I might have a better idea of where to begin if you explained more, if only a little. — praxis

It's your assertion. You don't know what you had in mind when you made it? Thus far your responses have been extremely brief. You are the one who needs to "explain more". You have things backward.

Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc. — praxis

It's as if your objection is that the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 don't fit with with the underlying concepts of Buddhist doctrine. Are you unaware that the Upanishads have been around much longer? So the pertinent question is how did Buddhist doctrine make that leap rather than how did I make that leap. Once again you have things backward.

When people only do good for some future reward, not for 'good in itself'. — Amity

Why should this be problematic?
Doing something for "good in itself" gives one the pleasure of feeling proud about one's morality, so it still falls under "doing good for some (future) reward".

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work?

It's like putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water, as opposed to putting a spoonful of salt into a great river. Putting it into a cup of water makes the water undrinkable; putting it into a great river makes no discernable difference to the taste of the water. The salt here is standing for bad deeds, and the amount of water for good deeds.

And some are judged as deserving of their illness or misfortune because they must have been bad in a previous life. 'What goes around comes around'. — Amity

Hence until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is remiss to make fun of those who have fallen on hard times or to feel schadenfreude towards them. Because until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is still subject to falling on hard times.

So if true, what does this matter? Any unfortunate ripening seems to be predestined, right? — Tom Storm

It matters because you can mitigate it, at least on the level of how you think about it. Without karma, you'd be hopelessly left to your fate.

Never mind, it's all a load of bull anyway — Amity

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.

I am looking for what it means in the here and now, the practical world.
For example, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling? — Amity

For example, by recognizong that acting out of hostility will bring along more hostility.

The difference is that I interpret "karma" without the non-pragmatic bits.

Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.

How does that work?

It's like putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water, as opposed to putting a spoonful of salt into a great river. Putting it into a cup of water makes the water undrinkable; putting it into a great river makes no discernable difference to the taste of the water. The salt here is standing for bad deeds, and the amount of water for good deeds. — baker

Putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water might make it undrinkable but it can still be a good, bring medicinal benefits as in e.g. a gargle.

Even if were bad, isn't that more of a negative contribution or action rather than a negative withdrawal?

I suppose a withdrawal of water from a reservoir could be either a positive ( to quench thirst, satisfy demands of industry)
or a negative ( reduces amount of water available).

While we can think of it in these real or natural/physical terms, I still am unclear as to how it works, if it works, in a supernatural or spiritual way.

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma. — baker

How so?

My impression of Indian culture before it underwent westernisation, is that it's belief in reincarnation encouraged slower and more sustainable lifestyles,

but that it's belief in karmic justice encouraged social neglect of the downtrodden. — sime

This social neglect is a possible consequence of not believing in karma at all, or of believing oneself to already be "above karma" (and thus not subject to it).

But this neglect is also a way to push the downtrodden to "try harder". It's similar to how secular societies implicitly believe that punishing people will motivate them to better themselves.

For example, if modern society is to survive then it needs to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles together with long-term ecological investments that will benefit future generations more than today's. Does this necessity imply that society's environmentally unsustainable belief that "You only live once" will mutate towards a belief in reincarnation that encourages people to work for tomorrows generations rather than today's ?

I don't think so. Belief in reincarnation or rebirth might encourage people to be more careful in what they do; if they seem themselves as the recipients of their own actions down the line, they're less likely to do harmful things. But since belief in reincarnation or rebirth is generally considered woo, we're left only with the tentaive love that people have for their children.

If karma has to be taken seriously, then it is to sensible to identify Karma with causality and then recall the practical impossibility of knowing causal relations with any certainty. — sime

Indeed. In fact, it is said that trying to figure out the exact workings of karma would make one insane.
However, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of the principle of karma for informing one's course of action. Namely, if you predict that suffering for yourself, for others, or for both would ensue from something you intend to do, then you shouldn't do it.

If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.
— baker

How so? — Amity

Because you believed in the _mitigating_ effects of your apology or efforts to make amends.

Good question. What are the practical needs of society? The basics as per Maslow?
If they are not met, then how would that affect any metaphysical beliefs?
Why metaphysical and not personal, economic or political beliefs...? — Amity

Because metaphysical beliefs come first.

One meets one's practical needs because one has certain metaphysical beliefs.

There's no point in eating if you have no idea what you're eating for, living for, or if what you've been living for is gone.

The difference is that I interpret "karma" without the non-pragmatic bits. — 180 Proof

That doesn't address the question. Tell you what, I'll rephrase:
Which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic"?

Reread my first post . Whatever you find missing from my conception answers your question. Btw, I wasn't proposing an exegesis of any particular sacred scripture when I summarized my understanding of the concept, so your question is besides the point I made. Of course, you can dismiss my idea of "karma" as heterodox deflationary bastardization or just merely a confused misconception of the ancient Hindu idea, which would be valid exegetically I suppose.

