• Mind Dough
    30
    I recently wrote an article about karma and I am curious about your thoughts on it.

    The Case for Karma
    Introduction
    Since I can remember, I have found karma to be a charming idea: people that do bad things, end up getting back bad things and people who do good things eventually get just as much goodness in return.

    Even though I am not the superstitious type, deep down it is something I (want to) believe.

    In the western world, karma is a concept that is commonly thought of when something unexpectedly good or bad happens. Take the example of playing a game: karma is mentioned when someone who purposely opposed you, gets some bad luck the next turn. And we like it more when kind people take the win (but of course not as much as we like to win ourselves :wink: )

    And this is what I used to think all there is too karma. Act like a jerk, and people won’t do good things for you. Be a kind person, and good things come to you because people feel like you deserve it.

    Then of course there is still the subconscious vibe you give off to the people around you, but the point remains the same: karma is a people thing.

    But could karma also go deeper than that? Could karma be more like the religious interpretations? Something not there because of people, but something that is embedded in existence itself?

    Even though it sounds like a beautiful notion, it is also a complex one: you make a choice, and later the universe alters your fate in order to either reward you or to punish you. Does this mean there are universal definitions of what is good and what is bad? And does that mean there is actually a medium in which a score is kept in the form of “karma-points”?

    Well, in this article I will make a case for just that…sort of. But probably a bit differently than you are expecting right now.

    Definition
    Before we dive into things, I want to clarify that this article will not make a case for any specific interpretation of (the law of) karma. It will merely refer to the concept of cause and effect we refer to in everyday life. The notion of “what goes around, comes around” if it were.

    You
    Of course, this article wouldn’t be mine if I didn’t at least involve something complex, vague and hard to grasp. And as this article is no different, I will involve…you! Yes you!

    The concept of you is a very difficult one indeed. You might stop reading this article for a bit to disagree. You’re feeling quite you, don’t you? At this point maybe even more so as you are focusing your thoughts on your “you-ness”.

    But were you “you” yesterday? Were you “you” last week? And how about 10 years ago?

    Well, of course you were you. You remember being you in the past. And you plan for you in the future. Yet, there is a case to be made that you were, and will be, not you.

    Of course, “you” is just a definition we assigned to the experience we have as humans. An experience hardwired to ourselves. Probably because an understanding of “you” is useful for “your” survival. You can learn from the past, and influence the “you” from the future.

    But just because we assigned the word “you” to your feeling of “you-ness” does not mean it carries any value outside your scope of observation and experience.

    The question of identity is an entire philosophical discussion of its own. You could argue about physical identity or even ponder the definition of identity itself. But instead of these topics, I want to challenge you to think about your own perspective of “you”.

    Take a moment to look back a few years, to a younger you. From your perspective, this younger version is still you. But besides this feeling and the fact that most people would argue you and your younger self to be the same person, how do you actually feel about that yourself?

    Depending on how far back you go, you probably have little in common with the person you were.

    You used to be a child and have very different perceptions and thoughts about the world than you do now. In many ways, you are probably more similar to others of your age group than you were to yourself back then.

    The only real additional advantage you have over understanding your younger self rather than someone you have a lot in common with, is your ability to actually remember experiences (and being conscious) from their point of view.

    Having memories of your younger self could by itself be an argument to differentiate you from other people. However, this would only be one directional. It does give you a connection to your past. But does not connect you to any future self.

    And as our actions are only able to influence the future, the connection to your future self is what matters most for this article. You are willing to make sacrifices for the benefit of that future person you will become. A person you do not yet have any connection with at all.

    A State of Consciousness
    And let’s say we accept the idea that we are no longer the person we were, and will be a different person in the future. What will happen if the explore this idea further? Surely we were a different person 10 years ago. But how about 5 years? A single year? A month?

    Accepting you are a different person 10 years ago has to mean that somewhere along the line, you changed from one person into another.

    The philosophy of flow and change are deep topics of themselves. Of course, these discussions will depend heavily on definition: What is it to be you? What does it mean to be a different person?

