Who's Karma is it??

[mammax3]

One of my first 'serious' boyfriends (well over a decade ago) told me that "No one would ever love me" when I broke it off with him. That is the words from a spurned man. I never believed it and tossed it off as anger.

 

My partner of 10 years recently left me for another woman. People have said he'll get what's coming to him, and Karma or God or whoever will even things out for him. But, I've been thinking...

 

What if this is my Karma (whatever you want to call it) for something I've done in my past (or another past life)?

 

No question really, I'm just pondering this idea.

[D-Lish]

I think that it's logical that if you give good things that good things naturally come back to you. If you dish out a lot of crap and BS, it will naturally catch up with you at some point.

 

Other than that, I believe that life is pretty random. Some things we can control, some things we can't control.

[Lovelybird]

I agree that if you give out love and cares and good things, then you will receive these things in return. If you did bad things and give out hatred, bitterness or any other negative things, then you will receive those things if without repent and real changing happen.

 

BUT there is large room for change if you want to change no matter what kind of past you had: Ask God to change. I asked God to change through prayers, and He did it. sometimes God shows me through little things that HE is able and totally in control of everything, and I just need to trust in Him totally. It is great joy when you see your prayers got answered by God and knowing that God is with you.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Lovelybird

[Prodigal Princess]

In an ideal world, karma would exist - then we could rest easy after a bad break-up knowing that one day he would suffer just as much as we did!

 

However, I believe that everything is random and meaningless. I know complete jerks living the good life, and do-gooders who seem to suffer constant set-backs.

 

Please don't think that you deserve bad things to happen to you, mammax3 - it could end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[4givrnt4gtr]

Im sorry but i do believe in Karma (and maybe thats why it belives in me??? hm..)

Back in hs, i hurt this guy, very very horribly. I dated him while i liked someone else A LOT. I just bassically used him to get over the other guy, but it never worked. Worst thing is that he found out and just bassically crushed him. I put him on a pull and push situation for over three years, but never did i think it would come back to bite me in the behind like it did.

 

Fastforward about 5 years later. I met this awesome guy. He asked me out and we started dating. A month later he tells me he isnt sure so i break it off (mamma didnt raise no fool! ). Ohh but then the fun begins...he acts much like i did back in hs with that one guy...acting sad and depressed cuz he let me go. We got into the whole pull and push I did with my ex...only this time i was in the receiving end. It wasnt until one day the guy came over to talk to me and clear things up. He tells me he actually was in love with someone else, and had used me to forget her. It hit me right in the face...It was as if I had transformed into my old bf and the guy had become me. I finally understood the kind of pain i put that poor guy thru. I felt miserable, not only bc of what this guy was telling me, but also bc i put someone thru it too. (I guess mamma did raise a fool after all ) I called my old ex and apologized profusedly for what i had done. Unfortunately he was still in love with me and tried to rekindled....sad sad days.

 

Another proof of karma gone wild was 2 years ago...this time in my favor. My roommate in college and I were really really close. I loved that girl, she was like my little sister. Well, a new guy came into our group and he started flirting with me. I would tell her all about it...ALL of it...what he did what he said. EVERYTHING. THe guy and I hanged out for 6 months. Sort of like a FWB thing, but i was hoping it would move to more once i left the school after graduation. (Again, mamma apparently DID raise a fool). Anyhow, after i graduated i started hearing less from him. He would still call once in a while, we would hang out and hook up sometimes, but not as much as before.

Well, later i find out he was hooking up with my roommate. In fact, he asked her to be his gf. talk about backstabb. In fact it hurt me more that she would do that than anything else.

 

anyway...that was maybe december 06. Fastfoward to last december. Last I heard, she was getting into catfights with her best friend...apparently he is doing the exact same thing to her that he did to me.

 

Karma is a BIIIIIIITTTT****

[NoIDidn't]

I wouldn't consider those experiences karma, just growing and wising up.

 

I would bet that if you changed your environment and the kind of men you date, you would get different results (provided you look into why you behaved the way you did in the past).

 

Not trying to sound like a psychologist at all. I don't believe in Karma the way that most people mean it, because that's not Karma -that's more like some sort of cosmic vengence.

 

I believe we all reap what we sow, but the timing is always up to circumstances and chance than to anything else. I have always seen jerks and the like living the good life, and friendly, gentle people getting the shaft. It doesn't seem fair if this Karma everyone talks about existed the way its often presented. It would seem that the opposite would be true based on that theory.

 

 

Im sorry but i do believe in Karma (and maybe thats why it belives in me??? hm..)

Back in hs, i hurt this guy, very very horribly. I dated him while i liked someone else A LOT. I just bassically used him to get over the other guy, but it never worked. Worst thing is that he found out and just bassically crushed him. I put him on a pull and push situation for over three years, but never did i think it would come back to bite me in the behind like it did.

