• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Karma is Eye for an Eye

atanu

Member
Premium Member
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.

If seen from the perspective of Hinduism, where the concept of Karma was formalised, the highest truth (God or whatever) has to be out of this. Since:

Neither agency nor actions does the Lord create
for the world, nor union with the fruits of actions.
But it is Nature that acts.
-Gita, Ch.5, Verse 14.

There is no doer, no doing, and no binding to fruits thereof in Truth.

Once a mental doer is created, it has to enjoy the fruits of its doing. The confusion arises because we are steeped in the ignorant understanding that there are innumerable beings and action-reaction progresses like a chain reaction. But the teaching of Vedanta is that in truth there is only the Being with its universal mind. The Being is untainted ever but the mind is ever giving birth to actions-reactions. Whatever is poured in that mind that grows. Pour hatred and experience it. Pour love and experience it.

The Lord takes neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded.
-Gita, Ch.5, Verse 15.


But to those whose ignorance is destroyed by the
knowledge of the Self, like the sun, knowledge reveals the Supreme (Brahman).
-Gita, Ch.5, Verse 16.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
There's a way of seeing the truth in everything.
I realize that much, Patty, but sadly, truth is relative to the information at hand.
Me? I'm too busy gathering data to be terribly concerned with "truth" whatever that is now, or now, or now, or now....
 

zenzero

Its only a Label
Friend Paul,

My guess is you don't do a lot of gardening.
True, it is NONE.
any gardener, worth their salt, realizes they cannot eradicate weeds, they can only temporarily remove them, thus making way for new weeds to grow
Sorry, what should have mentioned is that one just needs to be conscious and consciousness itself like the light keeps darkness/desires at bay.

You make it sound like a Catholic Priest imploring a young parishioner to eradicate sin from their sinful little self.
Sorry if it sounded like that, but again is the lack of communication skills and the environment/background of the discussion in itself.

Thank you. for the pointer.
Love & rgds
 

chinu

chinu
Does it matter what does it? Whether it's nature or another man, there's still some force doing it, getting back at your "crime"
Everybody knows where to get the delisious food.
But if somebody is having a delisious food more than enough in a day and body weight is increasing more than 300kg and getting sick.
Than what type of crime is this ?
 

atanu

Member
Premium Member
For anyone who may wish to read about karma from a teacher's sayings:

:angel2:
The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi
Karma and Destiny
Sri Ramana Maharshi
Edited by David Godman
Preamble
By David Godman



The theory of Karma is common to many oriental religions. In its most popular form it states that there is a universal accounting system in which each individual must experience the consequences of all his actions (Karmas); good actions bring good results and bad actions inevitably result in suffering to the one who does them. The theory also states that the consequences of actions (also known as Karmas) need not necessarily be experienced in the present life, they can be carried over into future lives. Because of this, several sub-divisions of Karma have been postulated. The following classification, which was used by Sri Ramana Maharshi, is common to many Hindu schools of thought.
  1. Sanchita Karma. The store of Karmic debts accumulated from previous births.
  2. Prarabdha Karma. That part of one’s Sanchita Karma which must be worked out in the present life. Because the law of Karma implies determinism in human activities, Prarabdha is often translated as destiny.
  3. Agami Karma. New Karma accumulated in the present lifetime which is carried forward into future lives.
Sri Ramana Maharshi accepted the validity of the laws of Karma but said that they were only applicable as long as a person imagined that he was separate from the Self. At this level (the level of the ajnani or the ignorant), he said that individuals will pass through a series of pre-ordained activities and experiences, all of which are the consequences of previous acts and thoughts. He occasionally even said that every act and experience in a person’s life is determined at birth and that the only freedom one has is to realise that there is no one acting and no one experiencing. However, once one realises the Self there is no one left to experience the consequences of actions and so the whole structure of Karmic laws then becomes redundant.

