Karma

[Ummagumma]

As a concept, karma implies that the universe is, in fact, inherently fair. Universally there is so much randomisation it must stretch this to the realm of absurdity. From a mere human perspective it is apparent that the good guy does not always win - in fact the contrary is often the case.

Is Karma an inherently flawed concept?

[Ummon]

The universe is inherently fair, it is just not a human-like form of fairness.

[Tom Paine]

As a concept, karma implies that the universe is, in fact, inherently fair. Universally there is so much randomisation it must stretch this to the realm of absurdity. From a mere human perspective it is apparent that the good guy does not always win - in fact the contrary is often the case.

Is Karma an inherently flawed concept?

Pretty much. Karma requires an outside agent adjudicating fairness, and it also assumes that there can be equivalency; Stalin caused such vast suffering, what could be equivalent to that? It's a flawed concept in theory because it assumes a fair universe, and in practice because... well, history shows there's no such thing as fairness.

[Ummon]

Pretty much. Karma requires an outside agent adjudicating fairness,

Not at all.

and it also assumes that there can be equivalency; Stalin caused such vast suffering, what could be equivalent to that?

Many things. It is not certain that Stalin was the only culprit. In any case, for those who believe so, Stalin is supposed to be a lice or a frog or something, right now.

It's a flawed concept in theory because it assumes a fair universe, and in practice because... well, history shows there's no such thing as fairness.

To your own eye.

[Tom Paine]

Not at all.

Yes. Even if that outside adjudicating form is the universe.

Many things. It is not certain that Stalin was the only culprit. In any case, for those who believe so, Stalin is supposed to be a lice or a frog or something, right now.

With no memory of his past life, and anyway, who says being an insect is suffering?

To your own eye.

To the eye of any student of history.

[Ummagumma]

Yet Karma is almost always presented in a totally humanistic form...

Is it just not a futile attempt to discover some underlying 'truth' to reality - as though there is the fabled unifying equation or answer to the enigma we all perceive? Sometimes I think we think too much.

[Denny Crane!]

Interesting thoughts here.

Does anyone have any idea which philosophy they are referring to when they talk about the word karma? I'd say its the hindu variety which is ultimately flawed in my eyes but obviously its not the only philosophy to which karma pertains.

[Ummagumma]

Well, the Hindu form is possibly the 'purest', the originator, but I was also thinking in terms of Sikhism. Yes, they are essentially the same, but the Sikh interpretation is a more literal 'you reap what you sow' - wether it be passion, ignorance or 'goodness'.

[Denny Crane!]

Well, the Hindu form is possibly the 'purest', the originator, but I was also thinking in terms of Sikhism. Yes, they are essentially the same, but the Sikh interpretation is a more literal 'you reap what you sow' - wether it be passion, ignorance or 'goodness'.

No such thing as 'the purest' or 'more original form' or any other term you would like to apply to it.

What you have is ideas and concepts, that differ quite substantially grouped under the same name.

[Pivra]

Karma just means deed.....

[Ummagumma]

Karma just means deed.....

Actions, and the result of those actions, surely? The focus being on the result of action rather than the deed itself - otherwise there is no 'karma', just a bunch of stuff you have done.

Edit: Seneca - it is fairy undeniable that concepts get borrowed, and when they are borrowed to such an extent as Karma (which appears in many religions) is it not fair to say there was a first thought? I meant no offence, I was just acknowledging the oldest concept....

Do they really differ? There many be alternate systems for each within religions, but the core is that 'if you are good, good things will happen, if you are bad you will get your due punishment'.

[Pivra]

Actions, and the result of those actions, surely? The focus being on the result of action rather than the deed itself - otherwise there is no 'karma', just a bunch of stuff you have done.

which it is.... in my language, we also use the word "karma" to indicate the "object" part of the sentence.... and as a suffix .... it also works like.... hatthakarm... means ... hand-made... hattha being "hand" ... usahakarm .. means industry.. usaha- being intention... usahakarm.. the action of intention... and many more words... so.... in the Gita, Krishna says that, if you do your duty and expect the "fruit" of it, then it is not of pure intention, therefore, as humans, our basic duty is to do good deeds, WITHOUT expecting anything in return right? For it to be a "good karma" you dont really need to expect any physical rewards, because if it is of pure intention, then you are joyful in the joy of another person, you are passionate and compassionate about helping that person, you feel sorry in the sorrow of the other person, then when you do your deed upon that person you are happy, that is a reward is it not? But if you try to make others suffer, try to hurt others, or have bad intention toward others, it also causes you unhappiness, does it not? Do you feel unhappy when your mal intention did not "work"? That is already your "consequence"... , it is not Karma that is false, but the general misconception of Karma that is false...



for more information you can pick up like a summary Gita or some Buddhist philosophical books or even the Upanishad...

I respect all your opinions and it is not necessary that anyone believes in this.. if you do then it is your decision, if you dont, then it is your decision, i am not going to argue, but just express what I think

[Denny Crane!]

