Everything in life comes from karma, that only means "action". In general from previous lives, although present circumstances are co-adjuvating karma, or helping conditions for any given thing to arise. This matter is so very difficult because our stream of lives is considered to be without beginning. Imagine how complicated things are. That's why the subject of karma is considered the specific object of cognition of Omniscient Buddhas. What Buddhists learn about karma refers basically to the future. Our present we don't know what prompted it. But our future we can create based on a simple axiom: an action plants a seed for something similar to arise in the future. Bad actions bring unhappy results, good actions happy results. The Buddha didn't create the system, he only described it. Frankly yes, karma sounds like a cruel system. I am an old Buddhist and I am still working on it. But Buddhism does not focus in judging the way things are, it focus in the way we see them and take them, it focus mainly in the creation of a good future. If one is simply focused in the creation of a good future, which is like a minimum Buddhist attitude, then one has great chances of having a good life today too, because imagine how considerate to others at least that makes you. But this is just the first step. So what does the apparently cruel system of karma make Buddhism? Nothing in particular, Buddha didn't create the system, he just teaches how to best deal with it. Later on, if one desires, then come the big Buddhist purposes, the purpose of bringing benefit to all beings, but that is another story.

Dear Julia, Thanks for your blog post. You refer to Sri Lanka and to 'Buddhist extremists' there. I wonder - have you ever been to that country or are you basing your views on just what you have read in some book? The truth is the attacks on churches have taken place as a result of Christian aggression; they are the result of insensitive and unethical proselytising activities in the island carried out by Christian fundamentalists. Look at India as well. Christianity has a long history in the island and when Christians ruled the country for close to 500 years (ie the colonials) they did everything in their power to try and wipe out Buddhism by destroying Buddhist monasteries, banning Buddhist holy days, killing Buddhist monks and denying education and government positions to non-Christians unless they converted. It's sad that you completely gloss over this fact. If that 500 years of Christian oppression were not enough, during the past few decades many reactionary Christian organisations originating in the west have swept into Sri Lanka with the single aim of converting all non-Christians to Christianity. Having arrived in a "third world" country, their reasoning is that all niceties and norms of decency can be dispensed with; evangelism is carried out through whatever means necessary without any thought for the consequence, even if this means creating a religious conflict. The staw that broke the camel's back are all these new evangelicial groups who have entered Sri Lanka and are currently involved in aggresively converting the native population who are largely Buddhist and Hindu. They ask new converts to burn Dharma books and smash Buddha statues to signify their total conversion. Do you think that such activities are conducive towards religious harmony? They are acts of iconoclasm, and violence invites violence. And it's no surprise that following in the footsepts of the colonials in Sri Lanka, these cash-rich evangelists offer food, money and employment to convince poor Sri Lankans to convert to Christianity, asserting that it is the Christian God that is the harbinger of prosperity and that it is the "Satan-inspired" Buddhist/Hindu traditions that continue to keep them in poverty. It is no wonder that many Sri Lankan Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and *moderate Christians* are simply apalled at the way the evangelists carry out their proselytism, and are extremely worried about the impact it will have on religious harmony in the country. Instead of blaming Buddhists, Christian evangelists in Sri Lanka need to reconsider their unethical and aggresive methods of proselytism. They need to start according respect to other systems of belief instead of treating them as sworn enemies. The current mentality that drives proselytism, as well as the actual methods of proselytism employed by the evangelists are going against accepted norms of decency and are creating a negative image of Christianity at large.

I must also mention, Julia, that the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka (which leads the the largest Christian denomination in the island) has publicly condemned the activities of Christian extremists in the island. Especially after the tsunami when Christian fundamentalist groups went around trying to convert the survivors in exchange for aid. The mainstream churches in Sri Lanka - the Catholics and the Anglicans - are opposed to the campaign of the evangelicals. But ultimately there is an important question that Sri Lankans must ask themselves: when will the ideological and iconoclastic war waged by Christian evangelists against the Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims of the country end? Because as long as the Christian evangelists wage a war to dismantle and/or destroy Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam in Sri Lanka, there can never be true religious harmony. A predator-prey relationship is not conducive to peace and is always marked by stress. This is especially the case for the prey. The predatory desire to see other religions perish and to have Christianity "triumph" over these other religions cannot be condoned and should never be condoned by anyone with a sense of decency. It is time for Christians to have a good look at what they have done to provoke religious violence in Sri Lanka, as it is the Christian fundamentalists who have sown the seeds of religious discord in the island through their iconoclastic activities and their hate speech.

It's possible that Ms. Duin's posting was consciously prevocative, meant to provoke discussion. If so, it was successful to the degree that I would like to focus on the comments made at the end of her not, as to karma and cruelty. This may be an oblique reference to the small controversy on the offhand comments by Sharon Stone as to the cause of earthquakes in China. Karma as popularly understood consists of a kind of moral retribution system, one that ignores that many events -- including many natural catastrophes -- are not seen as karmic in origin. A deeper presentation of karma can be found in the BBC News Magazine postings on the topic, "What Is Karma?" at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7425203.stm Karma may be better understood as it relates to our own spiritual development.