Karma is Eye for an Eye

[Draka]

Karma is.

Karma is not a being. It cannot seek revenge as it cannot seek. You might as well say the tornado meant to tear up the barn because the barn angered it somehow. You're trying to apply human feelings and intentions to things and concepts. That argument will fail every time.

 

[Sleeppy]

Karma is not a being. It cannot seek revenge as it cannot seek. You might as well say the tornado meant to tear up the barn because the barn angered it somehow. You're trying to apply human feelings and intentions to things and concepts. That argument will fail every time.

If it isn't seeking, then what is it doing?

 

[Sleeppy]

What does "an eye for an eye" have to do with revenge?

That's what I'd like to know. Isn't the "eye for and eye" concept highly mitigatory, given the law at the time?

What are you two saying?

 

[Draka]

If it isn't seeking, then what is it doing?

It isn't "doing" anything. Does light "do" things? Does gravity "do" things? Do weather patterns "do" things? They just are. They just exist. Same as karma.

 

[SageTree]

Buddhist and Hindus didn't create Karma, therefore how can the religion be the one perpetrating the crime against it's own values?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Karma is.

So, revenge got revenge on you. What gibberish.

 

[SageTree]

Lol!!!!

 

[Sleeppy]

It isn't "doing" anything. Does light "do" things? Does gravity "do" things? Do weather patterns "do" things? They just are. They just exist. Same as karma.

These things are doing.. Anything existing is doing.

 

[Draka]

These things are doing.. Anything existing is doing.

No, they are cause and effect only. "Doing" implies intent. Those things have no intent. In order to have intent there must be will, in order to have will there must be consciousness. Where there is no consciousness, no self-aware life, there can be no intent, and therefore, no "doing" of anything.

Karma does not "do" anything. It is simply a philosophy of universal balance of energy. Both negative and positive.

 

[Sleeppy]

No, they are cause and effect only. "Doing" implies intent. Those things have no intent. In order to have intent there must be will, in order to have will there must be consciousness. Where there is no consciousness, no self-aware life, there can be no intent, and therefore, no "doing" of anything.

Karma does not "do" anything. It is simply a philosophy of universal balance of energy. Both negative and positive.

Are you defining using your beliefs?

 

[Draka]

Are you defining using your beliefs?

My beliefs have nothing to do with it. I'm just not anthropomorphizing a concept, like others here seem to be doing. It's simple logic really. That which has no conscious cannot consciously do anything. No decisions. No intent. No emotion. To say otherwise would be akin to saying gravity is the earth's way of hugging us because it loves us.

 

[Sleeppy]

My beliefs have nothing to do with it. I'm just not anthropomorphizing a concept, like others here seem to be doing. It's simple logic really. That which has no conscious cannot consciously do anything. No decisions. No intent. No emotion. To say otherwise would be akin to saying gravity is the earth's way of hugging us because it loves us.

Well that's not what I'm doing. I'm being precise. True.. without a conscious nothing is done consciously. But, that isn't to say it isn't done. Gravity is doing.

 

[Draka]

Well that's not what I'm doing. I'm being precise. True.. without a conscious nothing is done consciously. But, that isn't to say it isn't done. Gravity is doing.

Gravity is doing what? And when did it decide to do so?

Also, are you just here to argue semantics with me, or do you honestly believe that karma actively seeks revenge? Keeping in mind that in order to seek anything there must be a will of intent.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

You are anthropomorphizing karma. Karma is cause and effect, karma is a law like gravity. There is nothing personal in karma; it is not a cosmic justice with a clear set of rules to adhere to. You can try and manipulate karma but the point of most eastern religions is to escape its wheel in the first place.

Someone mentioned my name is earl because that is the kind of karma you are thinking of. This version is very popular in the west sorry but karma is not as easy as "what goes around comes around" and "do good things good things happen, do bad things bad things happen" Read up on karma, it is much more complex than that.

So modern understanding of karma does not imply you get pain if you cause pain? Then what is it? give examples please.

An example of complexity is the circle analogy A hits B, B hits C, C hits D, D shoves E with the same impact as a hit, then E returns it to A, over 3 lifetimes.

Another is money: 4 quarters, a dolllar bill, or 100 pennies all have the same value. So you can work out a dollars worth of karma from one very intense experience by having 100 less intense experiences in return.

But does that matter, it basically ends in A getting hit for hitting B. It doesn't matter what the cycle is, A gets hit for hitting B, either way.

