greenblue wrote:
I don't know if this is what you mean with the horrific part of reincarnation, but I would, I actually find this karma thing disturbing as Sand said, I admit I know nothing about Buddhism but I remember someone here made a warning about how much one would like it or dislike it after getting to know it, anyway, I don't even accept karma as something magical or a spiritual law, as that is subjected to different interpretations and opinions. And if Buddhism is a godless religion, who made that law?
"In general, followers of Buddhism and many Hindus consider the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma." (wikipedia)
Karma simply means "action" and it implies cause and effect. It is only the cartoon version that says that everyone gets exactly what they deserve or created for themselves. While some who talk about karma are applying this as a religious doctrine tied to reincarnation, others are using in a frame free of any mysticism. Does anyone challenge the idea that history (wars, conquests, famines, plagues, etc) are subject to interpretation from a lens of cause and effect? Why should we not apply cause and effect to the ethics of our personal action?
A secular student of karma might choose to ignore an insult because they know that the person who was insulting didn't know what TF they were talking about and it costs little to ignore it, while making a stink about the insult would be an action that has larger negative consequences.