and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — ThinkOfOne

Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword.

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 thinking" are fine, BlinkOffOn; it's your own inconsistency / disingenuousness that's troubling you.

Thoughts? — ThinkOfOne

Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment.

↪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

If your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills were improved, you might just be able to understand what others post. It's unfortunate you let your pride get in the way.

a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad. — Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6

Not necessarily, no. A man of bad acts may see the harm he's caused and change his ways. Conversely, a man of good acts may become corrupt.

He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds. — ThinkOfOne

Who can say what deeds are pure or bad? A religious authority. :grimace:

And here they say that a person consists of desires. — ThinkOfOne

They are stupid, a person is more than a collection of desires.

And as is his desire, so is his will; — ThinkOfOne

Not at all, we resist our desires all the time.

and as is his will, so is his deed; — ThinkOfOne

No, intention is not necessarily followed by action.

and whatever deed he does, that he will reap. — ThinkOfOne

Yeah no, people get away with shit all the time.


The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil to the cow-eyed masses. :roll:

I offered my interpretation of the idea of "karma" . 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 ...

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.

↪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

Seriously. Take reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. It can only help you.

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.

Superficially they sound similar, however the underlying meanings are very different. Context is everything. — ThinkOfOne

Could be. You're a contrarian, so you'll find people always contradict you.

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

Various theories of karma have in common that they view karma as a feedback loop, but they differ in the scope of this feedback loop (and thus in the applicability and usefulness of the concept of karma).

For some, like the OP, the scope of karma is strictly intrapersonal, psycho-physiological, operating only within the particular person.

Some populist theories of karma propose an interpersonal scope of the feedback loop (what you do to others, others will do to you).

Some theories go further and expand the feedback loop over several lifetimes, ie. they introduce the notion of reincarnation/rebirth (whereby they can conceive of the feedback loop as being either intrapersonal only, or interpersonal, or both).

Various theories of karma have in common that they view karma as a feedback loop, — baker

:up: :up:

Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword. — Tate

Only in fatalistic conceptions of karma. Such fatalistic conceptions deny that in the present moment one has any chance to act any differently than in the past and that one is hopelessly at the mercy of one's past actions.

But I'm having the impression that the OP is only after the intrapersonal theory of karma and considers the interpersonal one "irrational".

The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil — praxis

And this is also one of the problems with an intrapersonal understanding of karma. Without regard for other people, who gets to define what the pure deeds are and what the evil ones?

There is nothing that would stop such a self-referential-only person from developing into an absolute egomaniacal narcissist that goes around killing, raping, and pillaging, feeling good about himself because he defined those deeds of his as pure and good.

Got a somewhat reliable link/citation to the BU 4.4.5-6? Or are you foollin' this backwoods kid with that translation?

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

The above OP/quote is for the record. To prevent any mysterious changes to it.

Karma, though it's an extrapolation of Newton's 3^rd law of motion (action = reaction) is unscientific - it can't be falsified since e.g. if you buy a lottery ticket and win, it's your (good) karma and if you lose, it's your (bad) karma.

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?

Do you have any doctrinal support for this idea?
Which established theory of karma says this? — baker

:blush: How about things at your end? Any "doctrinal support" that asserts the contrary?

You made the claim, the burden of reference is on you.

:smile: