Karma, real or a way for the weak too "get even"

[Coolio]

Delta-9-THC, there are no individual souls in most forms of Hinduism/Buddhism. Your question doesn't make sense.

All forms of consciousness share one point of view, Atman, the universal soul that we all experience reality through across every part of space-time. Our ascension to a higher state is the universal ascension by all conscious entities taking part in the process of evolution. The goal of Buddhism is a gradual process of educating all humans and probably waiting for all animal species to evolve into beings who can also practice Buddhist techniques, probably over billions of years. There is no personal morality in Eastern religion - the point is to realize that YOU are only the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and that it matters just as much to you what happens to everything outside your current human body as it does what happens to that body.

 

[Delta-9-THC]

Interesting. I was mostly basing the question of rachamim's concept of the soul. That we have individual souls and are reincarnated into new physical bodies upon death.

I know very little about eastern religions and it seems that what I have picked up casually has been heavily distorted and westernized so I am sorry if I appear ignorant. The idea of reaching perfection through evolution is more logical although I think that a state of "perfection", when concerned with living things, is very subjective and ill defined.

 

[Jamshyd]

All forms of consciousness share one point of view, Atman, the universal soul that we all experience reality through across every part of space-time. Our ascension to a higher state is the universal ascension by all conscious entities taking part in the process of evolution. The goal of Buddhism is a gradual process of educating all humans and probably waiting for all animal species to evolve into beings who can also practice Buddhist techniques, probably over billions of years. There is no personal morality in Eastern religion - the point is to realize that YOU are only the ENTIRE UNIVERSE, and that it matters just as much to you what happens to everything outside your current human body as it does what happens to that body.

Hmmm. My understanding of Atman is a bit different. I tend to think of Atman as a drop from the ocean of Brahman, or a shard that reflects its likeness, if that makes any sense.

On this issue, I am more on the Buddhist side: the point is not to hold on to the Atman through reincarnations, but rather dissolve it back into the ocean from which it came.

I also tend to find the buddhist doctrine of reincarnation far more reasonable than the Hindu. The buddhist model is actually empirically-visible, IMO. All there is to it is that when one dies, one's constituents dissolve back into the environment, and are recycled into new living matter. This is a fact, and something that I don't believe in, but actually know (and you know it too, but for most people the idea that everything in the world is actually recycled dead-matter can be difficult to digest (literally )).

 

[Jamshyd]

To those speaking of Hitler's Karma... Here's some odd food for thought... What if Hitler was the reincarnation of Jesus? That way his Karma would be more even by this point. He would have helped many as Jesus, but then murdered many as Hitler too. I did think this up while high on drugs , but Hitler sure did have a grudge against the Jewish. You have to consider then what Jesus was put through by the Jewish. If he had been Jesus before then that would be the only way someone like that could even keep a steady equilibrium of Karma.

I like to think of reincarnation as; we are a spirit embedded in the soul of a human. Once that soul ceases to exist the spirit of that human can freely roam to another soul. My thought was that the spirit of Hitler having been tortured by the Jewish many years ago; eventually at a certain point in time something triggers in the spirit of the Jesus while he is reincarnated as Hitler that lets off a subconscious trigger which travels on down to the conscious of Hitler and there you have the holocaust.

Think of it more from the stand point that was previously mentioned about Karma that things are not so black and white. It is more about how one perceives something. Some may consider Hitler in the same light that others consider Jesus and vice versa.

Hope I haven't offended anybody by this. Not my intention.

Oh good lord, how does Hitler manage to pop up in every discussion? *sigh*.

 

[elbroski]

I agree with most of what jammy and fizzycat have said. Firstly, I strongly dislike how humans try to mold the ineffable into manly, anthropomorphic being. Our crude and perverted sense of morality and justice is not in any way an attribute of the "universe" as it's been called in this thread. The collective intelligence (brahman) that we are all feelers of is perfect, radiant energy. It is not some man with superhuman powers in the clouds, deciding if someone is going to burn in hell or get 99 virgins when he dies. It puzzles why in 2009, with all the advances our species had made, we insist on dwelling in the murky, pre-historic waters of monotheistic religious trends and institutions. Also jammy, it is interesting that you would make the example of the difference between hinduism and buddhism with regards to reincarnation and the like, I was just thinking of that. It seems to me that buddhism finds fault with the lack of practicality hinduism offers in the realm of positive social and cultural change. But I digress, good discussion ppls!!

 

[The TimeKeeper]

I'd like to pose a question to those who do believe in the existence of the soul and the process of reincarnation. Do all living creatures have souls? Even organisms as simple as parasites or bacteria? Where do you draw the line?

If all creatures or even most of them have souls then it would seem that a huge majority of souls would have to reside in lesser animals at any given time. New souls would also have to be generated at an exponential rate to keep up with the expansion of population.

I like to think of it as such... Everything has a consciousness, even the non-living as it is connected to the living it has somewhat of a reflection of consciousness. What constitutes whether a being has a soul or not would be decided by what level of consciousness that particular being would have. A rock would have no soul as it is one of the most basic forms of consciousness. A deer would have a soul as it is still channeling energy that would form thought patterns and actions. I see that as being the sign of soul. The object of consciousness in question must posses the ability to channel the energies of thought and emotion etc to have enough spirit running through it to rise it's level of conscious flow to that of a soul. Think of it like you have to have soul to have soul, you must feel that it is there. Even if it is merely instinct of such soul and only the sub-conscious realization of the truth - like with most animals.

To me it is more like the body of the creature is the soul and then whatever energies it channels give cause for it's actions. It is the spirit of emotional energies which are channeled through our soul and then we act given a number of factors including what we are channeling. For example, if someone is angry they will be channeling that negative energy at that specific point. However that is being channeled through there soul so they will act that anger out in a way that unique to only that soul. Why? That soul is like a painting of all the emotions that you have been through in your life. When that emotion is channeled through you it is like it shines through the painting until the moment is over upon which it becomes another color on your painting to be displayed as your more neutral self. The neutral self is like a collage of all those emotions wrapped up into one representing that one soul.

Now the greater spirit of your soul is a bit different. I suppose you could call it the greater soul too. I always thought of it as spirit as it has to do more with spirit than the physical which I associate with the soul. The greater spirit would be the you that passes through every single soul you enter. It being like a collage of all soul's emotions instead of one specific soul. So if you were to be able to access that level of thought and understanding of yourself you would be able to recall what you did in your passed lives perhaps even regain abilities that you once had. I think of each soul as training for the next. Sub-conscious unless you have developed your brain to the point where you can actually consciously comprehend what has gone on in those lifetimes or even channel energies from those lives specifically and make use of them in this life.

Also, if our ascension to a higher state is based on the morality of our actions and our understanding of it than how would these animals, who have basically zero sense of morality, ever advance from their current state?

All progress and evolution. If we did not remember what we once were, how could we build on that and become anything greater than what we are now? You cannot start on level forty on a video game. You wouldn't have shit clue what to do!

Oh good lord, how does Hitler manage to pop up in every discussion? *sigh*.

Well if you consider my theory that Hitler is the re-incarnate of Jesus he is likely to be quite a talked about person considering all that his spirit has been through.

 

[nearjat]

Everything in our universe goes in cycles, including our actions and intentions. I think karma is real, but on a much grander scale than interpersonal relationships and stuff among humans.

Every once in a while it's clear that karma does its thing, but it isn't definite that ones actions will have an equal reaction back to them. There will be a reaction, but why would it have to go back to them?

 

[Heuristic]

Our unconscious works in synchronicity with the Universal mind.
We dream, we think, we fantacise and we reap the seeds.
In between all that, our mind prepares and we take the actions at
some stage, without knowing how and when we thought of the words, or
dreamed about them. It is dynamic psychology. As a child, you don't remember
later in life, what you were dreaming of desiring-and suddenly you find yourself following those
unremembered dreams which your mind had plenty of time to prepare you for the way of achiving them.
In the same way, carma works but in the negatives. Karma can be both negative or positive.
It is just that it is the negative that works against us, and hence needs to be worked through and cleared. It was built in our very fabric.
All action is karma, means the effects of actions-we took.

