Karma is Eye for an Eye

[Hevenly Heathen]

In many ways, "karma" has become a sort of cosmic chequebook, littered with debits and credits. Reality isn't anywhere near so neat and tidy.

Think of Karma as more like a beautiful, obstacle free path to Ascension through a swamp. Straying from the path there is no 'punishment', it's just more difficult to get there. There are signs telling you how to get back, but it's up to you to follow them. If you die before you reach the end, you are reincarnated and must try again to reach the goal.

 

[Tathagata]

Was gonna comment but the folks on page 2 and 3 already gave excellent satisfactory responses to the issue bright up in the OP.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Isn't it a bit against its own morals for Buddhism or Hinduism to believe in Karma, since Karma is merely revenge in itself?

Please visit this site to get correct information.

FAQ on Theory of Karma in Hinduism

The Karma you speak about is the corrupted western one, not the real one.

 

[YmirGF]

Think of Karma as more like a beautiful, obstacle free path to Ascension through a swamp. Straying from the path there is no 'punishment', it's just more difficult to get there. There are signs telling you how to get back, but it's up to you to follow them. If you die before you reach the end, you are reincarnated and must try again to reach the goal.

So, you seek to explain "karma" to someone who subscribed to the concept for 20-25 years?
*Giggle*

Was gonna comment but the folks on page 2 and 3 already gave excellent satisfactory responses to the issue bright up in the OP.

SO... which was it, excellent or merely satisfactory? The two adjectives are not usually used in tandem. Satisfactory means that is was passable, not great, but passable. Excellent means that it was absolutely superb, drop dead, fantastic.

I only ask because I didn't see anything particularly impressive on either page.

Please visit this site to get correct information.

FAQ on Theory of Karma in Hinduism

The Karma you speak about is the corrupted western one, not the real one.

It seemed more like assumptive, derivative drivel, but I do agree that it is very similar to my understanding of karma, that I held for decades.

 

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF/Paul,

Given that I do not believe in "karma", no, "karma" has no influence on me

Personally have no belief system but am born human with balances of karma. Yes am working towards completion of karma but does not mean that they are complete and am free of them.
If you are free yourself, then why do you still have *dreams* that is a sign that you are still not fully awake as karma affects the mind and so the dreams even in positive or subtle ways.

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend YmirGF/Paul,

So, you seek to explain "karma" to someone who subscribed to the concept for 20-25 years?
*Giggle*

That is egoistic as karma starts the day the being takes birth and have no knowledge how many births have had had by now to understand karma even Bhagwan Mahavir had been able to regress his past lives atleast 27 known where the karmic effect is depicted clearly but have heard that he did know all his past lives since the being started its journey which was 500 plus lives [may be have heard wrongly]
So laughing having known something just 20-25 years is too jumpish...

Love & rgds

 

[YmirGF]

Friend YmirGF/Paul,

Personally have no belief system but am born human with balances of karma. Yes am working towards completion of karma but does not mean that they are complete and am free of them.
If you are free yourself, then why do you still have *dreams* that is a sign that you are still not fully awake as karma affects the mind and so the dreams even in positive or subtle ways.

Love & rgds

I don't subscribe to your views on dreams or karma, my dear, dear friend, so it is no surprise that you would be confused.
Evidently I have a much different approach to dreams than do you.

The diversity in Oneness is a marvel, ain't it?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Paul,

I don't subscribe to your views on dreams or karma, my dear, dear friend, so it is no surprise that you would be confused.
Evidently I have a much different approach to dreams than do you.

The diversity in Oneness is a marvel, ain't it?__________________

Kindly demonstrate the diversity, am open to CHANGE which is permanent!

Love & rgds

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

YmirGF;2888095]

It seemed more like assumptive, derivative drivel, but I do agree that it is very similar to my understanding of karma, that I held for decades.

Which question (on the website) was "assumptive, derivative drivel to you?

You seem to have your mind made up already about "your" theory of Karma. Why ask questions then?

Can you prove Karma is eye for an eye system?

Please quote original Hindu texts and scriptures if you can.

 

[YmirGF]

Friend Paul,



Kindly demonstrate the diversity, am open to CHANGE which is permanent!

Love & rgds

Rather than derail the thread, I have sent you a PM... Hmmmm... a PM from PM written in the PM.

 

[YmirGF]

Which question (on the website) was "assumptive, derivative drivel to you?

You seem to have your mind made up already about "your" theory of Karma. Why ask questions then?

Can you prove Karma is eye for an eye system?

Please quote original Hindu texts and scriptures if you can.

Ah, sorry, no, I have moved past that part. I dismiss the entire notion of karma outright, which is why I called it "assumptive, derivative drivel". I agree that the retribution angle is more obvious in the western bastardization of karma. Plus I've already given my opinion on what the original motive for introducing karma may have been in Buddhism and Hinduism.

Anything else?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Ah, sorry, no, I have moved past that part. I dismiss the entire notion of karma outright, which is why I called it "assumptive, derivative drivel". I agree that the retribution angle is more obvious in the western bastardization of karma. Plus I've already given my opinion on what the original motive for introducing karma may have been in Buddhism and Hinduism.

Anything else?

No, that is it from me.

you have made up your mind, i don't want to change that.



OM TATH SATH

 

[nameless]

In some respects, it is reality smacking you in the back of the head, until you learn to pay attention to your actions..

bit off-topic question, do you believe jesus paid attention to his actions?