 

Fastforward about 5 years later. I met this awesome guy. He asked me out and we started dating. A month later he tells me he isnt sure so i break it off (mamma didnt raise no fool! ). Ohh but then the fun begins...he acts much like i did back in hs with that one guy...acting sad and depressed cuz he let me go. We got into the whole pull and push I did with my ex...only this time i was in the receiving end. It wasnt until one day the guy came over to talk to me and clear things up. He tells me he actually was in love with someone else, and had used me to forget her. It hit me right in the face...It was as if I had transformed into my old bf and the guy had become me. I finally understood the kind of pain i put that poor guy thru. I felt miserable, not only bc of what this guy was telling me, but also bc i put someone thru it too. (I guess mamma did raise a fool after all ) I called my old ex and apologized profusedly for what i had done. Unfortunately he was still in love with me and tried to rekindled....sad sad days.

 

Another proof of karma gone wild was 2 years ago...this time in my favor. My roommate in college and I were really really close. I loved that girl, she was like my little sister. Well, a new guy came into our group and he started flirting with me. I would tell her all about it...ALL of it...what he did what he said. EVERYTHING. THe guy and I hanged out for 6 months. Sort of like a FWB thing, but i was hoping it would move to more once i left the school after graduation. (Again, mamma apparently DID raise a fool). Anyhow, after i graduated i started hearing less from him. He would still call once in a while, we would hang out and hook up sometimes, but not as much as before.

Well, later i find out he was hooking up with my roommate. In fact, he asked her to be his gf. talk about backstabb. In fact it hurt me more that she would do that than anything else.

 

anyway...that was maybe december 06. Fastfoward to last december. Last I heard, she was getting into catfights with her best friend...apparently he is doing the exact same thing to her that he did to me.

 

Karma is a BIIIIIIITTTT****

[Moai]

The way most people think of karma is incorrect. Karma is not fulfilled in this life, but in the next. Do bad things now, and you lose your place on the karmic "wheel." Do good things, and you move forward.

 

Beyond that, karma doesn't exist. What possible evil could a child starving in Africa could have done at such a young age? What bout the 13 year-old girl raped and buried alive? What offense did she commit?

 

No matter how you try to rationalize it, good things and bad things happen to people for no reason. The Universe is impersonal and indifferent.

[Sifu]

The way most people think of karma is incorrect. Karma is not fulfilled in this life, but in the next. Do bad things now, and you lose your place on the karmic "wheel." Do good things, and you move forward.

Well put. Most people subscribe to the "pop" definition, leading them into expecting something NOW.

 

The Universe is impersonal and indifferent.

There I beg to disagree, if by The Universe you include little things such as Nature. Nature, by its very nature , has a very personal relationship with us, a relationship that unfortunately many have thrown over in favor of ease of living and convenience. Ancient peoples knew of this relationship and honored and respected it.

 

But as we're finding out, what you do to Nature comes back to you - in several cases, within your own lifetime.

[disgracian]

The way most people think of karma is incorrect.

Including yourself. Karma plays out in both the short term and the long; but it is not a cosmic balancing force either. It is a fancy way of saying that actions have consequences. People who seek to take advantage of others will suffer the consequences, even if this is merely to have their reputations sullied, and treated with suspicion or contempt. They are less likely to have fulfulling relationships with other people. Those who vainly desire fame and get it often wish they hadn't. The rich and powerful are usually driven by insatiable greed and can rarely be sure that the people who surround them are genuine or merely attracted to the money and power, and would abandon them the moment they lost their material wealth.

 

There is nothing inherently mystical about it, though you can apply the principle to other lives if you are that way inclined. This doesn't change the fact that karma is constantly in effect.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

Including yourself. Karma plays out in both the short term and the long; but it is not a cosmic balancing force either. It is a fancy way of saying that actions have consequences.

 

This cannot be. It cannot be in effect in the short-term, or those who are at best immoral or at least evil would be punished. Stalin died in bed. Hitler killed himself, never facing justice of any kind. The early Industrialists built their monopolies on the backs of the workers who suffered in droves, while they got wealthier by the second.

 

Was Oppenheimer punished? He (and others) invented the most destructive device in human history. It saved lives in WWII, sure, but what if an atom bomb is used by terrorists? Is he then culpable also? IF that never happens is he absolved?

 

People who seek to take advantage of others will suffer the consequences, even if this is merely to have their reputations sullied, and treated with suspicion or contempt. They are less likely to have fulfulling relationships with other people. Those who vainly desire fame and get it often wish they hadn't. The rich and powerful are usually driven by insatiable greed and can rarely be sure that the people who surround them are genuine or merely attracted to the money and power, and would abandon them the moment they lost their material wealth.

 

You are assuming that they care. Not only that, didn't the people whom they screw over deserve it somehow--if karma is true? If karma is everywhere and we can't escape it, then everything that happens to everyone is deserved, no?