Sri Ramana regarded the law of Karma as a manifestation of God’s will. He said that prior to Self-realisation there is a personal God, Iswara, who controls each person’s destiny. It is Iswara who has ordained that everyone must suffer the consequences of his actions and it is Iswara who selects the sequences of activities that each person must undergo in each lifetime. One cannot escape from Iswara’s jurisdiction while one still identifies with the activities of the body. The only way to become free of his authority is to transcend Karma completely by realising the Self.
_______________
Question: Is it posssible to overcome, even while the body exists, the Prarabdha Karma which is said to last till the end of the body?
Sri Ramana Maharshi: Yes. If the agent, upon whom the Karma depends, namely the ego, which has come into existence between the body and the Self, merges in its source and loses its form, how can the Karma, which depends upon it, survive? When there is no ‘I’ there is no Karma.
------
Karma & Destiny
:angel2:


Karma & Destiny
 

no-body

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

Like I said karma is complex it isn't that simple. Different denominations also view karma differently. But even the most simple basic western definition of karma does not equal "an eye for an eye" that is like saying gravity is like an eye for an eye. Even the simplest most basic definition which says what you give is what you get is not an eye for an eye it's not like you have a choice in believing it. It is not directed and/or ruled by any sort of deity or personal force.


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.

If you don't want to believe in it, hey don't. You can still follow the eastern religions without such a belief. You will soon learn that it is factual however just by examining your life. It is nothing you "choose" to do.

I believe it is a difficult topic for westerners to understand. True there are people even in the east who use karma as a way to excuse the suffering of the lower castes/poor but that is just humanity. Any belief will lead to people misusing it.

To myself who favors a new-age/Buddhist belief of karma (as I do not believe in literal reincarnation) it is a way to explain the question "why me?" the present moment is all that matters. Don't quote me on that as especially hindus will have a totally different interpretation of karma. But hopefully you can understand what I am getting at.
 

nameless

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

IMHO, Not true.
Hinduism and Buddhism believes living beings are capable to take revenge using their mind power. Karma is just a process like shooting, believing in it does not mean it is against morals.
Buddhism and hinduism actually teaches to remain equal minded at all sorts of situations so that there wont be any karmic effects.
 
Last edited:

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
The Jungian concept of Enantiodromia bears a resemblance to karma.

Enantiodromia (Greek: ἐνάντιος, enantios, opposite + δρόμος, dromos, running course) is a principle introduced by psychiatrist Carl Jung that the superabundance of any force inevitably produces its opposite. It is equivalent to the principle of equilibrium in the natural world, in that any extreme is opposed by the system in order to restore balance.

Though "enantiodromia" was coined by Jung, it is implied in the writings of Heraclitus. In fr. 126, for example, Heraclitus says "cold things warm, warm things cool, wet things dry and parched things get wet."[1] It also seems implicit in other of his sayings, like "war is father of all, king of all" (fr. 53), "they do not know that the differing/opposed thing agrees with itself; harmony is reflexive (παλίντροπος palintropos, used of a compound bow, or "in reflexive tension"), like the bow and the lyre" (fr. 51). In these passages and others the idea of the coincidence of opposites is clearly articulated in Heraclitus' characteristic riddling style, as well as the dynamic motion back and forth between the two, generated especially by opposition and conflict.

Later Plato in the Phaedo will articulate the principle clearly: "Everything arises in this way, opposites from their opposites." (sect. 71a).[2]

Since Jung's recognition of it many centuries later it has been observed in modern culture. For example, it has been applied to subject of the film The Lives of Others, to show how one devoted to a communist regime breaks through his loyalty and emerges a humanist.