Revenge is intentional retaliation by someone wronged. Karma is cosmic and personal balance. The wronged have nothing to do with your karma. It's negative and positive balancing out. You give out negative into the world and negative must return to you. Same goes with positive as well. None of that is "revenge".

As I said, why does the cycle matter? Eventually, as you said, you give a negative, you'll receive a negative. That might not be direct, or intentional retaliation, but revenge doesn't exactly need to be an eye for an eye. It can be a leg for an eye, anything like that.

 

[Draka]

So modern understanding of karma does not imply you get pain if you cause pain? Then what is it? give examples please.



But does that matter, it basically ends in A getting hit for hitting B. It doesn't matter what the cycle is, A gets hit for hitting B, either way.



As I said, why does the cycle matter? Eventually, as you said, you give a negative, you'll receive a negative. That might not be direct, or intentional retaliation, but revenge doesn't exactly need to be an eye for an eye. It can be a leg for an eye, anything like that.

Either you don't understand what karma really is or what revenge is or both.

Revenge means to take vengeance upon someone. It requires a will and a feeling of being wronged in someway. Karma has neither of these. Karma is a universal balance of energy concept. A simple 'what you send out you get back' as a means of balancing the energy in one's life and the universe in general.

Think of it like hormones, you have a particular balance of hormones in your body. If those hormones get out of natural balance it can mess with your physical wellbeing. If a woman loses estrogen, as happens in menopause, she takes in estrogen to rebalance her hormones. What is lost must come back in order for there to be balance.

This is much the same as the concept of karma. Only karma deals with the spiritual and with energy instead of hormones and the physical. If you send out positive energy then it must be replaced, so you will receive positive energy to rebalance you. If you send out negative then it must be returned to you as well. It has nothing to do with vengeance or revenge, it is just a balance thing. That is all.

 

[Sleeppy]

Gravity is doing what? And when did it decide to do so?

Also, are you just here to argue semantics with me, or do you honestly believe that karma actively seeks revenge? Keeping in mind that in order to seek anything there must be a will of intent.

Gravity is existing, firstly. That's the only requirement of 'doing'.

I'm not here to do anything with you, but help, in both directions. I understand your points. But, I'd have to question you before I could show my understanding.

With me, if I were to give my understanding of karma, it would incorporate God. But, I don't know what your beliefs are. And perhaps you don't know what the thread starter's are either? There wasn't much elaboration.

 

[Draka]

Gravity is existing, firstly. That's the only requirement of 'doing'.

I'm not here to do anything with you, but help, in both directions. I understand your points. But, I'd have to question you before I could show my understanding.

With me, if I were to give my understanding of karma, it would incorporate God. But, I don't know what your beliefs are. And perhaps you don't know what the thread starter's are either? There wasn't much elaboration.

I'm pretty sure Sum's "understanding" of karma is a misunderstanding.

As for our back and forth about "doing", I think we are using different definitions or understandings of the word. The case of seeking revenge, that cannot be "done" without a will. It is an action, and "doing", is this regard, deals with action. An active action of intent. In that vein, only things with a conscious will can have the intent to "do" anything, including seek revenge. There are other usages of the word, but I am referring to the one which implies active intent. Which I believe is the most pertinent to this conversation as the issue here seems to anthropomorphize, as I said before.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Karma is the present moment taking revenge on the previous moment for happening.

While amrak is the past sowing unintended consequences.

 

[Sleeppy]

I'm pretty sure Sum's "understanding" of karma is a misunderstanding.

Maybe.. Maybe not, in certain instances.

As for our back and forth about "doing", I think we are using different definitions or understandings of the word. The case of seeking revenge, that cannot be "done" without a will. It is an action, and "doing", is this regard, deals with action. An active action of intent. In that vein, only things with a conscious will can have the intent to "do" anything, including seek revenge. There are other usages of the word, but I am referring to the one which implies active intent. Which I believe is the most pertinent to this conversation as the issue here seems to anthropomorphize, as I said before.

Your problem is with the implied attributing of emotion and decision into Karma. I don't think that's what Sum was meaning to imply. But even so, what does it matter if Karma isn't deciding its doings, if the result is the same as revenge? That's what I think he's getting at.

 

[Draka]

Maybe.. Maybe not, in certain instances.



Your problem is with the implied attributing of emotion and decision into Karma. I don't think that's what Sum was meaning to imply. But even so, what does it matter if Karma isn't deciding its doings, if the result is the same as revenge? That's what I think he's getting at.

Would it be considered "revenge" if a very charitable person won the lottery? what would it be considered then?