    As this is an article about your experience, you are free to define this for yourself. Maybe you define yourself to be the person you are this day. Maybe you continue this trail of thought and decide you are only the person you are at this very moment. A single state in time.

    No matter how you define your moment of being, it is a way to separate your past, present and future. Instead of seeing yourself as a person living from birth to death and having a single large consciousness over your lifetime, you can interpret yourself as a conscious being living only in a moment, a conscious state. The only thing connecting future and past conscious states to your feeling of “you”, is that those states are also conscious of your past memories and imagination of the future, creating the illusion of the continued consciousness you experience.

    You cannot suffer the past or future because they do not exist. What you are suffering is your memory and your imagination.

    Besides the illusion of these connections there is nothing making one of these states more “you” than any other state would be. — Sadhguru

    The image below is a simple representation of this idea: You as a collection of conscious states.

    Uk9xLAqiZzGaXCjs0XNnoppD7IsdjlRUPhA5cqSU7yzHsilX16g2RCrgWENIwSXmkGM8JZ9-6GeOmgc88-M2n1sIi3F6GjILJvMeW_tM2SVSptZl4wGLVqh-7gDUJJ5leZ7gk9uX
    (The above representation is linear to make the argument easier to understand. Note that the concept of time is not actually needed for this abstraction. For the sake of simplicity, I will not go into that this article.)

    Others
    Now that we have covered “you”, it is time to cover another important aspect of karma: others. After all, without others to influence, there wouldn’t be any good or bad actions to begin with and thus no karma to speak of.

    With the previous chapters in mind, discussing others is not going to be a very large leap. You probably define others as “other people”. But as people experience multiple conscious states, how is a conscious state of another person really that different from a conscious state that used to be you?

    Imagine all conscious states that ever existed and will ever exist mapped in a single landscape. A small fraction will be a conscious state you experienced in your past. Another fraction will be the states you will experience as your future. But as even your own conscious states are not actually connected by anything more than memory and imagination, what makes them different from conscious states of other people?

    Conscious-states.png

    While this thought might weaken the sense of “self” it can also be interpreted as a strengthening of the sense of “all”. If the connection you have to your past and future are indeed not as special as we feel they are (and in nature/physics, anything rarely is), you could also argue that the connection we have to everything else might just be as special as that intuitive connection to ourselves we experience.

    What if the conscious states you experienced as a child, a different person, are just as different to your current conscious state as you current conscious state is to all others? There might be multiple conscious “experiences”, but there might only be a single consciousness.

    The lives of others might just be a part of your life that you do not remember nor imagine.

    Karma
    By now, most of you will probably have a pretty good idea of where I am going with this article. The case I am making is quite easy to summarize; instead of making a separation on people, I am making a separation based on conscious states.

    Granted, taking this leap does take some imagination. But if you can accept the idea, it opens you up to a whole new perspective. Instead of isolated experiences of a single person, you are suddenly able to remember the experiences of different conscious states. And maybe more importantly, it is a lot easier to accept the existence of conscious states that do not originate from the person you are.

    Being able to remember being conscious when you were younger is a great testament to the consciousness in others. If the probability of a consciousness in a future version of yourself makes you want to take care of yourself and even sacrifice current pleasures for the future, why does the same not apply to others?

    If the conscious experience is indeed the same for all. Does it actually make sense to discriminate between them just because one belongs to your future “you” and another belongs to another person? Would it not make more sense to take care of other people like you would take care of your future self? Sure, you won’t be able to remember it, but the other person, or rather “you” might appreciate it as much, if not more than your future self would.

    You will probably not be getting some bad dice rolls in a game because you are acting like a jerk. But in the end, you might just experience that energy while sitting on the opposite side of that table.

    Karma might not be some unexplainable higher force of nature nor a point system kept in some cosmic ledger. But karma is all actions we take (good or bad), which are influencing and experienced by others. And even if you think that an action does not influence “you”, it actually might. Just not the “you” you are now.