 

There is nothing inherently mystical about it, though you can apply the principle to other lives if you are that way inclined. This doesn't change the fact that karma is constantly in effect.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

I think the whole concept stems from "why me"? Someone does something that they regret, then they notice a setback and think, "Oh, karma got me that time" when it is impossible to determine if the two are related at all. It is all a way to grasp for reasons and causes when there aren't any. Why do children get leukemia? What could they possibly done to deserve that? If it is from negative behavior in a past life, the punishment is unjust because they don't remember what they are being punished for.

 

It is true that if you are nice to people most people will be nice to you, and vice versa. That is more of an evolutionary construct than a form of cosmic justice. I know quite a few people who are misanthropic and don't care about other people at all, and prefer to be left alone. While we might say that they are unhappy, that is just us applying our values on them.

 

It's like looking at someone who has more money and saying, "yea, but they probably aren't happy. I wonder who they had to exploit and screw over to get that Cadillac" or somesuch. It is easier to say that and hope for some sort of punishment (either with dysfunctional relationships now or regressing upon rebirth) than it is to look at things honestly and accept that maybe that person works harder, made better educational choices, or was just lucky enough to inherit.

 

Why not look at that and see it as a reward for good karma? Perhaps you see it that way, but you would be the first I encountered. To a person every "karma-believer" I have ever spoken to uses the idea to imagine "justice" for those who are better looking, won instead of lost, or have a talent that our culture deems more valuable.

[Moai]

Well put. Most people subscribe to the "pop" definition, leading them into expecting something NOW.

 

Yep. They misapply cause and effect.

 

There I beg to disagree, if by The Universe you include little things such as Nature. Nature, by its very nature , has a very personal relationship with us, a relationship that unfortunately many have thrown over in favor of ease of living and convenience. Ancient peoples knew of this relationship and honored and respected it.

 

But as we're finding out, what you do to Nature comes back to you - in several cases, within your own lifetime.

 

Nature is indifferent to our existence. Nature doesn't care if we exist for another million years or are wiped out tomorrow. It is a myth that Nature is in "balance". In reality, Nature is constantly OUT of balance.

 

Every 100 million years or so a huge object impacts our planet and wipes out most of all life here.

 

Also, ancient peoples didn't know anything about the world around them. Examples are legion of primitives using slash and burn agriculture and eventually depleting the soil and starving, or killing all of a certain animal and facing starvation.

 

Just a quick look at the Americas bears this out. Where did the Woolly Mammoths go? Native peoples killed them all. How did the plains tribes hunt bison? They put on the skins of wolves and drove them off cliffs, hundreds if not thousands at a time, more than they could possibly eat in ten lifetimes.

 

Consider also that every technological advance was happily adopted by these "ancient people".

[Ronni_W]

But, I've been thinking...

What if this is my Karma (whatever you want to call it) for something I've done in my past (or another past life)?

No question really, I'm just pondering this idea.

It is an interesting thing to ponder, isn't it?

 

For me, the debate about is there or isn't there such a thing as Karma is futile and beside the point -- we can't prove or disprove it by observing rich people or poor people, healthy people or sick people.

 

How I use the concept of Karma goes something like...

[1] Let's assume, for the sake of fun or exploration, that this is my Karma...that is, I'm experiencing the consequence of something I have or have not thought or done in the past (whether it's this life or some past life, it really doesn't make any difference to my current awareness.)

[2] Now what meaning do I choose to give to this experience? What can I learn from it? What do I need to change or revise in my thinking or my behaviour? Where can I improve or do better (whatever "better" means to me in context of the experience.)

 

For me, it can lead to deeper reflection and self-understanding...and it doesn't have to be a "Universal Law or Reality" to do that.

[Moai]

It is an interesting thing to ponder, isn't it?

 

For me, the debate about is there or isn't there such a thing as Karma is futile and beside the point -- we can't prove or disprove it by observing rich people or poor people, healthy people or sick people.

 

I agree.

 

How I use the concept of Karma goes something like...

[1] Let's assume, for the sake of fun or exploration, that this is my Karma...that is, I'm experiencing the consequence of something I have or have not thought or done in the past (whether it's this life or some past life, it really doesn't make any difference to my current awareness.)

 

I agree again. While it is dangerous to use concepts with specific meanings like "karma" in this instance, I take your point, and I think you are exactly right. This is what examining one's existence is all about. Did I do something to cause this? Or is it random? How did this or that decision lead to my situation? Given the circumstance again, would I do the same? How does my decision effect others? Should I care?

 

[2] Now what meaning do I choose to give to this experience? What can I learn from it? What do I need to change or revise in my thinking or my behaviour? Where can I improve or do better (whatever "better" means to me in context of the experience.)

 

For me, it can lead to deeper reflection and self-understanding...and it doesn't have to be a "Universal Law or Reality" to do that.

 

Well said. All of the questions one can ask can be answered without appealing to magic or some sort of punishment/reward system for which there is no evidence. One should be moral for its own sake, not because of external pressure. Even karma suffers from the Argumentum Ad Baculum fallacy.

[mammax3]

That was so interesting to read!