 

[YmirGF]

bit off-topic question, do you believe jesus paid attention to his actions?

Assuming that Jesus was a real figure in history...

1. The real Jesus, absolutely...
2. The Jesus portrayed in the Bible, not so much...

 

[Astravalon]

I think the only thing that can be safely said is that action (or inaction) has consequences. Whether those consequences haunt the individual from life to life is a bit of a stretch and should be taken with several boxes of salt.

I agree.

If there's any Divine Design behind the whole karmic
system -- and if karma is indeed not meant to "punish" but
rather to "teach" -- then waiting until a subsequent life to
reap the results of a previous life's actions really makes no
sense to me. The person (or whatever creature they're
assigned to be in the next life) isn't going to understand
why they're experiencing those karmic effects. A far more
sensible approach would be for karma to kick in and
do-what-it-do within a single life-span, when the lesson can
be learned as the individual is still able to make a
constructive connection between cause and effect.

Like I said previously (post 9), I wouldn't be surprised if the
"you'll get yours in the next life" concept was constructed
more for the consolation of those who aren't satisfied that
the other guy is getting what they feel is a fitting
punishment during the current life span when they can
personally witness it.


.

 

[atanu]

I agree.

If there's any Divine Design behind the whole karmic
system -- and if karma is indeed not meant to "punish" but
rather to "teach" -- then waiting until a subsequent life to
reap the results of a previous life's actions really makes no
sense to me. -----Like I said previously (post 9), I wouldn't be surprised if the "you'll get yours in the next life" concept was constructed
------
.

But the beautiful dark one teaches in Gita that the ways of karma is inscrutable.

 

[YmirGF]

But the beautiful dark one teaches in Gita that the ways of karma is inscrutable.

Indeed, and it's not like anything written in books could possibly be wrong or highly distorted.

 

[Astravalon]

But the beautiful dark one teaches in Gita that the ways of karma is inscrutable.

Very true. Which is why I had also said in my previous post (#9)
that what folks don't realize is that karma can work behind the
scenes in less visible ways that only the one for whom it's
intended can appreciate. Which makes it very inscrutable
indeed!

.

 

[Astravalon]

Indeed, and it's not like anything written in books could possibly be wrong or highly distorted.

Well, yes, this is a good point.

Did the beautiful dark one say it, or did someone say that
He said it? This is the sort of questioning I finally learned to
ask myself after years of leaning just a bit too heavily on
my bible. It's all too easy to put words in God's mouth.

Not that the ways of karma aren't still mysterious, but I
figure that along with the mystery there's also at least as
much common-sense behind it as can be found in any human
system. Hence my tendency to believe that karma's time is
better spent achieving it's aim within the span of a single
lifetime for the reasons I've already mentioned. To drag out
unpleasant karmic effects over hundreds of lifetimes, when
the individual isn't going to understand why, is, at best,
inefficient, and at worst, rather cruel, imo.

.

 

[YmirGF]

I agree.

If there's any Divine Design behind the whole karmic
system -- and if karma is indeed not meant to "punish" but
rather to "teach" -- then waiting until a subsequent life to
reap the results of a previous life's actions really makes no
sense to me.

Exactly. The notion actually brings out some very unseemly things into the equation. The concept of karma does not reflect well on people who are living in poverty or on the fringes of society. It works moderately better if you have a full belly and employment, allowing you the luxury of time to gaze at your expanding navel.

The person (or whatever creature they're assigned to be in the next life) isn't going to understand why they're experiencing those karmic effects.

Bingo... unless, of course, they become aware of this vaunted "karmic law" again.

The whole idea is predicated on the notion of "getting it right" or "doing the right thing", which assumes that, if left unguided (by the so-called "enlightened") the individual is essentially doomed to wallow in the debased imperfection of human nature.

A far more sensible approach would be for karma to kick in and do-what-it-do within a single life-span, when the lesson can be learned as the individual is still able to make a constructive connection between cause and effect.

Very good, Grasshopper. My guess is that the addition of the "next life" scenario, was intended to cut off discussion about the inherent flaws in the concept itself as there is no known way to falsify the assertion.

Like I said previously (post 9), I wouldn't be surprised if the "you'll get yours in the next life" concept was constructed more for the consolation of those who aren't satisfied that the other guy is getting what they feel is a fitting
punishment during the current life span when they can personally witness it.

Very perceptive. I'd agree with this too.

For example, in the most informative link that Satyamavejayanti provided, we see from the start of the very first question the flow of the entire article.

Question: Why we see bad people getting so powerful?

Answer:
The inverse of above is true in most cases.
1. These bad people are never at internal peace. Nature did not design us to tolerate being corrupt, cheat, criminal, crooked etc. Even if we learn to ignore symptoms, these do cause their adverse effects. Despite having material power, these people are the most unhappy ones we know – always insecure, tense, trusting none and facing mental troubles. (snip)

First off, the article implies that this universe is designed by a higher intelligence. (The writer knows this how, exactly? It is simply an article of faith and not the brightest way to posit an argument.)

What is more telling is the narrow description of what a powerful person is like. It is a load of nonsense, practically from the get go and yet, it is offered as an example of erudite thinking.

Further on, we come to:

Question: What is the goal of life?

Answer:
To gain ultimate level of happiness, by using this Theory of Karma.

Um, happiness is not the goal, it's merely a fringe benefit.