and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — ThinkOfOne
Thoughts? — ThinkOfOne
↪ThinkOfOne C'mon, you keep trying to pin me down to the scripture you've repeatedly cited throughout this thread discussion. That's dogmatic. My "reading comprehension and critical think" are fine, ThinkOfNone; it's your own inconsistency / disingenuousness that's troubling you. — 180 Proof
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad. — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds. — ThinkOfOne
And here they say that a person consists of desires. — ThinkOfOne
And as is his desire, so is his will; — ThinkOfOne
and as is his will, so is his deed; — ThinkOfOne
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — ThinkOfOne
Why can it not simply be natural cause and effect? Very few (if any) actions absolutely terminate in their intended consequences. Anything you do continues on, past, and through what you intend.Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment. — creativesoul
↪ThinkOfOne I offered my interpretation of the idea of "karma" ↪180 Proof. You've dismissed it without thoughtful (i.e. non-trivial) consideration, which exposes your dogmatic vapidity. I won't waste anymore of your time or mine; the last thoughtless word is, of course, yours ... — 180 Proof
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
— ThinkOfOne
Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. — Tate
Superficially they sound similar, however the underlying meanings are very different. Context is everything. — ThinkOfOne
Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment.
— creativesoul
Why can it not simply be natural cause and effect? Very few (if any) actions absolutely terminate in their intended consequences. Anything you do continues on, past, and through what you intend. — Pantagruel
Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. — Tate
The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil — praxis
You make your own karma". For the most part, seems like the current concept of karma is as a system of reward and punishment wherein "good deeds" are rewarded and "bad deeds" are punished. In conjunction with reincarnation, individuals ultimately get "what they deserve". Even if it takes many lifetimes. As with the Christian "trinity", I've yet to come across an explanation of karma's workings that holds water.
That said, from what I gather the original concept of karma was stated in the following:
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad.
He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds.
And here they say that a person consists of desires.
And as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
---- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
Now we're getting into something…
Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.
As an example, desire for salt or sugar works this way. Some years ago I had pretty much cut out salty foods from my diet. About six month later, my employer provided box lunches that included a bag of potato chips since we were working through. As I'd always loved potato chips, even though it wasn't in my diet, I figured I had the bag, might as well eat them. Upon placing a single chip in my mouth, I wanted to spit it out. It was revolting. Left the rest uneaten. It was really surprising. Prior to this, I'd always really liked salty foods - even often craved them. Chips. Salted nuts. Whatever. Bring them on. I still have no desire for them. A friend of mine said that she had had a similar experience with sugar.
Insofar as I can tell, pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors work this way.
Seems like most believe their unconscious mind to be largely, if not completely, static. It isn't. "You make your own karma".
Thoughts?
As an aside, one should note the wide gulf between the underlying concepts of the original and the current and ponder the impetus for such a dramatic corruption. A similar wide gulf can be seen between the gospel preached by Jesus during his ministry and the "gospel" believed by the vast majority of Christians. — ThinkOfOne
A theory that explains everything explains nothing.
if you buy a lottery ticket and win, it's your (good) karma and if you lose, it's your (bad) karma. — Agent Smith
Do you have any doctrinal support for this idea?
Which established theory of karma says this? — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.