5 Answers

  1. I think it's more correct to turn it inside out. This ” victim blaming “is a concept of” karma ” or original sin that is purged of religion. Too lazy to write in your own words, I'll quote:

    From the point of view of social psychology, the victim's accusation is based on the so-called belief in a just world[6]. Belief in a just world is a cognitive distortion in which a person believes that any action causes natural and predictable consequences. For such a person, the idea that a misfortune can happen to someone completely by accident is unbearable. As shown by the discoverer of the phenomenon of belief in a just world, Melvin Lerner, in order to avoid admitting the fallacy of their ideas about a just world, people reinterpret an unfair event, linking it with the behavior or properties of the victim, and thereby simultaneously blame and belittle her[7].

    It is the need to believe in a just world that creates karma in one era and culture, original sin in another, and “victim blaming”in a third.

    In this sense, “victim blaming “seems to be a more” progressive “idea, since it links one's own safety to” correct ” behavior here, and not to the fault of one's ancestors or past lives.

  2. No, because these concepts are not about wine. Just as there is no victimblaming in the statement “we are all mortal”. It's not our fault that we're mortal, it's just that we are. The concept of original sin and karma is not about personal guilt, but about anthropology.

  3. and who will blame you if there is no creator? do you know the parable of the string of blind people? if there is a line of blind people holding hands, another person, also blind, will approach them and try to lead them to the light, to the exit, they will all fall into the pit after him, he will not be able to get them anywhere. because we are all darkened, because we are not enlightened, because we are all darkened, we cannot judge each other. you know, it's not by chance that they emphasize the benefits of non-evaluative perception. it is a software configuration tool for non-programmers, which allows you to fix the system even without having the knowledge of a programmer.�

    further, all your thoughts that led to this question, with this wording, are very typical. I see them all the time. here is an attempt to understand the Dharma in the prism of the Christian worldview and an attempt to look for the guilty. we need to introduce a new cognitive distortion. “Christian cliche”. or something like that. stop looking for people to blame. and stop blaming yourself for anything. both things do not bring anything useful.

    as for karma… here everything is simple as 2+2. the formula of karma-you will generate a thought – you will generate an intention – you will generate an intention – you will generate an action – you will generate an action – you will reap karma. that's all you need to remember. karma is like the law of inertia. it happens simply because it happens. regarding any deeper questions, what led humanity to, say, the 2nd World War or why we are surrounded by exactly what we see around us, whether there is collective karma, how people in our lives give us unexpected answers??? – all this in general, you can not try to think and comprehend… the process is too complex for our minds to handle at the moment. all the same, all the interpretations that we will try to layer here will be limited by our own perception. which we can't go beyond at the moment. if there was an enlightened person nearby, he would probably make us feel an epiphany and immediately everything would become clear. but he's not around. and it is not there because they have not yet matured to have such a teacher by their side. when the student arrives, the teacher will appear. so it's like being with fools. the father told the child not to go to the yard where the dog is angry – it is necessary to carry out. The Buddha said what is good, what is not good – you can't doubt, you have to do it. when we do, we'll understand the whole mechanism.

  4. In the idea of karma in the context of the doctrine of reincarnation, a person is responsible for what he did not do. It is another person (jiva) who has committed crimes, and for some reason a new person, who does not even remember the previous life, must bear responsibility for them.

    Western Christianity attributed the same responsibility for the non-committed sin of the first parents to their descendants, who are actually victims of their crime.

    In the Eastern Christian interpretation of original sin, there are no elements of victim blaming. Here only Adam and Eve are guilty, and the descendants bear not the guilt, but the consequences, since they inherit the nature damaged by their ancestors. That is, in Orthodoxy, the descendants of Adam, until they have committed personal sins, are precisely the victims of their ancestors.

  5. In the concept of karma, the idea of blame is in some way present, but not the victim, but the criminal (the guilty, the sinner). The idea of karma (in very rough, simple words)- the idea of just retribution for bad and good deeds. There is no question of punishing the victim.

    Now for ” original sin.” I hate this term, Orthodox theology doesn't use it, and I'm not sure about other faiths. In Orthodoxy, this concept is called “Adam's sin”, or “fallen human nature”. So, this concept serves rather to justify the sinner. But certainly not to the prosecution, and even more so to the victim.

Leave a Reply