    Hopefully you don’t need this extensive argument in order to value all life. But I would say this argument does not only try to sell karma. It makes a case for a beautiful and balanced universe. Eventually, you will experience all kindness you put out into that universe. If it is not in this life, it will be in another.

    Personal Thoughts
    Personally, I find this thought to be a beautiful one. Not only does it give an explanation for a topic like karma, it also makes all conscious beings responsible for the overall experience of existence. Our actions actually do change the average experience of consciousness. Even if it’s just by a tiny bit.

    It is testament to yet another balance like so many that can be found in nature. We are all the judge, jury and executioner of all of existence. If we judge something to be bad, it is also the execution of our own actions that can make a difference.


    Blogpost: http://openminddough.com/the-case-for-karma/

    Thanks for reading :smile:
  • batsushi7
    45
    Karma is interesting concept, and same idea can be found in various religions, like in Christianity as form of "golden rule" (Matt. 7:12). Also in major philosophical theories, such as Kant's conception of categorical imperative.

    Bad sides about karma belief is that, in Hinduism/Buddhism it evolves conception of past,current, and future lives. Lots people in Asia are being marginalized, because they are believed to collect bad karma in previous lives, and as result to born human. In general human is very low position to be in rebirth system, what means you gathered up lot bad karma in your previous lives, and did various of bad things, and resulted you born into human form. Unless you were born as rich man, prince, or big leader, that indicates you lived good life in past, what will get you lots respect, including Gurus, Bodhisattva's. But if you are being born into marginalized group, like poor, disable, that indicates you have lived bad previous lives. And people make conception of you based on social group you are in, and assume that you gathered bad karma to be born in low class, what can be used as a tool to marginalization, and mainly lower classes suffers from this.

    So karma thinking can lead into dangerous ideas.
  • Gnomon
    3.8k
    Could karma be more like the religious interpretations? Something not there because of people, but something that is embedded in existence itself?Mind Dough
    Most theories of Karma & Heaven envision some sort of cause & effect Justice in this or another world, but not necessarily in your current lifetime. Since human laws and judgments are notoriously biased, throughout history ethical thinkers have seen the need for super-human Justice. Most cultures have imagined wise & infallible gods of Justice, yet accepted that such perfect equity was seldom seen in reality. So, the ultimate righting of wrongs was typically deferred to an after-life of some kind. Unfortunately, such otherworldly justice had to be taken on Faith in seers & sages with access to the occult realms.

    Some modern folks have given-up on Faith to make them feel better about the unfairness of the real world. But, I think they can take some insipid solace in the mathematical fact that impartial unbiased Randomness rules the laws of our physical world. Those evolutionary algorithms seem to be "embedded in existence itself". But they are truly fair & impartial in that they don't make exceptions to the implacable rule of Natural Law for people of moral merit. Thus the long-running lament : "Why do bad things happen to good people?" So, if Karma is a natural law, it must be able to discern Good from Evil like a moral agent. And its positive effect should be evident in the here & now, like all cause & effect events. :cool:

    Karma : "destiny or fate, following as effect from cause". __Wiki
    Sanskrit = action & reaction.
    "Karma, as taught in the Buddhist tradition and other spiritual traditions of India, is a cosmic law that operates automatically, like the law of gravity."

    Natural Law : . . . independent of, and pre-existent to, the positive law of any given political order, society or nation-state. Such genesis is seen as determined by nature (whether that reflects creation, evolution, or random chance), and a notional law of nature treated as objective fact that is universally applicable;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    Natural Justice : traditionally, assumed an intelligent agent of some kind to administer impartial rulings on the merits of each case of interpersonal contention. But in practice, Natural Justice is the result of randomized statistical algorithms inherent in the "laws" of Evolution.