 

When I think of "karma" I generally use the shorthand "pop" culture definition, not the actual religious meaning. And I also mean to become introspective and see how my actions may have caused this situation (if at all possible - I totally agree with the aforementioned examples).

 

I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that nature and by extension the universe is completely uncaring and indifferent to our human existence. But at the same time, I'd have to concede that each gnat and whale and everything in between has a life purpose blueprint to follow as well and that's a lot of instructions to write and monitor and that makes next to no sense. So if it is all random (in the grand scheme of things) and indifferent what's the point of anything? Why bother to try and suss out why or how something happened and how do I feel about it? The next 100 millionth year will come along and we'll all be wiped out anyway and life will not be any richer or poorer for my petit existence.

 

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, life and ... well, energy, just continues to bounce around regardless of what it's bouncing into. Is it possible that positive energy sent out will come back with more positive energy attached to it? Like sugar molecules forming crystals, it just gets sweeter as they attract each other. Is this a way of thinking of karma?

[Moai]

That was so interesting to read!

 

When I think of "karma" I generally use the shorthand "pop" culture definition, not the actual religious meaning. And I also mean to become introspective and see how my actions may have caused this situation (if at all possible - I totally agree with the aforementioned examples).

 

I can't quite wrap my head around the concept that nature and by extension the universe is completely uncaring and indifferent to our human existence. But at the same time, I'd have to concede that each gnat and whale and everything in between has a life purpose blueprint to follow as well and that's a lot of instructions to write and monitor and that makes next to no sense. So if it is all random (in the grand scheme of things) and indifferent what's the point of anything? Why bother to try and suss out why or how something happened and how do I feel about it? The next 100 millionth year will come along and we'll all be wiped out anyway and life will not be any richer or poorer for my petit existence.

 

Meaning is determined by the individual. Even those who find purpose in a justice/reward religious system are deciding to buy into that, no matter how contradictory or immoral.

 

Since it is random, and there is no larger purpose, shouldn't you live the best life you can, since this is the only existence you've got? And since this is the only existence anyone else is going to have, shouldn't you do whatever you can to make it the best one possible for them, too?

 

Accepting the fact that the Universe is indifferent to you is very freeing when you think about it. You are free to determine what is important for yourself, and seek it with all of your energy if you wish. Or not. It is entirely up to you. At night, looking at the vastness of space, isn't it wonderful and amazing that you ere able to see it, if only for a few brief moments? Doesn't any system of punishment and reward diminish that in many ways? Isn't it sad that someone would deny themselves small happinesses for fear of what happens after death--which it is impossible for anyone to know in the first place?

 

If energy can neither be created nor destroyed, life and ... well, energy, just continues to bounce around regardless of what it's bouncing into. Is it possible that positive energy sent out will come back with more positive energy attached to it? Like sugar molecules forming crystals, it just gets sweeter as they attract each other. Is this a way of thinking of karma?

 

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. So if you are sending out "positive" energy, an equal amount of negative energy must also be released.

 

Life feeds on life feeds on life. Life is brutal and cruel, there is no doubt. We are lucky that we have the technology to insulate us from this simple fact most of the time, but that is the way that it is. That being so, and the only person keeping anyone from being happy is themselves why not be?

[disgracian]

Moai, you even quoted the part where I said that it is not a cosmic balancing force. Clearly you have missed the mark by a considerable distance.

 

Stalin may have died in bed, but he was utterly paranoid. Can you imagine living your whole life being distrustful and suspicious of everybody around you, including so-called friends and family?

 

And just for good measure: karma is not a cosmic balancing force. That means it doesn't right every wrong. Reality just isn't that convenient, and karma doesn't require it to be.

It is true that if you are nice to people most people will be nice to you, and vice versa. That is more of an evolutionary construct than a form of cosmic justice...To a person every "karma-believer" I have ever spoken to uses the idea to imagine "justice" for those who are better looking, won instead of lost, or have a talent that our culture deems more valuable.

You can't have spoken to many then. That's a rather elementary misunderstanding. In any event, I think you had one of those people in mind when you constructed your rebuttal, even though what I said flat out contradicts what you have heard from others.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

Moai, you even quoted the part where I said that it is not a cosmic balancing force. Clearly you have missed the mark by a considerable distance.

 

If what you say is so, then I must have. I have never read that it isn't a balancing force, and I'll re-read what you posted, but I didn't get that from what you said, either.

 

Stalin may have died in bed, but he was utterly paranoid. Can you imagine living your whole life being distrustful and suspicious of everybody around you, including so-called friends and family?

 

People can get used to anything. His paranoia would be a problem only if he knew he was paranoid. In his mind he may have just been cautious. I have no idea. But given the amount of evil he committed you'd think he would have gone through something much worse than just being paranoid.

 

And just for good measure: karma is not a cosmic balancing force. That means it doesn't right every wrong. Reality just isn't that convenient, and karma doesn't require it to be.

 

If it isn't a cosmic balancing force, then what is it? A guideline? It applies sometimes but at other times doesn't? In order to be a force AT ALL it should apply all the time everywhere. Other wise it is a fantasy--a fantasy that makes people feel better, but a fantasy nonetheless.

