Does anybody believe in Karma?

[Geishawhelk]

To me, the universe is an infinite sandbox where anyone can mold it or manipulate it in any way they want.

If that were true, don't you think we'd all be a lot happier than we are....?

?

It holds infinite secrets that continue to fascinate us every time we discover them. My life's intent is to do what I can to manipulate some of the threads that make the universe and life inside of it, simply to satisfy my own curiosity and amusement.

Yes, but be careful whose toes you step on in the process.... the whole point is to do this skilfully and wisely....

This is what scientists do.

Bullsheet! No they don't!!

 

If I'm able to pursue this without any conscious or concern for the traditional ethics our society has established, then all the better. If there's one thing that limits a scientist's curious mind, it's the pointless ethics that are established by those without such curiosity

.

 

Give me an example of a pointless ethics - that of course do not apply to you either. A pointless ethic would not make you immune from equal treatment....you would not be exempt....so give me a pointless ethic....

 

These ethics are not part of the universe - they're a human creation, and as far as I'm concerned they're just objects to get past.

Now you're confusing natural phenomena with man-made edicts - you're creating a pointless discussion here because the two cannot be aligned..... Unless of course, you can give me a concrete example.....

[Geishawhelk]

I'm not trying to prove anything to anyone. I saw the thread's question and responded to it because I wanted to take part in a discussion.

 

But seriously, ANY kind of spiritual belief is completely speculation. No one will ever prove there is a god or there isn't one. That's why I'm content with saying that I don't know if there is a god, and I really don't care.

 

God doesn't figure in Karma. This therefore is off-topic and completely irelevant, because Karma has nothing to do with the western concept of God.

 

Hinduism (with its plethora of Gods) regards Karma as completely fatalistic, which to many is too blinkered and restrictive. it pre-empts and denies the existence of Free will (something Western Deistic religions do not).

 

Buddhism regards Karma as a process guided by free will.

 

But there is no God.

 

So you're clouding the discussion - and de-railing it - by bringing God into it.

[kashmir]

First of all, I don't care what YOU think karma is or what the eastern definition is. You're saying all of us are ignorant of what karma is, but a lot more people in the west understand it as something different. They're not wrong, it's just another interpretation. You can't be wrong with this kind of stuff, because there's nothing to prove. In west, it's been thought of as something different for long enough to merit its own concept. Instead of trying to tell everyone that they're wrong for not following the eastern definition, why don't you just discuss this concept of karma?

 

I read the post you linked in the beginning of this thread, explaining your definition of karma. I see the inconsistencies between my understanding of it and your's, but I mentioned several key parts in my description that were similar to your's that you seemed to completely ignore.

 

....pardon?

This is absolutely meaningless.... Evolution is a process, not a creative entity.....

 

I never said it was, but evolution introduces new ways for a life form to survive. I'm saying that one of the ways human evolution has ensured our survival is developing this ability to make speculations about our existence and how the world works. I didn't mean for this point to go under debate, but I figured it was so obvious that none of us really know what we're talking about here - we're just speculating. Nothing you can do will prove karma exists.

 

Bullsheet! No they don't!!

 

Um, yes they do. A scientist figures out how the universe works. They can also find ways to manipulate it and control it. Scientists discovered the atom. They also found a way to split atoms in order to make a deadly bomb that they had control over. Discovery and then manipulation.

 

Give me an example of a pointless ethics - that of course do not apply to you either. A pointless ethic would not make you immune from equal treatment....you would not be exempt....so give me a pointless ethic....

 

Pointless ethics? One obvious one for me that many people share is the use of embryos from aborted fetuses for stem cell research. Many people think it's unethical, while I and others see no problem in using them.

 

Now you're confusing natural phenomena with man-made edicts - you're creating a pointless discussion here because the two cannot be aligned..... Unless of course, you can give me a concrete example.....