    Why do bad things happen to good people? :
    Science --- https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-purpose/201910/why-do-bad-things-happen-good-people
    Christianity --- https://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/theology/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-good-people.html
    Judaism --- https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/622117/jewish/Why-Do-Bad-Things-Happen-to-Good-People.htm
    Hinduism --- https://krishna.org/why-do-bad-things-happen-to-us/
    Buddhism --- https://brightwayzen.org/why-does-god-let-bad-things-happen/

    84f500e39bc5cbb96e7a60066c91babf.jpg
  • tomi7
    10
    Not sure karma exists but if you want to hear an amazing story, one which may be an inspiration for those who believe.. anyway, so I went to Qld, for those who don't know where that is, it's a state in Australia, long way way from my joint. So I get home and realise my house has been robbed. The usual things had been stolen, televisions, jewellery, fine arts.. nah just joking I don't own fine arts, although if I had the money I know of some pieces I'd like to own.. getting bit of track, must be the natural storyteller in me. So. Couple weeks later after night on the town, early in the morning, I'm sitting at a convenience store waiting for my mate to come out of the store with two sallad rolls, he jumps in and says to me, hey Tomi the car behind us just asked me if we could possibly give them a jump start, being really early and exhausted from the night out I reluctantly look behind me to see what I'm dealing with here when I happen to notice one of the passengers was wearing a jacket that was strikingly similar to the one I just bought on my Holliday to Qld. So. I'm like, bro he's wearing my jacket, mates like what? I said, the jacket the guys wearing in the front seat, that's my jacket. Long story short, my mates soccer coach was a policeman who happens to live around the corner, we go there having remembered the number plate of the vehicle in question, knock on the door... ... ... Car happens to be stolen an hour ago, policeman hops in my car, drive back to the convenience store with other police on the way... Ends up being my jacket that guy was wearing, I know this because I wrote my name on the tag, I don't know why, everyone has something, my something is clothes, I put my my name on my tag. So they get busted go to prison I assume... Again I'm not sure I believe in karma, but you decide
  • Asif
    241
    @tomi7 Nice story. That is what I call real Karma! To me Karma is the human desire for honest justice. Whenever philosophers or dogmatists get there hands on a concept a human desire they make it into some non human abstract force for control.
    Man is the measure of all things. Not a ruler! Pun intended.
  • Philosophim
    2.6k
    The problem with Karma is it is an article of Faith, and therefore is not philosophy.

    Faith - the belief in something one desires, despite there being no evidence of it, or even evidence that contradicts its existence.

    We can examine the value of faith in philosophy, but as philosophers, we cannot use faith in our reasoning. Karma sounds nice. It appeals to the desire that there be justice for evil, and rewards for the good. But it is only ever wishful thinking.

    While it might sound defeatist or cruel, philosophy is about figuring out reality so that we can live a life empowered with the knowledge of our actions. No, the good you do will not come back to you. So why be good? No, the evil you do will not come back and punish you later on. So why not do evil? Those are the questions that you avoid when you hold onto articles of faith. Since Karma is not reality, you will make decisions on beliefs of things outside of reality. This can get you, and others, extremely hurt, life ruined, or killed.

    If you are interested in the mind, study neuroscience and psychology. Philosophy has had its day, but it is really not much of a contributer at this point in history.
  • tomi7
    10
    Thanks Asif
  • Outlander
    2.1k
    Faith - the belief in something one desires believes is [or could be] true, despite there being no evidence of it, or even evidence that contradicts its existence.Philosophim

    FIFY.

    Furthermore the discussion of anything that profoundly affects a large portion of society and related discussion is very philosophical.

    Also, you kinda just described the scientific process lol. That's why theories are theories before they become scientific law. It's a search or quest for answers when they're are none- or as you said- some that would suggest the opposite.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    My thoughts are that karma ought never to be the source of blame or of resignation. If you say 'it's their karma' or 'it's my karma' to rationalise misfortune or place blame, then it's a pretty repugnant theory. On the other hand, if you regard it as a regulative principle, seeing that every intentional action will have consequences, then it is a perfectly sound idea, and indeed the first principle of any realistic ethical philosophy.
  • javra
    2.6k
    And people make conception of you based on social group you are in, and assume that you gathered bad karma to be born in low class, what can be used as a tool to marginalization, and mainly lower classes suffers from this.

