Karma, Karma, Karma, Konfusion

[email468]

I think we live in the real world. People steal and get richer. People kill and get away with it. People lie and make there lives easier. But to say that bad things happen because people did bad things seems (to me) kind of ridiculous. I know wonderful people (nearly saints) who have lead very VERY shitty lives. And I know people who have done very bad things who lead great lives because of those things. Obviously no one can just rule out that karma does not exist...but my life experiences have shown me know evidence that karma does exist. (just my 2 cents though).

Thanks for posting. Though I am confused by your conclusion as your evidence points to the opposite.

i should point out that i am not trying to prove or disprove anything either - i'm curious as to how folks justify karma (or if they are even aware of the whole system). Besides - you can't really prove a negative (you can't prove something doesn't exist).

 

[Chiceh]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is this doctrine of Karma that the mother teaches her child when she says "Be good and you will be happy and we will love you; but if you are bad, you will be unhappy and we will not love you." In short, Karma is the law of cause and effect in the ethical realm.[/FONT]

I just read this and still wondering myself, the more I read into this, the more confused I get, lol.

 

[email468]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is this doctrine of Karma that the mother teaches her child when she says "Be good and you will be happy and we will love you; but if you are bad, you will be unhappy and we will not love you." In short, Karma is the law of cause and effect in the ethical realm.[/FONT]

I just read this and still wondering myself, the more I read into this, the more confused I get, lol.

It can get a bit confusing and I don't want to dismiss things due to my lack of understanding. I also am trying to be more careful with my communicative style - i tend to state things matter-of-factually when they are just opinions. It just gets long-winded always qualifying things with "I think" or "my guess is".

 

[Chiceh]

It can get a bit confusing and I don't want to dismiss things due to my lack of understanding. I also am trying to be more careful with my communicative style - i tend to state things matter-of-factually when they are just opinions. It just gets long-winded always qualifying things with "I think" or "my guess is".

Oh email, we are who we are, lol Don't stop being you.

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Karma does not necessarily mean past actions. It embraces both past and present deeds. Hence in one sense, we are the result of what we were; we will be the result of what we are. In another sense, it should be added, we are not totally the result of what we were; we will not absolutely be the result of what we are. The present is no doubt the offspring of the past and is the present of the future, but the present is not always a true index of either the past or the future; so complex is the working of Karma. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is this doctrine of Karma that the mother teaches her child when she says "Be good and you will be happy and we will love you; but if you are bad, you will be unhappy and we will not love you." In short, Karma is the law of cause and effect in the ethical realm.[/FONT]

I just read this and still wondering myself, the more I read into this, the more confused I get, lol.

LOL... That passage is right in a sense, though it's written confusing.. but once you factor in the reality that time itself is subjective- the subject gets more and more complex.

 

[email468]

LOL... That passage is right in a sense, though it's written confusing.. but once you factor in the reality that time itself is subjective- the subject gets more and more complex.

I feel on more solid ground discussing time - especially the relativity of space-time - i feel much more comfortable discussing that - not that I understand it!

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

It can get a bit confusing and I don't want to dismiss things due to my lack of understanding. I also am trying to be more careful with my communicative style - i tend to state things matter-of-factually when they are just opinions. It just gets long-winded always qualifying things with "I think" or "my guess is".

I agree. I hope that everyone understands the posts are their posters' personal opinions or beliefs- and no one is demeaning or judging anyone else's opinion or stating that their beliefs must be right.

There is nothing but toleration, peace, and love here.

 

[email468]

I agree. I hope that everyone understands the posts are their posters' personal opinions or beliefs- and no one is demeaning or judging anyone else's opinion or stating that their beliefs must be right.

There is nothing but toleration, peace, and love here.

i figured everyone understands but it can be hard without actually knowing someone - their quirks and sense of humor. There are no visual or audio queues at all - just words on a page to make yourself understood.

and i'm no writer!

Here on the forums - yes - i try to be peaceful, loving and tolerant. But i find that much more difficult in real interpersonal communications - i don't take the time to stop, take a deep breath and put myself in the other person's place before speaking and that can lead to...

 

[bongspit]

I would really like to believe in karma...but I think life is random, shit happens...

 

[email468]

I would really like to believe in karma...but I think life is random, shit happens...

thanks for posting!

My brain must misfire cause i can't believe something without evidence but sometimes i feel i might be missing out on something important and big.

Or that isn't exactly right - cause i do believe things without evidence i suppose - more accurately i might say - i can't believe something without evidence or until evidence is presented that goes against what i believe.

But since evidence isn't about proving something doesn't exist - you can have faith in something without proof - provided the evidence isn't against it (at least for me).

but if asked - i would call myself an agnostic that leans towards atheism so "spiritual" advice is not my forte!

Sometimes I would like to BE karma incarnate!

 

[bongspit]

well...I know people that through no fault of their own..life kicks their ass on a daily basis. And then I know some people that are real dickheads and it seems that life rewards them on a daily basis...so life is just random...no god...no spirits...no karma...just random...

 

[email468]

well...I know people that through no fault of their own..life kicks their ass on a daily basis. And then I know some people that are real dickheads and it seems that life rewards them on a daily basis...so life is just random...no god...no spirits...no karma...just random...

i can relate to that - cause i feel that way too - though we often make our own beds so to speak.

ever hear the saying - everyone gets what they deserve? sometimes it does seem that way too.