Jung used the term particularly to refer to the unconscious acting against the wishes of the conscious mind. (Aspects of the Masculine, chapter 7, paragraph 294).
Enantiodromia. Literally, "running counter to," referring to the emergence of the unconscious opposite in the course of time. This characteristic phenomenon practically always occurs when an extreme, one-sided tendency dominates conscious life; in time an equally powerful counterposition is built up, which first inhibits the conscious performance and subsequently breaks through the conscious control. ("Definitions," ibid., par. 709)
Enantiodromia is typically experienced in conjunction with symptoms associated with acute neurosis, and often foreshadows a rebirth of the personality.
The grand plan on which the unconscious life of the psyche is constructed is so inaccessible to our understanding that we can never know what evil may not be necessary in order to produce good by enantiodromia, and what good may very possibly lead to evil. ("The Phenomenology of the Spirit in Fairytales", Collected Works 9i, par. 397)
The term has also been applied as a neologism to describe the tendency of a younger generation to manifest the undesirable traits of a previous generation, despite the repudiation of these traits when they were young.

Two scientific ideas which appear similar to enantiodromia are Newton's third law of motion and the Gibbs entropy formula.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
As you wish, but I have no idea what approach you're taking to this.
Simply put, Patty. Karma has as much influence over you AS you believe it does. I can't put it much plainer than that.
 
Last edited:

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Friend Paul,

Are you unaffected by karma, friend??

Love & rgds
Inasmuch as I do not believe in sin, I am, literally, without sin. This does not mean that I do not do what some may perceive as sinful actions. The point is that sin has no bearing on how I perceive reality.

Likewise, I do not believe in "karma" or a universal "law of karma". I do, however, believe that actions have consequences. How far the consequences of those actions goes, is a difficult question to answer. I don't have the answer, but more importantly, from my perspective, I am fairly sure others don't have the answer either, though many do have a tendency to simplify reality to conform to their limited understanding of reality.

For example, in regards to "karma", from which action do you start measuring, to which conclusion?
"Karma" works well in a black and white reality, where everything is cut and dried, but it breaks down when one sees reality as innumerable shades of grey.
 
Last edited:

Infinitum

Possessed Bookworm
Isn't it a bit against its own morals for Buddhism or Hinduism to believe in Karma, since Karma is merely revenge in itself?
We talked about karma in depth a bit earlier already, so I'll just sum up a few problems with this particular question.

First of all, karma isn't only a negative force. As people have stated in the thread already, your actions produce either good or bad things that karma is said to bring back to you at one point or another. Also karma doesn't have to be thought about something on a social level (I hit you, someone hits me), but can be viewed at something personal too (I am angry at someone, later I feel like someone hates me).

Because karma isn't only a negative force, you can't really say it would be working against the morals of Buddhism or Hinduism. You could say it merely states the fact that if you do good, you tend to get the same back, and the other way around. It's a huge simplification of course, but it doesn't sound that immoral to me. Actually it makes more sense than the Christian view for example, where evil is generally thought to be negated with simply asking for forgiveness. (ps. I'm still simplifying things here.)
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
It's a huge simplification of course, but it doesn't sound that immoral to me. Actually it makes more sense than the Christian view for example, where evil is generally thought to be negated with simply asking for forgiveness. (ps. I'm still simplifying things here.)
I would tend to agree with this, the way I view it now is that these religions are simply telling people to pay attention to their actions and not get overly attached to the results of those actions. 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.
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
Beliefs don't influence you?
Given that I do not believe in "karma", no, "karma" has no influence on me. It is not part of the equation in my personal reality. That does not mean that I am not influenced by the thinking of others. All I am saying is that "actions have consequences (that are neither inherently good nor bad)". That is as far as I can see, at this stage, and report with any honesty.

I no longer look at the world through the eyes of karmic certainty, but understand why many take solace in the certainty of that outlook.
 

blackout

Violet.
I think people like the idea that there is some (ultimate) 'guarantee' of 'justice' in the Universe.

Be it 'God the Judge',
or the 'Karma of the Universe'.

Man's 'Eye for an Eye" guarantees justice
only through the fist or sword of the (allegedly) wronged.
 
Top