    So karma thinking can lead into dangerous ideas.
    batsushi7

    Yes, but the same can be said, for example, of the Abrahamic notion of Grace (as in "God's chosen"). IMO, most any formalized system of ethics, theistic or atheistic, can be sophistically misapplied by those with authoritarian power to further their own power over others.

    My thoughts are that karma ought never to be the source of blame or of resignation. If you say 'it's their karma' or 'it's my karma' to rationalise misfortune or place blame, then it's a pretty repugnant theory.Wayfarer

    Not only repugnant, but also incoherent.

    For example, when adopting the perspective of karma, it has always appeared to me that being uncompassionate toward others who experience unjust plights—notably, this on account of what one perceives to be the bad karma they’ve accumulated from previous lifetime(s))—will be, in and of itself, a conscious intention that results in one’s own future bad karma.

    Reawakening as a newborn which grows up within a future society that is at best insidiously vein and at worst sociopathically uncompassionate—a future society one has helped to bring about by one’s own actions in this lifetime—to me is one example of what bad karma might be like. And being uncompassionate toward others who unjustly suffer in this lifetime would be what helps precipitate such future society one would be re-birthed into. (Again, all this from the vantage of karma.)

    ----

    Also, more generally, while karma as applied to individual egos might be questionable (either in terms of intra- or cross-lifetimes), how is collective karma—wherein the current generation of egos creates the good or bad circumstances for subsequent generations of egos that have yet to be birthed—something that can be doubted? Here, simplistically expressed, one generation of human awareness gets re-birthed into a future generation of human awareness whose circumstances were produced by the former generation.

    Then again, under the worldview of karma, the egos of today will reawaken as the conscious beings of tomorrow—again, in a world that is (at least in part) the consequence of today’s sum of intentions and actions. Thereby seeming to tie in such collective karma to the karma of individual egos.
  • Mind Dough
    30
    Thanks Gnomon, seem to me that you are one of few people in the replies that actually bothered to read the article.

    The point is very similar to the "super-human" form of justice, but what I mean is that it is an inhered form of existence, rather than some intelligence or god. We are basically shaping the environment we all live in. How you choose to interpret "all" makes the difference for my point about karma.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I had not seen your article until just now, because I think it was just before I joined the forum. I was impressed by it.

    I do believe in the law of karma, even though I find it hard to explain logically. I definitely feel I am given learning experiences on a daily basis, sometimes very harsh ones.

    Some would explain it purely in terms of the subconscious, but even that is complex to explain.I definitely get synchronicity experiences on a regular basis. Also, I think that Jeremy and Esther Hicks law of attraction also come into the picture.

    Anyway, I was impressed with your article, but will read it in more depth as well, because I find it difficult to read for too long on my phone.
  • Mind Dough
    30

    Thank you for your interest, much appreciated!

    Karma in general is a very appealing thought I think. Maybe something we all want to believe :wink:

    I am not familiar with the law of attraction, but I think it refers a bit to the "people thing" part? Or am I wrong?

    Anyway, looking forward to hear what you think of the article. Have a nice evening :smile:
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Your article is interesting, but I think karma is an idea which makes sense to many intuitively, while many dismiss it because it is hard to verify.

    It is linked to consciousness as you observe and to the aspect of identity which we can trace through life experiences as you express in your statement that, 'The only thing connecting future and past conscious states to your feeling of '"you"" is that those states are also conscious of your past memories and imagination of the future.' This captures the seat of subjective consciousness experiences well. It is this aspect of self which is able to think about the possibility
    of karma.

    However, one aspect which you discuss is a fairly contentious area by those who believe in karma. That is whether karma is a natural law of justice. You say, 'you make a choice and later the universe alters your fate in order to either reward you or to punish you.' The question is it really about reward and punishment as such? It can be argued that karma is simply cause and effect, as expressed in the principle of you reap what you sow.

