Sharon Stone, Dalai Lama, China and Bad Karma Sharon Stone is facing a ban on the showing of her films in China after suggesting the recent earthquake that killed up to 67,000 people may have been the result of "bad karma" over the country's occupation of Tibet. Stone, 50, who was speaking to reporters at the Cannes film festival, criticised the Chinese government's actions in Tibet and directly linked them to the disaster: "I've been concerned about how should we deal with the Olympics, because they are not being nice to the Dalai Lama, who is a good friend of mine," she said. "And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?" A YouTube video of Stone making the comments has provoked fury amongst the online community and angered members of the Chinese film industry. Ng See-Yuen, chairman of the Federation of Hong Kong Film-makers and the founder of the UME Cineplex chain, told The Beijing Times that her comments were "inappropriate" and that his cinema chain, which has a strong presence in Hong Kong, Beijing and Shanghai, would no longer screen any films starring the actor. The PR company for cosmetics giant Christian Dior has also taken action against Stone by removing images of the actor promoting the company's products from department stores across Beijing. The ban may be something of a blessing for Chinese movie-goers. The Year of Getting to Know Us, the first of Stone's films to be affected by the ban, has been described by a user of the internet film site IMDb as "one of the five worst films I have seen in my lifetime". ------------------------- Chinese are usually superstious. It would be very interesting what happens....
Right, everyone knows it was Bush, not God that carried out Katrina.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
How does Karma works? May be Dalai Lama should teach her...or did he..... After all, she hangs around him....
I don't know really. I couldn't do it justice. I know actions performed in one life usually take many lifetimes to ripen. There's no such thing as instant karma (sorry John Lennon). I know that the karma experienced in one life are ripened by secondary causes and conditions. I know that Bad things can happen to good people, and good things can happen to bad people and it's absolutely nothing to do with if they deserve it. I can't see the logic in her thinking if she did say it. To say a government's actions wouldn't indirectly cause the deaths of 67,000 of their own people could be widely open to misinterpretation, so I'll just say it's a difficult concept for me to try to explain concisely.
My understanding of Karma is that everything has a cause and effect. If we want to consider Earth as a living entity, then any pain inflicted to a group of humans or the nature should have some manifestations...may be that is the view she was talking about....this is anathema to western philosophy.
There are some schools of Buddhism that think the plants are sentient, but according to Prasangika logic they have no mind. Our karma will ripen as effects similar to the cause, environmental effects and fully ripened effect. You're correct in what you say about western understanding, but it is somewhat stunted.
She and Christian Dior apologized for the offhanded comment and she is ready to go to the disaster area for relief work - as if that is going to happen...
Nonsense. Karma is simply a Sanskrit word which means "action" and implies the results of that action. Everything else about ripening over multiple lifetimes and retribution is nothing but religious dogma and social baggage from various communities. All the other aspects of what karma may imply how it might function and everything else varies widely from philosophy to philosophy and none of it IS karma. kmguru is correct - karma is simply Cause and Effect. Don't fall for the "that is the Westernized version" platitude either.
Karma would have either killed or injured those responsible for the overthrow of Tibet not people who had nothing to with it.
As I understand it, Vipaka is specifically a Buddhist term that describes the results of karma - not necessarily the effect in the case and effect relationship implied by karma. I may be mistaken, but I look at it this way: Action - You kick a rock with your bare feet. Effect - Your toe is injured. Vipaka - You are in pain. Not necessarily the effect, but the frutition. Please correct me if I am wrong, but this was my understanding. Regardless, you can not have a case without an effect, which is why I said that karma means action and implies the results of that action.