I suppose my question is, with respect to this and other descriptions of karma in this thread: why believe it to be true?

Is it a religious belief, which works for you? Do you think that there is actually sufficient evidence to say we all SHOULD believe it?

 

[Xevy]

As has been mentioned several times, we must be careful to specify what precisely is meant when using the term karma. Not only are there several 'new age'/Western interpretations of this term, but even within Sanskrit it has several different meanings.

For purposes of discussion, there are generally speaking two ways karma is used in Sanskrit, in a 'Hindu' framework and in a Buddhist framework. Although these two certainly share commonalities, they are fundamentally different.

In Buddhism, the doctrine of Karma is precisely the means to explain causation WITHOUT any sort of universal judge/God/Creator/Atman/Brahman. In this sense, karma does not in any way refer to some kind of grand cosmic balancing of the scales.

Karma is a wholly personal mental component which is considered one of the 5 aggregates that make up a sentient being. In general, karma in this sense is volition, will power.

Consider an easy example, if everyday when you experience a certain situation Y, you react in X manner you are habituating/conditioning your mindstream to react in that manner. Next time Y occurs, you having created the karma to react in manner X (but it is never a rigid determinism). So if you get angry very easily at people, and often start yelling, you are creating the karma to get angry again in the future.

An analogy is that of seeds. When you get angry, you water the seed of anger in your mindstream. That 'anger plant' then grows larger and larger, and is more likely to 'pop up' again. Likewise, if you 'water the seeds' of compassion, you are more likely to be compassionate.

Generally speaking, when using karma in a Buddhist framework, the idea is simply that of mental habituation and action...what you do in the future and present is influenced (but not determined) by what kinds of established patterns you set in the past.

Karma is clearly a complicated topic but there are many excellenct resources online, for the Buddhist view of karma see for example:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...ry_material/basic_question_karma_rebirth.html

A brief section from the above link:

"Question : Is the theory of karma empirical and scientific, or is it accepted on faith?

Answer: The idea of karma makes sense in many ways, but there is some misunderstanding about what karma is. Some people think that karma means fate or predestination. If somebody is hit by a car or loses a lot of money in business, they say, "Well, tough luck, that is their karma." That is not the Buddhist idea of karma. In fact, that is more the idea of God's will - something that we do not understand or have any control over.

In Buddhism, karma refers to impulses. Based on previous actions we have done, impulses arise in us to act in certain ways now."

or

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...l_scope/karma/introductory_lecture_karma.html

or

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html

As for the idea that karma doesn't exist because certain people have 'gotten away' with horrific acts, well in a Buddhist framework, there is NO 'getting away'. Every single action you take, no matter how small, based on its intention, leaves an imprint, creates karma.

The key here with karma is volition, the mental intention and the habits it creates in the mind...nothing to do with 'cosmic balance'

 

[straycatphizzle]

I believe there is a rule of debating that if you bring up hitler or the nazis you are immediately disqualified

 

[RigaCrypto]

Sometimes, powerful people think they can mistreat anyone without suffering any consequence. And indeed, other people may be afraid to openly confront them, but will hurt them in any way they can without exposing themselves to risk, secretly, covertly... while the powerful person may think things are going badly because of 'karma'.

This is a more day-to-day meaning of it, and it's real.

 

[Xevy]

Sometimes, powerful people think they can mistreat anyone without suffering any consequence. And indeed, other people may be afraid to openly confront them, but will hurt them in any way they can without exposing themselves to risk, secretly, covertly... while the powerful person may think things are going badly because of 'karma'.

This is a more day-to-day meaning of it, and it's real.

This may be your pragmatic view as to what 'karma' means, however it has nothing to do with the meaning of the term as it was originally intended in Sanskrit.

There is a reason that the word 'karma' is used in its Sanskrit form and is not literally translated. The reason is that this is a technical term with very specific meanings in Hindu and Buddhist frameworks.

