Yes, many people raised in Buddhist households would say that, but it's not an accurate representation of what the Buddha taught, based on the Pali texts which are the earliest written record. You can decide whether that means it's "Buddhism" or not.
Are you able to give a more accurate representation, or point me to a source that would do so? I am genuinely curious, this is the first I've heard someone say differently (I know several Buddhists/Hindus although none could be considered devout).
So Western karma and Buddhist karma can be a bit different, as the West has adopted the term it's become the Western version of the idea. And Buddhist karma is a bit different from Hindu karma. I haven't found a fully consistent use of the word across Buddhism even. But one common theme is that you shouldn't be ascribing the suffering of others to their karma.
Soto Zen view:
" We say, result is—will result immediately, not later punishment. To do something is already punishment. That you do something is already punishment. Not later." (edit: I may be taking this out of context....)http://suzukiroshi.sfzc.org/dharma-talks/october-1968-9th-ta...
Take a look ,or listen, into Ken McLeod's Pragmatic Buddism.
His podcast The Unfettered Mind is quite a resource.
He describes a culture that began with a base of perception and the experience of the now and due to the foolhardy nature of humans always trying to describe what is a unique and individual experience, if even describable at all, led to a disconnect and subsequent acadamization and institutionlization that seems to me to be what all religions suffer from.
The "Story of Tea" is a tale told in some of his sessions that is quite relevant.
The phenomenon seems also to be related to what legislative bodies suffer from as well though not entirely so.
Karma is also not the same as "fate" or "destiny". Karmic results are not a "judgement" imposed by a God or other all-powerful being, but rather the results of a natural process. Certain experiences in life are the results of previous actions, but our responses to those experiences are not predetermined, although they bear their own fruit in the future. Unjust behaviour may lead to unfavorable circumstances which make it easier to commit more unjust behavior, but nevertheless the freedom not to commit unjust behavior remains.
Within the Pali suttas: In the Anguttara Nikaya, it is stated that karmic results are experienced either in this life (P. diṭṭadhammika) or in a future lives (P. samparāyika). The former may involve a readily observable connection between action and karmic consequence, such as when a thief is captured and tortured by the authorities...
I'm not seeing anything to convince me I was wrong in thinking of karma as an impartial system of justice, both good and bad.
It's hard for me to tell if you're actually "in the wrong" here. Innocent people are also captured and tortured by authorities, but it's a huge stretch to blame that on karma.
If you say people experience karmic responses for all of their actions that's roughly true within Buddhist doctrine depending on how you define these things. Many believe it's a purely internal process so there's no guarantee something bad will happen to you in the sense of losing your job or stubbing your toe.
If you say that when a bad thing happens to a person it's because they did something bad to deserve it then that's not what the Buddha taught. The world's a big place and your past morality isn't the only thing that determines your present situation. http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/tp/The-F...
Following your link and comparing the Hindu and Buddhist explanations of Karma, that makes more sense to me. It seems I've been co-opting the strictly Hindu interpretation while Buddhism is a bit different. Anyway, thank you.