    Perhaps one limitations for us is that we have developed such ideas from esoteric traditions and cannot read those in the original languages they were written. Much of the thinking on Karma was based on Hindu thought and of course that emerged in a certain historical context. The idea of reaping what you sow was part of Christianity but of course I am talking mainly of the esoteric tradition of Christianity. Generally, the idea of karma is part of esoteric thinking and it is in recent years that more of this has reached popular thought through the new age movement.

    In your discussion of the justice of karma you do point to the way in which it is about balancing. What is interesting is that you say that, 'We are all judge, jury and executioner of all existence.' This does point to the way in which the person perhaps brings about the moral aspect of judgement through personal beliefs about right and wrong. So it is perhaps the higher self which administers the karma in accordance with deep seated ideas of punishment and reward.

    You asked me about the law of attraction as expressed by Esther and Jeremy Hicks, and many other authors. The basic idea is that our deepest desires shape the manifestation of experience in our lives. The way in which I think that this relates to the way you describe karma is that it is our deepest consciousness which determines consequences in daily life. I think the essential underlying aspect shared by the two systems of thought is the idea that manifest experiences arebeyond the superficial wishes and goals of ego consciousness.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    The case for karma to me is much simpler than your conceptualization of it. It follows directly from the Principle Of Sufficient Reason:

    1. For every entity X, if X exists, then there is a sufficient explanation for why X exists.
    2. For every event E, if E occurs, then there is a sufficient explanation for why E occurs.
    3. For every proposition P, if P is true, then there is a sufficient explanation for why P is true.

    Please take what I say here with a grain of salt. Everyone, in their lives, at one point or another, has asked these questions: "why is this happening to me?", "what did I do to deserve this?" meant in both a negative sense (a calamity has befallen one) and in a positive sense (a fortunate event has occurred). These questions mean only one thing in my humble opinion - you're unable to explain i.e. find a cause for what you're experiencing (a string of bad events or a lucky break). However, as the Principle Of Sufficient Reason states, for every event E, if E occurs, then there's a sufficient explanation for why E occurs, and since nothing in your present life explains some events, good or bad, it follows that the cause must've been in a different life, a past life.

    Please note, the familiar western notion of what goes around comes around isn't karma. Yes, karma can manifest in the present life - one's actions today producing consequences the next day or a month, or years later - but karma is usually used to refer to moral causality that carries from one life to another via reincarnation.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    I don't think that you are correct to say that there is a clear distinction between the idea between the Western idea of what goes comes around in Western thought and the idea of karma. The Western idea is based primarily on the Biblical notion of reaping what you sow. This can be connected to the belief in reincarnation held within the esoteric tradition of Christianity, which has been repressed, but still influential nevertheless.

    As far as the idea of reincarnation itself is concerned this was particularly apparent in Hinduism. But it has been developed more strongly in the theosophical tradition. Karma is said to carry from life to life but also just as much to the learning curve in this life too. It is possible to be on a life of accelerated learning, especially in the lifetimes which are the hardest ones involving the most suffering. This can result in what John Lennon described as 'Instant Karma.'

    Personally, I find it easier to believe in karma than reincarnation, because I can watch it occur. I think I must have a heavy karmic debt because I sometimes encounter all kinds of misfortunes, but they do often feel like lessons the universe, or some higher power, is giving me. Of course, it may all be my imagination.

    I would like to believe in reincarnation too. At times I do and at other times I don't. Having one life and one body is limiting.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I didn't say anything that contradicts you.

    Yes, karma can manifest in the present life - one's actions today producing consequences the next day or a month, or years laterTheMadFool
  • Merkwurdichliebe
    2.6k
    Personally, I find it easier to believe in karma than reincarnation, because I can watch it occur. I think I must have a heavy karmic debt because I sometimes encounter all kinds of misfortunes, but they do often feel like lessons the universe, or some higher power, is giving me. Of course, it may all be my imagination.

    I would like to believe in reincarnation too. At times I do and at other times I don't. Having one life and one body is limiting.
    Jack Cummins

    I see you like Nietzsche. What about eternal return? How might it relate to reincarnation? You mentioned theosophy I think, so you know what's up with reincarnation (kamarupa and shit...).