Of course people are welcome to use whatever word they want for anything, I am free to call a cheeseburger a golf club if I feel like. However, as I said, karma is a specific and technical term and the typical Western use of the word is simply not what it was meant to refer to. Your post is an example of this, likewise anyone thinking that karma refers to cosmic justice/balance is another example.

 

[Xevy]

For those wishing a more comprehensive view on several common misconceptions of karma, from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, see this link:

http://www.berzinarchives.com/web/e...a_mahayana_presentati/mechanism_karma_01.html

This page addresses many common misconceptions about karma such as karma being about:

Chance or Probability,
Luck,
Fate or Destiny,
God’s Will,
Good Fortune,
Reward and Punishment Based on Following Laws,
Hinduism: Performing One’s Duty,
Confucianism: Being in Harmony and Conforming to the Process of Change,
Popular Chinese Buddhism: Doing Good Deeds as a Business Investment,
Western Humanism: Happiness from Making Others Happy and Not Causing Harm

If you read this link, you will see how many of the views expressed in this thread fall into these popular misconceptions. In this case, coming from the Buddhist perspective, the Hindu view of karma is also a misconception.

My post on the previous page goes into some general background about what karma IS in a Mahayana Buddhist perspective, but here is some further detail from the above link:

"Participant: Is karma a mental mechanical law?

Alex: No, it is not a "law." Karma is a mental factor (sems-byung), a subsidiary awareness accompanying our experiencing of things. It is a way of knowing something. It is complicated and takes a bit of explaining. In technical terms, mental factors, like all ways of knowing something, are types of mental activity, in the sense that they are the activity of cognitively taking an object. In fact, they are both the activity as well as the agent of the activity (what does the activity).

What I am calling an "action" here is called in Tibetan the "course of an impulse" (las-kyi lam). The course of the impulse to do, say, or think something is the succession of moments of actually doing, saying, or thinking it. The course of the impulse is not itself an impulse.

When we are looking at a piece of paper, for example, one aspect of the way we are seeing it may be the impulse to tear it up. It is a mental event. That mental impulse is the karma here. Karma is not the physical action itself; it is what brings on the action and what initiates and sustains it."


As you can see, karma is a specific technical term refering to a mental factor that is related to impulses and volition.

Of course I am not stating that the Hindu view of karma is 'wrong', just giving a bit of detail on the Mahayana Buddhist view. However, I would consider the non-Hindu and non-Buddhist views on karma to be 'wrong' in the sense that they are using a technical Sanskrit term to mean something entirely different.

Holding those beliefs is one thing, calling them by the technical term 'karma' is another...although this tendency certainly has become mainstream in Western society and is present in many forms of popular media.

 

[IGNVS]

on the absolute nature of karma, god, and the universe


oh so that we may
suffer in our own desires
to know
when it remains unknown
for all the desires
we deny another to partake
we ourselves shall
fell them too
in time
for thus is the nature
of knowledge that is true
and of good and love
to amplify itself as that!
truth is its desire
and in our suffering
shall our eyes
find the suffering
and lead us thus to
bliss
or understanding
not that knowledge can know bliss
but that upon understanding
we know that which is not bliss
and grow
seek further that satisfaction
til the whole world be filled no longer
with longing or any doubtful thought
but with a joy so rapturous
(it is rapture that chases us)
that there exists no desire
even for a word to describe the event
and we shall trancend all things of this earth
for all things we know of a nescesity
desires nesesity
and sin from denying
truth its right as truth

 

[daysonatrain]

perhaps a bit off topic here, karma only applies to those living in samsara (nearly all of us). and in fact they are indivisible in my book, living in samsara implies that karma will be present in all situations. once we step off the wheel of samsara (enlightenment) karma is evaporated.

good thread

 

[LivingInTheMoment]

I suppose my question is, with respect to this and other descriptions of karma in this thread: why believe it to be true?

Is it a religious belief, which works for you? Do you think that there is actually sufficient evidence to say we all SHOULD believe it?