 

You can't have spoken to many then. That's a rather elementary misunderstanding. In any event, I think you had one of those people in mind when you constructed your rebuttal, even though what I said flat out contradicts what you have heard from others.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Perhaps. I am off to read what I may have misinterpreted, but the fact remains that others on this very thread operate with the same misunderstanding that I do--even though I reject the notion. I have also heard many a believer use karma as interchangeably with "destiny".

[disgracian]

I have never read that it isn't a balancing force, and I'll re-read what you posted, but I didn't get that from what you said, either.

Even though the first thing I said was: "Karma plays out in both the short term and the long; but it is not a cosmic balancing force either."?

People can get used to anything. His paranoia would be a problem only if he knew he was paranoid. In his mind he may have just been cautious. I have no idea. But given the amount of evil he committed you'd think he would have gone through something much worse than just being paranoid.

You still seem very attached to this notion that karma ought to ensure everybody gets the equal measure they give. I've lost count of how many times I've tried to imply or flat out tell you that it isn't the case. I don't know what more I must do.

If it isn't a cosmic balancing force, then what is it? A guideline? It applies sometimes but at other times doesn't? In order to be a force AT ALL it should apply all the time everywhere. Other wise it is a fantasy--a fantasy that makes people feel better, but a fantasy nonetheless.

It's more an observation than anything. It's not a force, seeking out injustices to correct. People who hide behind karma as an excuse to do nothing about suffering by claiming it as punishment for crimes committed in a former life, for example, are in my opinion just as credible as Christians who rationalise the same with "sins committed while still in the womb" or something. Karma, like most things, is a name given to the recognition of a particular cyclical pattern of behaviour and consequence.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

Even though the first thing I said was: "Karma plays out in both the short term and the long; but it is not a cosmic balancing force either."?

 

I get that, but then you went on to evaluate my example of Stalin using the definition of karma that I used. Again, if karma isn't a cosmic balancing force, then what is it? A cutsey idea your grandma shares with you over pancakes, or what?

 

You still seem very attached to this notion that karma ought to ensure everybody gets the equal measure they give. I've lost count of how many times I've tried to imply or flat out tell you that it isn't the case. I don't know what more I must do.

 

Not really. I only think that if it exists at all it would be apparent (using whatever definition), and that it would apply equally whether a balancing force or not. I don't see anything like it happening at all--no matter how you define it--so in my view it is about the same as claiming that trees and rocks have spirits or that arranging furniture in a certain way effects your life.

 

It's more an observation than anything. It's not a force, seeking out injustices to correct. People who hide behind karma as an excuse to do nothing about suffering by claiming it as punishment for crimes committed in a former life, for example, are in my opinion just as credible as Christians who rationalise the same with "sins committed while still in the womb" or something. Karma, like most things, is a name given to the recognition of a particular cyclical pattern of behaviour and consequence.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

And as most things of that nature, it is misunderstood and misapplied. I may have misunderstood its true definition in some sense, but that is the same definition that almost everyone not of a strict Buddhist tradition (perhaps) use. Look at some of the posts on this very thread.

 

It's a No True Scotsman fallacy--almost. If I examine a claim made by someone suggesting that this or that occurrence was because of their "karma" and show it to be an erroneous conclusion, someone else will jump in and say that isn't really what karma is, and provide yet another erroneous definition. If karma is just a way to say "you reap what you sow" then so be it. But the Jains, Hindus, and Buddhists (as well as hippies) all have a different definition of what karma is and how it works. It would seem that I can make any claim about karma I want and have it be equally valid.

 

I notice that you referenced "sins in the womb". Do you read FSTDT by any chance? I read that there. Great comedy.

[disgracian]

Again, if karma isn't a cosmic balancing force, then what is it? A cutsey idea your grandma shares with you over pancakes, or what?

I don't even know what that means.

I only think that if it exists at all it would be apparent (using whatever definition), and that it would apply equally whether a balancing force or not.

Why on earth would anybody think that? If I was to say that justice, if it exists, ought to apply equally everywhere and that since bad people get away with things then justice must not exist at all or merely be a cutsey idea that one shares with an elderly relative, then you'd rightly think me to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Tell me why such silly expectations of the concept of karma still persist from you?

 

I notice that you have been very determined in pressing a rather naive interpretation of karma as the basis for your rhetoric, even though you claim to discount it. This I find rather perplexing behaviour. It's normally only people who actually believe in something that advocate a certain interpretation to the exclusion of all others.

 

It's like you want it to be ridiculous just so you can knock it down. It can't just be a way to perceive and understand the patterns of cause and effect, it has to be kooky so you can think yourself better for rejecting it. Remember this all started with you vigorously denying that karma plays out within the same lifetime, and that it instead only takes place across reincarnations that you don't even believe in.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

I don't even know what that means.

 

It means that karma is a folk belief with no evidence in reality.