    Also, I would argue that having one body and life is the most decisive form of life, and such a mode holds the utmost importance for an individuals existence.

    Karma as retribution is relevent here. Karma is just as relevant to the single life as it is to the reincarnated, since the dread of existence cannot be measured subjectively. And since karma relates directly to the subject, no measure of worldy diversion can deter the karmic fate of any subject.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    Yes, Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence is interesting and I might start a thread on that in the next few days.

    Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies. And that would incur more suffering. So I don't know what the antinatalists would make of my wish to be reborn into the world. Of course, the Hindus and Buddhists do speak of the aim of transcending the earthly plane, but I don't feel ready for that, not just yet....
  • Mind Dough
    30
    My appologies for the late reply.

    aspect which you discuss is a fairly contentious area by thoJack Cummins

    However, one aspect which you discuss is a fairly contentious area by those who believe in karma. That is whether karma is a natural law of justice. You say, 'you make a choice and later the universe alters your fate in order to either reward you or to punish you.' The question is it really about reward and punishment as such? It can be argued that karma is simply cause and effect, as expressed in the principle of you reap what you sow.Jack Cummins

    This is true, however, I do not mean this to be some kind of higher form of justice. I mean that other people experience your actions, and that our definition of the "self" might not be limited to the person that we are. Hence, the experiences of those other people are the "justice" you will receive.

    Please note, the familiar western notion of what goes around comes around isn't karma. Yes, karma can manifest in the present life - one's actions today producing consequences the next day or a month, or years later - but karma is usually used to refer to moral causality that carries from one life to another via reincarnation.TheMadFool

    In one way or another I would still argue it can relate to "what goes around comes around". All about definition I suppose ;)

    I don't think that you are correct to say that there is a clear distinction between the idea between the Western idea of what goes comes around in Western thought and the idea of karma. The Western idea is based primarily on the Biblical notion of reaping what you sow. This can be connected to the belief in reincarnation held within the esoteric tradition of Christianity, which has been repressed, but still influential nevertheless.Jack Cummins

    Would you not agree they are just different ways of expressing the same thing? Sure, one of the explanations might explicitly mention different lives, but in the end I would say it carries the same logic/intention.

    Karma as retribution is relevent here. Karma is just as relevant to the single life as it is to the reincarnated, since the dread of existence cannot be measured subjectively. And since karma relates directly to the subject, no measure of worldy diversion can deter the karmic fate of any subject.Merkwurdichliebe

    Spot on I would say. In my article I would define the subject as consciousness or experience in general. Not a single person/soul.

    Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies. And that would incur more suffering. So I don't know what the antinatalists would make of my wish to be reborn into the world.Jack Cummins

    I think the thought of immortality is a pleasing one to many humans. However, have you thought about what it would actually mean? You would be born anew without memories of the "previous" life, in a different time or the same. Depending on what you would define for a reincarnation rather than a separate soul, I would argue that the whole of (human) existence could be many reincarnations of the same one. This is the interconnectedness I mean in my article.

    Regards,
    me.
  • baker
    5.6k
    I recently wrote an article about karma and I am curious about your thoughts on it.Mind Dough
    What is the source of your ideas about karma?

    I see you mention Sadhguru and you spell "karma" (not the Pali "kamma").
  • Jack Cummins
    5.3k

    It seems a long time ago that I wrote my answers to you but I was pleased to get a reply. I have in the meantime been engaged in discussions about life after death, especially in a thread I began: what happens to consciousness when we die? I can't say that it has brought me to any certain conclusions at the present time.

    I even got into a debate, with someone on a completely different thread theme, about the idea of eternal recurrence as developed by Nietzsche. He suggested that the whole of history may repeat itself in cycles of repetition. This would mean the we repeat our current lives repeatedly again and again. This can be seen as a possibil literal or symbolic truth.