Not nonsense, sorry. I'm well aware of what the etymology of karma is, and the semantics. Obviously talking about karma on an internet forum is about as useful as trying to see the entire world by looking at the floor. It's a huge topic and even if I spent days on this topic without wisdom and compassion it's just a concept. Buddha taught karma in the same way Madhur Jaffrey wrote cookery books. Her intention is for you to eat a wonderful meal, not read the ingredients from a book. I understand you may not like religion, and that's completely understandable, but Buddha taught everyone, disciples or not, about rebirth because he could see how people go from lifetime to lifetime suffering. Whether or not you want to believe those teachings is up to you. It's not Christianity, no one is sitting on a big throne telling you you'll go to hell if you don't become a Buddhist. Yeah, I know you don't want to talk about Buddhism, it's not my intention to convert anyone, just make sure people reading this thread don't think people like Sharron Stone represent my beliefs.
Actually, your assumptions about me are incorrect. Religion is one of my favorite topics to discuss - I have been studying them for over 20 years. I have been a fan of Buddhsim for a number of years now, and I find it very interesting. I would not consider myself a Buddhist, but Buddhism is closer to what I believe than any other religion I have found so far. Then again, I wouldn't consider most people who call themselves Buddhists to be Buddhist. Sharon Stone is a perfect example. I am not talking about the Etymology of the word - I am talking about the concept itself. Siddhartha does not corner the market on ideas about karma, nor did he invent the concept or the word. Karma is simply action and implies the results of that action. Everything else is dogmatic interpretations of the mechanics and nature of karma. The Buddha's ideas on karma are not the definition of karma, just his ideas on the nature of karma and other (before and since him) had widely varying ideas. Karma, in and of itself, is not a spiritual belief system - it simply is. Karma does not imply or require rebirth, but if you believe in rebirth, you must take karma into account in your beliefs.
One raven, I have a karma question: Is karma different from consequentialism? For example, if you're an asshole to someone every day, it's going to come back at you. But it's not some magical "force" causing that to happen. It's consequence. Is it accurate to call it karma?
one_raven: Actually, your assumptions about me are incorrect. I apologise for my misinterpretation of what you wrote. Religion is one of my favorite topics to discuss - I have been studying them for over 20 years. I have been a fan of Buddhsim for a number of years now, and I find it very interesting. I don't see Dharma as a spectators sport. I've known a lot of people who like Buddhism because it looks good, but like I said, it's a practice, you have to sit down and meditate if you want to experience your own mind, no amount of reading will change your mind for you. By all means people are fully entitled to an opinion but if you're not a practitioner then you can recite volumes and volumes of texts and they're all just empty words. I would not consider myself a Buddhist, but Buddhism is closer to what I believe than any other religion I have found so far. Then again, I wouldn't consider most people who call themselves Buddhists to be Buddhist. Sharon Stone is a perfect example. I wouldn't say she wasn't a Buddhist, she's probably very compassionate and has some good motivations, I just see she has misunderstood what karma means. Oh and if you like the look of it, why you don't jump in? The water's nice and warm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am not talking about the Etymology of the word - I am talking about the concept itself. Siddhartha does not corner the market on ideas about karma, nor did he invent the concept or the word. No, you're right. No one invented the concept, and Sanskrit was around long before Buddha Shakyamuni appeared in this world. Karma is simply action and implies the results of that action. Everything else is dogmatic interpretations of the mechanics and nature of karma. The Buddha's ideas on karma are not the definition of karma, just his ideas on the nature of karma and other (before and since him) had widely varying ideas. Karma, in and of itself, is not a spiritual belief system - it simply is. the only thing I can say here is I think you've misunderstood. Karma does not imply or require rebirth, but if you believe in rebirth, you must take karma into account in your beliefs. If you understood the full implications of karma you'd know rebirth is merely a consequence of throwing actions, etc. For anyone interested in a better explaination of karma here's an excerpt from Joyful Path of Good Fortune, by Geshe Kelsang Gyatso http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...g=yLvEtgDbO6Hyto3YtlOVyQU4p0s&hl=en#PPA127,M1
I am not just a spectator. I have been meditating for many years. And I obviously think you have misunderstood. There is more than one interpretation of the nature of karma. That's what you seem to be missing. Karma does not imply rebirth. In Siddhartha's view karma and rebirth are intertwined, but they are not part and parcel.