 

Why on earth would anybody think that? If I was to say that justice, if it exists, ought to apply equally everywhere and that since bad people get away with things then justice must not exist at all or merely be a cutsey idea that one shares with an elderly relative, then you'd rightly think me to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Tell me why such silly expectations of the concept of karma still persist from you?

I don't have any expectations about karma, since I don't believe in such a thing. You have your definition, new agers have theirs, Hindus have theirs, and on and on. They agree in some ways, they don't in others. It seems to me that your definition of karma really doesn't define anything.

 

I notice that you have been very determined in pressing a rather naive interpretation of karma as the basis for your rhetoric, even though you claim to discount it. This I find rather perplexing behaviour. It's normally only people who actually believe in something that advocate a certain interpretation to the exclusion of all others.

So far, all I know of your definition of karma is that it is not a cosmic balancing force (other people think it is, of course) and that sometimes it applies and other times it doesn't. Again, your definition is not the same as the definition used by others. I do not see why yours is any more valid, since you are all going on the same amount of evidence--namely none.

 

It's like you want it to be ridiculous just so you can knock it down.

I don't want it to be ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.

 

It can't just be a way to perceive and understand the patterns of cause and effect, it has to be kooky so you can think yourself better for rejecting it. Remember this all started with you vigorously denying that karma plays out within the same lifetime, and that it instead only takes place across reincarnations that you don't even believe in.

 

Cheers,

D.

Therein is the crux. It actually doesn't do anything to aid in perceiving cause and effect, or patterns involving same. I am not aware of any experiment yet that can demonstrate karma to exist. No matter how you wish to define it, if it was a force AT ALL such an experiment would be easy to devise. The only "evidence" that people have is anecdotal at best, with some speculation thrown in. It is nothing more than selective thinking in practice.

 

If I give money to a hobo and then later someone lets me over in traffic I may perceive that as "good karma" but there is no way to determine if those two events are related--and in fact, they probably aren't. And what if the hobo uses my money to score dope and then ODs? Do I get negative points, or what? Since I have no way of knowing if that happened, how can I determine the cause and effect of my act?

 

Why so many definitions? It is clear that your definition makes sense to you, but it is quite different from the Hindu one. Why are you right and they wrong? Should all Hindus convert to Buddhism? The Hindu definition perpetuates their immoral caste system--if you are born into a lower caste it is because of your karma, and therefore it is just that you be oppressed. It is actually perfect because those in the lower castes believe that, too, and as such are not likely to buck the system, as it were.

 

Consider the New Age definition. I got this from Wikipedia: "The idea of karma was popularized in the Western world through the work of the Theosophical Society. Kardecist and Western New Age reinterpretations of karma frequently cast it as a sort of luck associated with virtue: if one does good or spiritually valuable acts, one deserves and can expect good luck; conversely, if one does harmful things, one can expect bad luck or unfortunate happenings. In this conception, karma is affiliated with the Neopagan law of return or Threefold Law, the idea that the beneficial or harmful effects one has on the world will return to oneself. Colloquially this may be summed up as 'what goes around comes around.'"

 

It is clearly not me who is making up some kooky definition just to knock it down. There are people out there who really believe that. There are even more wacky definitions than that. You may disagree, and that is certainly your right, but that doesn't stop others from doing the same. It would seem that we both reject their definitions, I just go one step further and reject yours also.

[disgracian]

I don't have any expectations about karma, since I don't believe in such a thing.

Funny, you keep telling me what it ought to be as if it were a fact.

So far, all I know of your definition of karma is that it is not a cosmic balancing force (other people think it is, of course) and that sometimes it applies and other times it doesn't. Again, your definition is not the same as the definition used by others. I do not see why yours is any more valid, since you are all going on the same amount of evidence--namely none.

What sort of evidence are you expecting?

I don't want it to be ridiculous, it IS ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is your idea of karma and all your silly expectations that you deny. I say to you that justice is also equally ridiculous since it fails to apply equally or mean anything in exactly the same way you attribute to karma. See if you can correct me without contradicting yourself.

Therein is the crux. It actually doesn't do anything to aid in perceiving cause and effect, or patterns involving same. I am not aware of any experiment yet that can demonstrate karma to exist.

You're not even aware of what it is, so this line or reasoning is entirely vacuous on your part. You can't define it, don't know what it is, so how could you be aware of any experiment that can demonstrate its existence or otherise? What a truly useless thing to say.

No matter how you wish to define it, if it was a force AT ALL such an experiment would be easy to devise.

IT'S NOT A FORCE. This is perhaps the fourth time I have had to remind you of this. Why you being so deliberately obtuse?

If I give money to a hobo and then later someone lets me over in traffic I may perceive that as "good karma" but there is no way to determine if those two events are related--and in fact, they probably aren't.

Of course they're not, because you deliberately chose a contrived example to prove your own point.

And what if the hobo uses my money to score dope and then ODs? Do I get negative points, or what? Since I have no way of knowing if that happened, how can I determine the cause and effect of my act?