 

Ah, but I'm saying that the concept of karma IS man-made. All of your criticisms towards me for de-railing this discussion just come from our different beliefs. You call karma a natural phenomena while I call it a man-made illusion. You believe it's a natural part of the universe. I don't.

[knaveman]

You call karma a natural phenomena while I call it a man-made illusion. You believe it's a natural part of the universe. I don't.

 

this seems to sum up your whole discussion.

[moxsha]

Life Is a journey in a circle. Everything In this world circulates from starting back to the end point where it started. Karma is a nature law no one can escape from It.

[Geishawhelk]

First of all, I don't care what YOU think karma is or what the eastern definition is. You're saying all of us are ignorant of what karma is, but a lot more people in the west understand it as something different.

If they understand it as something different that's fine. They're at liberty to do so, but then don't call it karma, because by very virtue of the fact that they misinterpret it, means that it isn't karma they're thinking of. I don't know what it is, but it's not karma.

 

You can't take a concept that is over 2-and-a-half millennia old, put a new and different slant on it and label it according to your whim.

Karma is an accurately defined process, and has stood as such all this time. If you want to go round twisting it to fit your ideal, that's your prerogative. But then, don't call it karma.

because it ain't.

 

They're not wrong, it's just another interpretation. You can't be wrong with this kind of stuff, because there's nothing to prove.

There is no need of proof. Karma is. You just don't see it, because you choose to interpret it differently, therefore you see something different.

 

In west, it's been thought of as something different for long enough to merit its own concept. Instead of trying to tell everyone that they're wrong for not following the eastern definition, why don't you just discuss this concept of karma?

because I don't recognise it as karma.

Call it something else. Then I will.

 

I read the post you linked in the beginning of this thread, explaining your definition of karma. I see the inconsistencies between my understanding of it and yours, but I mentioned several key parts in my description that were similar to yours that you seemed to completely ignore.[/QUOTE]

Inconsistencies make you incorrect. So I leave well alone, because I'd only confuse you more. That would be my karma, you see....

 

Ah, but I'm saying that the concept of karma IS man-made.

No, it's man-labelled as Karma, but the concept has always existed, even without a name.

 

All of your criticisms towards me for de-railing this discussion just come from our different beliefs.

 

Which are your beliefs?

 

You call karma a natural phenomena

No I call it a natural process. It's not a phenomenon.

 

while I call it a man-made illusion.

 

No, it's a 'Kashmir Illusion.

You believe it's a natural part of the universe. I don't.

Then it's not karma.

[Mahatma]

Karma is not a word that was created in the western culture. Karma is a word that was adopted.

 

You can choose to use Karma however you want, just recognize your ignorance when someone is there to tell you that you are wrong.

 

If "that's my interpretation" was a valid excuse, we would have so many legal problems.

 

 

You and Clinton would get along great tho!

 

"It depends what your definition of 'is' is."

-William Clinton.

[annieo]

Karma is not a word that was created in the western culture. Karma is a word that was adopted.

 

You can choose to use Karma however you want, just recognize your ignorance when someone is there to tell you that you are wrong.

 

If "that's my interpretation" was a valid excuse, we would have so many legal problems.

 

 

You and Clinton would get along great tho!

 

"It depends what your definition of 'is' is."

-William Clinton.

 

So what is your definition? Or rather, what do you think the meaning of this word is?

 

Words, whether they are from our mother tongue or borrowed, are open to interpretation. That is not an excuse: that is the nature of language. Words can point in the direction of a truth, but they are not truth itself.

Whatever karma is, is, and has it's effect (or doesn't, if we are mistaken, which we might be - maybe the universe is less symmetrical than we would like).

 

All I know, from my own experience, is that when I have acted in a negative, selfish or hurtful way, it has always come back to bite me in the as#, either through reactions from others or through my own, unremitting, hellish sense of guilt.

 

But then, I'm the type who likes to pay her tab before she leaves the restaurant. Others might be able/willing to put their crappy behavior on credit, to be paid at a latter date.