I think i'm partially trying to avoid being a knee-jerk skeptic you know?

But it seems a pretty safe bet that if there are "rules" we sure as heck don't know what they are!

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

What's ironic is the fact that science is built on the assumption that nature must work by laws and specific formulas.. science is essentially built on the rule of karma (an action= reaction).

"My brain must misfire cause i can't believe something without evidence but sometimes i feel i might be missing out on something important and big."

On the contrary- your brain is doing exactly what it's meant to do.. label and sort things. The question is- who is the one who views and experiences all the brain perceives, who is the one utilizing the brain.

 

[bongspit]

What's ironic is the fact that science is built on the assumption that nature must work by laws and specific formulas.. science is essentially built on the rule of karma (an action= reaction).

"My brain must misfire cause i can't believe something without evidence but sometimes i feel i might be missing out on something important and big."

On the contrary- your brain is doing exactly what it's meant to do.. label and sort things. The question is- who is the one who views and experiences all the brain perceives, who is the one utilizing the brain.

i would say it's your body that's utilizing your brain...because when that heart stops pumping your brain dies...

 

[hom36rown]

I was just commenting on the karma thing in another thread...if there was such a thing as karma Bush will most definitely live the rest of his life in aggonizing pain and suffering...but that aint gonna happen

 

[email468]

What's ironic is the fact that science is built on the assumption that nature must work by laws and specific formulas.. science is essentially built on the rule of karma (an action= reaction).

"My brain must misfire cause i can't believe something without evidence but sometimes i feel i might be missing out on something important and big."

On the contrary- your brain is doing exactly what it's meant to do.. label and sort things. The question is- who is the one who views and experiences all the brain perceives, who is the one utilizing the brain.

oh no - i have to disagree. Science didn't start out looking for laws - science emerged because there are laws that govern the universe. Science observes, records, makes predictions, checks the outcome of the predictions, adjusts accordingly. If there weren't laws governing the universe - science - in its present form - could not exist.

our brains evolved to cope with everyday and mundane things - we are precocious but our brains have not had the chance to catch up to our technology - which is why science and religion are often confused (and at odds).

But science doesn't have all the answers (nor does it claim to) and i wouldn't want to become dismissive of things i don't understand just because i don't understand them. If i dismiss things i at least want my reasoning to be sound.

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

oh no - i have to disagree. Science didn't start out looking for laws - science emerged because there are laws that govern the universe. Science observes, records, makes predictions, checks the outcome of the predictions, adjusts accordingly. If there weren't laws governing the universe - science - in its present form - could not exist.

Did we happen upon some misunderstanding? You're repeating what I said.

Science emerged because of the law of cause and effect (which in a simplification is karma)- and the recognition of that law. The recognition that when you throw something up, it falls down. Science observes this, and puts it into a different language. The scientific method itself is based upon the belief that there are specific laws that govern nature, action and reactions that are repeatable, predictable.

The question that I ponder- the natural laws of action and reaction are undisputed and relied upon consistently, where did we lose the concept that these natural laws would apply to things beyond what the eye sees?

 

[email468]

Did we happen upon some misunderstanding? You're repeating what I said.

Science emerged because of the law of cause and effect (which in a simplification is karma)- and the recognition of that law. The recognition that when you throw something up, it falls down. Science observes this, and puts it into a different language. The scientific method itself is based upon the belief that there are specific laws that govern nature, action and reactions that are repeatable, predictable.

The question that I ponder- the natural laws of action and reaction are undisputed and relied upon consistently, where did we lose the concept that these natural laws would apply to things beyond what the eye sees?

If Karma is just cause and effect (and makes no moral or ethical statement) then how does it differ from just saying "cause and effect" rather than the usual - karma will catch up to you inferring a cosmic reaction to your action based on morality?

And we do apply natural laws to things we can't see (or even detect in any other way either) - like subatomic particles, black holes, dark matter, and i would guess a lot of shit we haven't even dreamed up yet.

i think it is more of a semantical issue rather than a philosophical one.

 

[HotNSexyMILF]

If Karma is just cause and effect (and makes no moral or ethical statement) then how does it differ from just saying "cause and effect" rather than the usual - karma will catch up to you inferring a cosmic reaction to your action based on morality?

And we do apply natural laws to things we can't see (or even detect in any other way either) - like subatomic particles, black holes, dark matter, and i would guess a lot of shit we haven't even dreamed up yet.

i think it is more of a semantical issue rather than a philosophical one.

The law itself doesn't judge the morals- we perceive it that way. We perceive it as good and bad- karma works both ways, it reflects good back as well.

 

[panhead]

i have no problem with assholes getting their comeuppance. i guess my issue is with people who are murdered, raped, robbed, etc... if you follow karma - then somehow - someway those people deserved what they got - and i can't buy into that.

This is my main beef with the karma thing.

Yup,ive seen some horrible shit happen to the nicest people & also seen great things happen to the worst excuse's of human beings on earth.

I like to employ the law of karma when im cussing somebody stupid out,normally idiots that steal shit & hurt people but im not so sure i believe in its principal.