that
*your* individual religion is anything but retributive or mean-spirited.
Mine, too...just trying to keep distinct religions distinct, is all. In
particular, I welcome correction from those whose knowledge of Hinduism (or
anything else) exceeds my own: doubtless a very large class of individuals.

***

On reflection, I'm glad I waited to post the above; couple more thoughts.

Prophets, clerics, and believers are three extraordinarily different types of
folks within religious theory and practice. Virtually all religions have
them (yes, even some "all-layperson" religions, I'd argue: "Some laypeople
are more equal than others," heh), and there are "good" and "bad" folks
within each category, of course. Say Prophet (A) gains the insight that
people must take individual responsibility for their lives, Cleric (B)
interprets this to her (more often "his") followers as a demand that they
submit to their "fate," and Believer (C) says Heck with that, dude, I'm outta
here...for example. Or, say Prophet (A) says Kill them all and smash their
stuff!, Cleric (B) tempers this with a dose or two of sanity, and Believer
(C) ends up writing beautiful poems which tend to have a touching and
uplifting effect on all receptive hearts who read them.

Bottom line: maybe the basic distinctions between theory and practice, and
between different time periods, are a good place to start. In particular,
I'd argue that the many Prophets of the Sanatana-Dharma ("Hinduism" not
having a "founder"), Shakyamuni ("the Buddha"), Lao Tzu, the Sixth Patriarch
of Zen, Jeremiah, Jesus, Rumi, and indeed most of the people on this mailing
list, have a great deal more in common with *each other* than they do with
many others nominally "of their faith(s)." Given that, respect should be
pretty easy to achieve here, I think.

Respectfully, AJ