It's as if your objection is that the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 don't fit with with the underlying concepts of Buddhist doctrine. Are you unaware that the Upanishads have been around much longer? So the pertinent question is how did Buddhist doctrine make that leap rather than how did I make that leap. Once again you have things backward. — ThinkOfOne

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.

Let's see.

↪180 Proof
How are the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 not "pragmatic"? It incorporates how you interpret karma. Plus is much deeper and profound. — ThinkOfOne

↪ThinkOfOne The difference is that I interpret "karma" without the non-pragmatic bits. — 180 Proof

That doesn't address the question. Tell you what, I'll rephrase:
Which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic"? — ThinkOfOne

Reread my first post ↪180 Proof. Whatever you find missing from my conception answers your quesrion. — 180 Proof

This gets us back to the first question quoted above. You're talking in circles.

Evidently you are unable to articulate how the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Or even which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Why don't you just admit it?

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing. — praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine? This doesn't help your case either.

I wonder about karma a fair amount because I often feel that I get some forms of instant karma. Of course, I realise that I may be overinterpreting. However, one aspect which may be possible is that the unconscious aspect of oneself gives us the lessons which are needed. In this way, the law of karma is the law of cause and effect but involving the deeper aspects of mind rather than simply being about cause and effect on a physical basis. Also, it doesn't have to be about punishment although it is possible that some underlying sense of guilt may have a kind of atoning aspect.

The other aspects is whether or not the idea of karma is dependent on rebirth. If there is some kind of chain of births it may be that the present lifeforms are influenced in some way by the present ones, rather than literal reincarnation. That would be like the influence of the ancestors on the people being born, perhaps, in a basic way, like DNA, The body returns to dust and everything is recycled in new forms.

I deny nothing. As I've pointed out already

Btw, I wasn't proposing an exegesis of any particular sacred scripture when I summarized my understanding of the concept, so your question is besides the point I made. — 180 Proof

so make of my idea of "karma" what you will or dismiss it. :roll:

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.
— praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine? — ThinkOfOne

No, you pointed that out yourself.

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons. — ThinkOfOne

Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.

If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal?

You seem to be trying to find ways for belief in "karma" to be rational not unlike Christians who believe in the Trinity or that by believing in the "atoning sacrifice of Jesus" they receive "eternal life".

Well, you seem to have lost the context again. Even after my last post laid it out for you. Doesn't seem to be any point in trying again.

I see. You're concerned with scriptural dogma and I'm concern with conceptual analysis. My mistake for attempting to draw you (& others) out of a mythological cul de sac and into an open philosophical discussion. Pax. :victory:

My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that that’s a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, there’s underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.
— praxis

Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine?
— ThinkOfOne

No, you pointed that out yourself. — praxis

Isn't this the "underlying metaphysics that [ I ] appear to be dismissing"?

Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc. — praxis

How isn't the "twelve link chain of of dependent origination, etc etc." referring to Buddhist doctrine

↪ThinkOfOne I see. You're concerned with scriptural dogma and I'm concern with conceptual analysis. My mistake for attempting to draw you (& others) out of a mythological cul de sac and into an open philosophical discussion. Pax. :victory: — 180 Proof

Actually I'm much more concerned with "conceptual analysis" rather than "scriptural dogma". You just make one illogical leap after another and instead of owning it, you choose to DENY it.

You appear to be dismissing pre-Buddhist metaphysics.

Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.

If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal? — baker

You seem to have in mind a point that you haven't explicitly stated. Can you explicitly state it or at least elaborate on it?

You appear to be dismissing pre-Buddhist metaphysics. — praxis

What do you have in mind?

Deliberately training yourself in some way or, as you say, self-conditioning your unconscious, is one thing and karma is another.

In the last paragraph of the OP you seem to suggest that your conception of karma is the pure original and what exist today is a corrupted version. That’s a remarkable claim, if that is your meaning.

You're the one in denial. :point:

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 — ThinkOfOne

Scriptural dogma. :sweat:

Deliberately training yourself in some way or, as you say, self-conditioning your unconscious, is one thing and karma is another.

In the last paragraph of the OP you seem to suggest that your conception of karma is the pure original and what exist today is a corrupted version. That’s a remarkable claim, if that is your meaning. — praxis

Yes. What exists today, as it's commonly understood, is a corrupted version.

As I responded to another poster earlier:

Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.

Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons.

On the other hand, the original underlying concepts of karma, as given in the OP, are reasonably sound. — ThinkOfOne

It's really simple:
The original is reasonably sound.
What exists today are products of irrational thought.
As such, what exists today is a corrupted version.

↪ThinkOfOne You're the one in denial. :point:
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
— ThinkOfOne
Scriptural dogma. :sweat: — 180 Proof

Yet another illogical leap by you. It does not logically follow that I am concerned with "scriptural dogma" rather than "conceptual analysis" just because I cited scripture. I only cited the scripture as a way of introducing a couple of talking points. You should consider taking classes in Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking. Seems like you are also in denial of your deficiencies in those areas.