    However, I have to say that the idea of rebirth as different forms is the most appealing because it gives scope for so much learning through diverse experiences. I would like it to be true, but that doesn't mean it is. It may be that the various ideas such as reincarnation, heaven and hell, reincarnation and resurrection point to the symbolic truths, for viewing our lives within the greater scheme of the eternal.
  • DoppyTheElv
    127
    Perhaps I am greedy for wanting more lives and bodies.Jack Cummins

    I believe it is folly to say that wanting more life is greedy. It's the most fundamental thing we have, it's only natural to have the desire to keep it. What are we worth if we cannot even be?

    The entire movement of just stopping the worry about death and dying to simply accept it for the sake of intellectual strength is just silly to me.

    What about eternal return?Merkwurdichliebe

    I had the idea that Nietzsche had invented eternal return to make a point about life, not as actual argument. I remember a paper from a while back that argues something of the sorts though.
    Here: https://philpapers.org/rec/HUEEIE Though I believe I have seen a good rebuttal here on the forum and on the web in the form of: The argument requires the past and future to be infinite which is very debatable and even if they were, the same configurations might not reappear even in an infinite.
  • Wayfarer
    22.5k
    Neitszche's 'myth of the eternal return' is somewhat different to the Indic notion of the 'endless cycle of rebirth', because, in the latter, an escape from the eternal cycle, described as Nirvāṇa, mokṣa or liberation, is central to the belief system. As Neitszche rejected any notion of transcendence (to my knowledge) then there can be nothing beyond the eternal cycle of rebirth, because there is no 'beyond'.
  • baker
    5.6k
    In the beginning of "The unbearable lightness of being", Kundera writes:

    The idea of eternal return is a mysterious one, and Nietzsche has often perplexed other
    philosophers with it: to think that everything recurs as we once experienced it, and that
    the recurrence itself recurs ad infinitum! What does this mad myth signify?

    Putting it negatively, the myth of eternal return states that a life which disappears once
    and for all, which does not return, is like a shadow, without weight, dead in advance,
    and whether it was horrible, beautiful, or sublime, its horror, sublimity, and beauty mean
    nothing. We need take no more note of it than of a war between two African kingdoms
    in the fourteenth century, a war that altered nothing in the destiny of the world, even if a
    hundred thousand blacks perished in excruciating torment.

    Will the war between two African kingdoms in the fourteenth century itself be altered if it
    recurs again and again, in eternal return?

    It will: it will become a solid mass, permanently protuberant, its inanity irreparable.
    If the French Revolution were to recur eternally, French historians would be less proud
    of Robespierre. But because they deal with something that will not return, the bloody
    years of the Revolution have turned into mere words, theories, and discussions, have
    become lighter than feathers, frightening no one. There is an infinite difference between
    a Robespierre who occurs only once in history and a Robespierre who eternally returns,
    chopping off French heads.

    Let us therefore agree that the idea of eternal return implies a perspective from which
    things appear other than as we know them: they appear without the mitigating
    circumstance of their transitory nature. This mitigating circumstance prevents us from
    coming to a verdict. For how can we condemn something that is ephemeral, in transit?

    In the sunset of dissolution, everything is illuminated by the aura of nostalgia, even the
    guillotine.


    https://www.amazon.com/Unbearable-Lightness-Being-Twentieth-Anniversary/dp/0060597186/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

    In the absence of some idea of the possibility of transcending the round of repetition, it becomes unbearable. On the other hand, believing that each person and each event are unique makes them lose value.
  • Mind Dough
    30

    I share your liking of the idea, that is why I wrote this article about it. It is an idea that aligns with our values and I think we like it because it is an idea that makes us feel like our actions actually matter. And I think they do :)
  • Mind Dough
    30
    I definitely have to read into this "Eternal return", thanks for the tips guys! Will let you know my thoughts
  • Mind Dough
    30
    What is the source of your ideas about karma?baker

    Basically shower thoughts :sweat:

    I quoted Sadhguru because I was Googling for a quote that fit my article. Saw some of his video's though, very interesting!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.