NO I am not talking from a theological perspective at all. I am not certain if religion has much to do with karma to be honest,
although this is where it has emerged from in literature, I don't create secure beliefs for areas of existance of a
life I have not experienced, as if, there is an after life.Perhaps, and perhaps not, we have no way of knowing.

I can only wonder what happens when our energy is released from our body, and a lot of things in the mystical form we only speculate
and wonder; but in the same way that I believe paradise and hell are concepts that exist in life and not in an after life.
I know what the others are saying, but I am speaking from the psychological perspective.
Proven, in a sense that when one's preconscious/unconscious, is open, a lot of the material that pours out, proves it.
The unconscious when you know how to interpret it and during "working out" of your "demons" so to speak, it all follows a pattern whic unfolds pretty much
with all. How you live your life, forms your character, and karma I call the parts of character formation,
that unless you come to "heal" or "work through" and integrate, the pattern repeats itself in your life.
This is something that has been proven as being so for everyone, and where deep psychology is based on.
What you are unaware of, turns against the self, or harms others when expressed out-whether consciously or unconsciously.

However, the core of ourselves has a spiritual base, in that what organized religion tries to convey and fails loudly,
since the unconscious does not express itself in an ordinary language, and hence most people miss the point when they try to understand it, but
so disillusioned at religion and the meaning of it or its role.

The same way that we speak of humility and pride. The deeper core of the self, it is of a spiritual basis, and hence humility
is its essence and substance, which comes through that. As we reach the surface, when we have not integrated our outer self (the ego), where pride is a large portion
of it, is where karma forms.The inner part is placid, where as the outer, protective, aggressive, self interested and self survival oriented.

Hence karma, is of how the ego part of ourselves which executes the thoughts out into actions and of the decisions we chose to act out upon,
gathers momentum as karma, when the core is not involved in it when humility is lacking in our actions.

I am uncertain if you can go as deep in order to understand what I am trying to say. Sometimes i feel a real depth in you, and I deeply connect with that
and other times you speak purely from the outer part of the ego, so you can't understand me that the difference in you is very obvious to me.
Unless I get you in that deep part of you-which I have felt of this kind-you will then perhaps understand me.

I cannot speak of other's beliefs, as you can see that varies a lot and it is personal. But I can only speak from my own experience and others I have come to view and experience with them and hence formed my own strong and deep beliefs.
Should we all believe it? As Human Beings and part and parcel of it, is that we form beliefs according to our personal experiences, and not all share the same. You can take the horse to the water, but you cannot make it drink. People are full of defences (part of the creation of karma) and protective of what they take in-and very obstinate when it comes to form their belief system. They cannot see outside the square box. They enter into endless debates.
Once you come to that shared base we all have, it is difficult not to see, what is trully there. Yet, I understand, that even so, it will always remain an individual choice-of what one chooses to believe.

 

[Changed]

I haven't read the thread, but I'm sure somebody has already said it: karma doesn't work like that. it isn't an instant cause and effect thing.

Karma decides your fate after death.

 

[Xevy]

I haven't read the thread, but I'm sure somebody has already said it: karma doesn't work like that. it isn't an instant cause and effect thing.

Karma decides your fate after death.

I suggest you read the thread then. From a Buddhist perspective this is only partially true. Although it is true that your karmic propensities will have impact after death of this body, karma also has effect during each life.

For example, when you read this reply you will react in a certain way, have impulses to say or think certain things...that is your karma based on past habituation. If you read the link I post a few posts up you will quickly clear away these misconceptions regarding karma -- at least from a Mahayana Buddhist perspective.

 

[stellablue]

What goes around comes around, if you live by the sword you die by the sword, everyone gets what's coming to them in this life or the next.

^ I really agree with you there. I think that your life now could be effected and also have repercussions from a past live. I honestly do. It would explain the reason why some people die young. Maybe they needed a lesson from their short life. I strongly believe in reincarnation.

 

[static_mind]

I have no faith in Karma at all. The idea isnt based around any conclusive evidence at all. I think it can even be wrong to think that someone who dies young but have been evil in a past life.