You can't, because that's not what it is about.

Why so many definitions?

Why so many philosophies? Why so many political systems? Do you really perceive things in such simplistic terms as right and wrong as though that's all there was? It seems to me that all you're doing is lazily pointing out that people have different ideas so that may as well invalidate them all.

It is clearly not me who is making up some kooky definition just to knock it down.

I didn't accuse you of making it up; I accused you correctly of only considering those definitions when you try to attack something you clearly know little about beyond a stroll through Wikipedia for some confirmation bias.

It would seem that we both reject their definitions, I just go one step further and reject yours also.

Yet you can't even explain what mine is. You still, after 4 corrections, insist that it's some kind of force. You might want to rethink your strategy and learn a little bit about something before you reject it.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

Funny, you keep telling me what it ought to be as if it were a fact.

 

What sort of evidence are you expecting?

 

Anything remotely specific would be nice.

 

What is ridiculous is your idea of karma and all your silly expectations that you deny. I say to you that justice is also equally ridiculous since it fails to apply equally or mean anything in exactly the same way you attribute to karma. See if you can correct me without contradicting yourself.

Certainly. I have said before, and will repeat, that I don't think karma exists, nor is it I who is choosing to define it. I take only the definitions given. Why you feel the need to ascribe the definitions in question to me specifically is odd, since I am not the one advancing them. It is others who make the assertions, I just examine them, and find them to be flawed--as do you, since you reject all the other definitions also.

 

Justice is a human construct, implemented by humans, and as such is imperfect. Concepts like "justice" cannot be applied to the natural world, as the natural world is indifferent to human existence. This is self-evident.

 

You're not even aware of what it is, so this line or reasoning is entirely vacuous on your part. You can't define it, don't know what it is, so how could you be aware of any experiment that can demonstrate its existence or otherise? What a truly useless thing to say.

It seems to me it is you who can't define it. You said, "Karma, like most things, is a name given to the recognition of a particular cyclical pattern of behavior and consequence." "Particular" to what? There are consequences to all behavior, certainly. You imply that there is something cyclical about it, yet there is no evidence that this is the case. By using the term "cyclical" above, couldn't that be rewritten as "what goes around (a circle) comes around (a circle)"? Isn't that the kooky definition that you deride?

 

The reason it cannot be defined is because it doesn't exist. Make up all the definitions you like, that doesn't make it real.

 

IT'S NOT A FORCE. This is perhaps the fourth time I have had to remind you of this. Why you being so deliberately obtuse?

I'm not. You assert that karma is not a force, and yet go on to say that it describes cause and effect. "Cause" is a force, and "effect" is the result of the force applied. If karma is an explanation of this process, fine. Aside from the physical, there is no evidence that this happens in reality.

 

Of course they're not, because you deliberately chose a contrived example to prove your own point.

 

You can't, because that's not what it is about.

Then please provide an example where karma makes sense.

 

Why so many philosophies? Why so many political systems? Do you really perceive things in such simplistic terms as right and wrong as though that's all there was? It seems to me that all you're doing is lazily pointing out that people have different ideas so that may as well invalidate them all.

Not so. Philosophers and politicians have arguments. Karma has assertions without evidence. If karma was so obvious, force or not, it should be self-evident. But obviously that is not the case. This is the inherent problem with all religious ideas. Everyone's definition of karma cannot be correct, but they can all be wrong.

 

I didn't accuse you of making it up; I accused you correctly of only considering those definitions when you try to attack something you clearly know little about beyond a stroll through Wikipedia for some confirmation bias.

I take it you are not a Muslim. How is it you can reject it so easily, given that you have not studied in a Mosque or (presumably) cannot read the Koran in Arabic?

 

I have taken several classes in world religions (both Western and Eastern), and have read a lot of Taoist and Zen philosophy. Using Wikipedia wasn't confirmation bias, by the way. All I need do is read this thread to get kooky definitions of karma, that was just easy to cut-and-paste from.

 

Here's another, from the Skeptic's Dictionary: "Karma is a law for sheep. We should not wonder that the shepherds advocate it. It is a law for the passive, for those who will not disturb the status quo, who will accept whatever evil is done as "natural" and inevitable. Karma is a law for slaves, for the vanquished."

 

Here's the site: http://www.skepdic.com/karma.html The author of the site has a Phd in Philosophy from UC San Diego, and taught for thirty years at Sacramento City College. Do you think he rejects karma because he knows nothing about it?

 

In actuality, it is your definition that I am examining. You claim it isn't a force, it is just a way to describe a "particular" cause and effect. Doesn't "cause and effect" adequately describe the concept? Why add "karma" to the mix when it isn't necessary?

 

Yet you can't even explain what mine is. You still, after 4 corrections, insist that it's some kind of force. You might want to rethink your strategy and learn a little bit about something before you reject it.

 

Cheers,

D.

