Yahweh better than Krishna?

[Father Heathen]

There is no 'good' or 'bad' karma. Karma is the law that every action has an equal reaction. Whether you consider the action and reaction good or bad is subjective.
The laws of Karma, Maya, the material universe, are all energies of God. And ultimately, it is all Consciousness.

In a sense it is true that God governs nature, but it is also true that God is not separate from nature.

So "karma" is just a word for luck. Gotcha.

 

[Riverwolf]

So "karma" is just a word for luck. Gotcha.

When did "action" equal "luck?"

 

[Madhuri]

So "karma" is just a word for luck. Gotcha.

I don't know how you got that meaning.

 

[Me Myself]

So "karma" is just a word for luck. Gotcha.

If by "luck" you mean a force that we can control and use for our happiness if we are moral people, then yeah I guess it is a word for "luck".

 

[Father Heathen]

When did "action" equal "luck?"

Because apparently there is no standard or consistency that dictates what actions result in what reactions when it comes to karma.

 

[Father Heathen]

If by "luck" you mean a force that we can control and use for our happiness if we are moral people, then yeah I guess it is a word for "luck".

But it's all apparently subjective, and if you experience karma from a supposed past life that you have no recollection of, then you don't have much control over it. And if there is no positive or negative karma, how does morality factor in?

 

[Me Myself]

Because apparently there is no standard or consistency that dictates what actions result in what reactions when it comes to karma.

Oh there is. It´s just complicated and kind of trascends words.

It would be like explaining eyesight to a blind man from birth, and by that I mean I am not fully clear on it´s functioning, although I can feel it in an intuitive level.

the thing that should be clear is that you do an act (any act) with great cruelty in your heart ( = deliberately making people suffer and knowingly do so) then you will suffer equally or proportionately in the future when that karma comes back to you.

You must know that the word karma literaly means "action". When you say something is because of "karma" you are saying something is because of action. The action of the one recieving such karma

 

[Madhuri]

Because apparently there is no standard or consistency that dictates what actions result in what reactions when it comes to karma.

I disagree.
We are unable to predict karma, because it is incredibly complex and extends from the beginning of time.

 

[Me Myself]

But it's all apparently subjective, and if you experience karma from a supposed past life that you have no recollection of, then you don't have much control over it. And if there is no positive or negative karma, how does morality factor in?

Well, is complicated. If you learn to accept your own suffering then you can say the suffering you experienced wasnt "bad" because it made you learn a lesson and probably also helped you know you don´t wan´t to make people suffer like that in the future.

You do have control over you future karma and evwen when you do not conciously remember, your soul do remembers (I know you don´t believe in this because you are an atheist, but I am talking to you about the inner logic here).

Because the soul remembers, then the soul does influence the unconcious and the subconcious and then the concious, so over various reincarnations, one learns.

 

[Riverwolf]

Because apparently there is no standard or consistency that dictates what actions result in what reactions when it comes to karma.

I would argue that there are a ton of factors. Consider the butterfly effect. (If you haven't heard of it, it's when a butterfly flaps its wings in Hong Kong, and as a result, there are thunderstorms instead of sunshine in New York.)

Every single action is the effect of another action. Even in science, we can't see all the factors. That doesn't mean there aren't any.

 

[Madhuri]

Because the soul remembers, then the soul does influence the unconcious and the subconcious and then the concious, so over various reincarnations, one learns.

Ooohhh, getting into deeper philosophy here
Discussing Hindu concepts is always complicated!

Here I assume you are speaking of how the soul (or eternal spiritual body) influences the astral body, which in turn influences the physical body.

 

[Riverwolf]

But it's all apparently subjective, and if you experience karma from a supposed past life that you have no recollection of, then you don't have much control over it. And if there is no positive or negative karma, how does morality factor in?

Morality is something us humans came up with. Karma is far beyond that.

 

[Me Myself]

Ooohhh, getting into deeper philosophy here
Discussing Hindu concepts is always complicated!

Here I assume you are speaking of how the soul (or eternal spiritual body) influences the astral body, which in turn influences the physical body.

Well I talk to what makes sense to me personally

You probably exceed me by a lot in conceptual and maybe intiutive understanding on it but I do get that a lot of people that remember past lifes after some session come to understand fears and desires they have in this life and also believe it would make sense the way I put it

but yeah what you said sounds around right on what I am saying

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What a worthless post. Of course everyone thinks their own god is the "real" one.

hehehe.. I was waiting for someone to compliment my superior debating skills on display in that post

 

[rsd]

If it is, my vote is for the Norse gods. They have weapons.

Did you not know that Krsna has a weapon?

 

[atanu]

Shalom/Namaste,

I don't want to offend Hindus and people of pagan faiths, but isn't the Abrahamic idea of an angry God much better than the sweet, loving god of the pagans? Consider a terrible tragedy like the plague which wiped out half of Europe. It's easy to believe that an angry God of the OT allowed it to happen rather than a 'nice, happy' god like Krishna.

So if at all one believes in God, wouldn't the Abrahamic one be more reasonable, considering the tragedies that always occur in this world?

Actually you have not dived deep. Krishna showed Himself to be all devouring kAla - time, and that form Arjuna could not withstand. Krishna then assumed His sweet form.

 

[Gaura Priya]

The Krishna conception of Godhead has a different mood and flavour than Yehovah of the Tanakh. Because Krishna is represented in so many different forms, moods, aspects and incarnations, it shows that God is capable of manifesting a relationship beyond and within the human conception. He is inconceivable, but He makes Himself somewhat conceivable for the pleasure of His devotees.

We can exchange a very sweet and personal relationship with Him, as a Father, Mother, Best Friend (and I mean, the Dude and Buddy of us all), Master, Lover, and even as a Son. Whatever relationship a devotee desires with God, He reciprocates out of love.

Although He is the Supreme Controller, He is yet controlled by the love of His devotees. Although He is Unmanifested, He manifests His pastimes (lila) to delight the mind and soul.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Shalom/Namaste,

I don't want to offend Hindus and people of pagan faiths, but isn't the Abrahamic idea of an angry God much better than the sweet, loving god of the pagans? Consider a terrible tragedy like the plague which wiped out half of Europe. It's easy to believe that an angry God of the OT allowed it to happen rather than a 'nice, happy' god like Krishna.

So if at all one believes in God, wouldn't the Abrahamic one be more reasonable, considering the tragedies that always occur in this world?

I see and agree.

Though, I wouldn't use the word 'better', just more 'considerable' in that case.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I don't think a lot of people read the last part of the OP.

Basically, because the OP claims Yahweh tends to have emotional problems sometimes, and this world is full of suffering, wouldn't he be more likely to be real.

 

[Jainarayan]

You know, as a child, Krishna was quite the troublemaker.

I can just hear Yashoda saying to Him: "You just wait until Your father gets home!" Krishna must have driven her to distraction.