Actions, and the result of those actions, surely? The focus being on the result of action rather than the deed itself - otherwise there is no 'karma', just a bunch of stuff you have done.

The key being in what you failed to distinguish. It is essentially cause and effect, but where does the cause and effect take place and is it simply that or does it imply external judgement.

In buddhism the cause and effect idea is related simply to a persons state of mind. That negative actions have negative impacts on your state of mind, that positive actions result in a positive state of mind, the idea being based around a persons psychological health as opposed to their state of reincarnation.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Physical actions have physical reactions (the laws of physics) , mental actions have mental reactions (what Seneca describes). What the common view of karma is has mental actions having physical reactions (a negative motivation leading to negative physical pain, for example) which is simply false.

[Ummagumma]

Ah, the Buddhist philosophy is something I always find intriguing - mainly because I never understand it as fully as I would like to, haha.

Either way, is it safe for me to now assume that (from a Buddhist perspective at least) that Karma is not a universe-wide 'Police Force', but rather a humanised concept of cause and effect? If I steal from you, you will fight me to regain your property - therefore I caused my beating through my own action..

Could it in this case be basically be described as an awareness of sociological interaction? Or in wider terms, if you over harvest fish through greed, the fish will all die out, therefore you have no more fish.. Karma = Causality rather than any supernatural auditing of action?

[Pivra]

Ah, the Buddhist philosophy is something I always find intriguing - mainly because I never understand it as fully as I would like to, haha.

Either way, is it safe for me to now assume that (from a Buddhist perspective at least) that Karma is not a universe-wide 'Police Force', but rather a humanised concept of cause and effect? If I steal from you, you will fight me to regain your property - therefore I caused my beating through my own action..

Could it in this case be basically be described as an awareness of sociological interaction? Or in wider terms, if you over harvest fish through greed, the fish will all die out, therefore you have no more fish.. Karma = Causality rather than any supernatural auditing of action?

Cause-Result... ..... Because of this.... this happens.... because of that..... that happens..... nothing is here without a cause.... nothing happens without a cause.... something always causes it to be there

If I steal from you, you will fight me to regain your property - therefore I caused my beating through my own action..

I might not fight you to regainyour property, but will you be able to use the object you have stolen from me with full happiness and content?

[Denny Crane!]

Ah, the Buddhist philosophy is something I always find intriguing - mainly because I never understand it as fully as I would like to, haha.

Its pretty complicated and ties into buddhist morality, because it is so complicated there are many variations from school to school and you've got to be careful to snip out the mythology and mysticism.

Either way, is it safe for me to now assume that (from a Buddhist perspective at least) that Karma is not a universe-wide 'Police Force', but rather a humanised concept of cause and effect? If I steal from you, you will fight me to regain your property - therefore I caused my beating through my own action..

Nope not at all. It is entirely possible that the person won't fight you, that they will allow you to escape and the police don't catch you and have committed this negative action with zero negative consequences in the physical world.

Could it in this case be basically be described as an awareness of sociological interaction? Or in wider terms, if you over harvest fish through greed, the fish will all die out, therefore you have no more fish.. Karma = Causality rather than any supernatural auditing of action?

No it is entirely based on the psychological effects it will have on you and whether or not you are progressing down the path towards enlightenment. Both are based on the basis of your intentions when you make them and the repurcussions on your state of mind akusala-kamma, actions that will result in unhappiness.

[Ummagumma]

So therefore the implication of some karmic 'arbitration' is a fallacy, rather than the nature of karma itself.. If you can 'get away with it', you can.. there is no cosmic police force - unless you are Hindu.

[Pivra]

So therefore the implication of some karmic 'arbitration' is a fallacy, rather than the nature of karma itself.. If you can 'get away with it', you can.. there is no cosmic police force - unless you are Hindu.

ya... u dont even need to believe in Reincarnations...I believe that you do not have to wait for next life to pay for your bad deeds..... everything is just here in this life...you will get the results in this life..... do you think Stalin got away with his karmas? read his biography...... the consequences dont have to come back in the "same but opositional" form of "punishments" .. its not like... you kill my dog, your dog gets killed ... type of like thing.. but rather ... something more complicated.... Do you think Stalin was a "happy" man? Do you think Stalin did not suffer?

[Ummon]

In strict terms, mental states do have physical consequences, and physical states do have mental effects.

It's the distinction which is fallacious, not the concept of karma.

No judgement of fairness is necessary, the mechanism is implicit to the order of the cosmos. You push in one direction, you will get pushed back from another, unexpected direction.

To understand how and why this happens, is the science of the next century.

Yes. Even if that outside adjudicating form is the universe.

The universe is not outside.

With no memory of his past life, and anyway, who says being an insect is suffering?

The very idea of "no memory" is not entirely correct.

To the eye of any student of history.

The problem is in the fact there is an eye, not the fact that there is a history.