Is that my fault? I don't think that you have defined your position adequately, and in many ways contradict yourself. You say it isn't a force, and then make an argument as if it is. You use nebulous terms like "particular" in your definition without explaining what that "particular" situation is.

 

But, for the sake of argument, I'll say that it's me. I don't get it. That being said, please start from scratch, and take a few paragraphs to define explicitly what your definition of karma is, and we'll go from there. Is that fair?

[disgracian]

I really couldn't be bothered given your form so far. I'm not going to wade back through every post I've made and summarise it yet again for you because you were too lazy to read it the first time.

 

If you have some specific criticisms or questions then by all means I will answer them for you. But moaning that I somehow haven't explained myself when I have will not cut the mustard. If you really want to know, then you will ask, but I suspect you don't.

 

Cheers,

D.

[Moai]

I really couldn't be bothered given your form so far. I'm not going to wade back through every post I've made and summarise it yet again for you because you were too lazy to read it the first time.

 

Do what you will. Call me lazy, but if you notice I quote your posts when responding, so I have read them. I don't find your definition remotely adequate. Just like a moderate Christian believer, you bemoan that I argue against a Fundamentalist view that isn't correct, but are loathe to be specific about your own. Fine.

 

If you have some specific criticisms or questions then by all means I will answer them for you. But moaning that I somehow haven't explained myself when I have will not cut the mustard. If you really want to know, then you will ask, but I suspect you don't.

 

Cheers,

D.

Actually, I do know, but somehow you can't grasp that I can understand something and think it's ridiculous when it makes so much sense to you. For you "knowing" and believing"" here are the same. But I'll have a go.

 

Let's see what the website http://www.orientalia.org has on their Buddhism page: "karma - The myriad things you do to others

will return for you yourself to undergo. (FHS )"

 

Gee, that sounds a lot like "what goes around comes around."

 

Let's look at a story about Shakyanumi Buddha. "‘Ah, you don’t know,’ said the Buddha, "On the causal ground, a long time ago, at a place where the weather was hot, there was a pool with schools of fish in it. The two leaders of the schools were named Bran and Many Tongues. The water in the pool evaporated in the intense heat, and since the people in the area didn’t have anything else to eat, they ate the fish. In the end there was just a mud-hole, but even then they noticed a movement in the mud. Digging in, they found the two big fish-kings--Bran and Many Tongues. At that time, I, Shakyamuni Buddha, was a child among these people, who were later to become the Gautama clan. Seeing that the two fish were about to be devoured alive, I beat them over the head three times with a club to knock them out first.’ That is why in his life as a Buddha he had to endure a three-day headache as retribution. ‘Further, the fish Bran was the present King Crystal, and the fish Many Tongues was his attendant who reminded him of the words spoken by the Gautama clan to the king as a child. And so it was fated that he would exterminate the Gautama clan.’ Even though Shakyamuni had become a Buddha, he could not rescue his people from the fixed karma they were destined to repay."[bold mine]

 

Clearly we can see that what we do in the past leads to experiences in our "new' lives. If I stub my toe, it is because I kicked a child in a past life, or if my daughter is raped and buried alive it is because she did the same as a warlord in a previous life. You can't escape your karma, right?

 

And from http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm "Reflecting on the Law of Karma, of action and reaction in the moral sphere encourages us to renounce unwholesome actions and cultivate wholesome actions. We will look more closely at the specific effects of karma in future lives and how karma conditions and determines the nature of rebirth in our lecture next week."

 

Ah, karma effects our future lives. From the same lecture: "For instance, when Maudgalyayana was beaten to death by bandits, the Buddha was able to tell that this event was the effect of something Maudgalyayana had done in a previous life when he had taken his aged parents to the forest and having beaten them to death, had then reported that they had been killed by bandits."

 

And: "We know that what binds us in samsara are the defilements - desire, ill-will and ignorance. We spoke about this when we talked about the Second Noble Truth - the truth of the cause of suffering. These defilements are something which every living being in samsara shares, whether we speak of human beings or animals or beings who live in the other realms which we do not normally perceive. In this, all living beings are alike and yet amongst all the living beings that we can normally perceive, there are many differences. For instance, some of us are wealthy, some are less wealthy, some are strong and healthy, others are disabled and so forth. There are many differences amongst living beings and even more so there are differences between animals and human beings. These differences are due to karma."[bold mine]

 

"The Buddha has specifically stated that karma explains the differences between living beings. You might also recall that the understanding of how karma affects the birth of living beings in happy or unhappy circumstances - the knowledge of how living beings move from happy circumstances to unhappy circumstances, and vice versa, from unhappy to happy circumstances as a result of their karma - was part of the Buddha’s experience on the night of His enlightenment. It is karma that explains the circumstances that living beings find themselves in."

 

It is true that in the lecture the author claims that karma is not fate or predestination, yet in the same lecture he uses examples that say it is exactly that. Orientalia does the same thing.

 

So, why don't you tell me how karma can't be "fate" yet it determines the circumstances I find myself in in this life?

 

How's that for a start?