Karma is some bullshit!

[n9newunsixx5150]

Actually it's NOT the same.

The concept of karma, in itself, is exactly the same as reaping what you sow. Where you disagree is when it becomes an issue of reincarnation.

Actually you DON'T believe in reaping what you sow. You believe in KARMA and REINCARNATION. The two concepts are different my friend. If you say you don't believe in it thats you. I say I transcend it because I AM above it and DON'T find validity in the doctrine/dogma.

Whether I believe in reincarnation or not is irrelevant. I believe that we reap what we sow by karmic law. Your argument is with reincarnation, not karma.

Which can be done HERE and NOW not by repeating the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...until one gets it right.

That's a good attitude to have. There is no time to waste.

You don't see why I disagree because you actually believe the two concepts (reap what you sow/karma) are the same. If you can't comprehend this simple truth you'll forever repeat the same thing over and over and over.......just like karma.

Whether we are speaking of karma within a single life or within many, we are still referring to our capacity to reap what we sow.

 

[HERESY]

Read before you post.....

"There are many ways to describe the effect of Karma on our lives. Any of these phrases sound familiar? "What you give is what you get." "What goes around comes around." "You get exactly what you deserve." "You always get what's coming to you." "Everything that you do will come back to you." "What goes around comes around." "You will always reap what you sow." Certainly you have heard at least one of these sayings at one time or another.


ok.

Did the last one ring a bell? (A church bell, perhaps?)


I don't go to church and no they don't sound like the church bell patchs in my workstations. Sorry.


The phrase, "You will always reap what you sow." is a quote straight from the Bible. Karma?

Please provide the verse. Karma? No.

Well, what do you know? Something else we did not learn in Sunday school, despite this Truth being in plain view in the scriptures. I know I was stunned when I first learned that the Truth of Karma was actually in the Bible of all places.


Actually it's NOT in the bible. The process of reaping what you sow (which is a natural process) is DIFFERENT from a person doing good or bad and having that dictate a future life which which one is doomed to repeat. The bible states a man is to die ONCE and to be judged Heb.9:27. Not twice, not a million times until he gets it right. The bible teaches NOW is the appropriate time to get it "right" because when you die the chance to get it right will no longer be availiable to you.


Thats different from KARMA which happens to be a product of reincarnation. Reincarnation and karma go hand in hand. Karma and "reap what you sow" do NOT.

I was truly amazed to discover that the Law of Action and Reaction was never mentioned by religious people in the westernhemisphere, even though it is written in the most famous western scripture


This is a natural process. What goes up must come down, what is thrown must fall. It's not KARMA (which is rooted in a certain doctrine/dogma) nor is it rooted in you reap what you sow.


The only KARMA I accept is the KORG KARMA and let em tell you it's one fantastic machine!



@916 Yeah it's said they were bred for magick but what if they never existed?

http://www.scumpa.com/~art/king-richards-sep02/liger.jpg

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=liger+

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

karma is not a product of reincarnation. Nor do they necessarily go hand in hand. The principle of karma is independent of the principle of reincarnation.

 

[HERESY]

The concept of karma, in itself, is exactly the same as reaping what you sow. Where you disagree is when it becomes an issue of reincarnation.


This may be accurate to some extent.


Whether I believe in reincarnation or not is irrelevant. I believe that we reap what we sow by karmic law. Your argument is with reincarnation, not karma.


No my arguement is with karma having a say so in reincarnation (and vice versa). My arguement is with the doctrine.......


That's a good attitude to have. There is no time to waste.

This is what the bible teaches. It does not teach "karma" as the hindus teach it.


Whether we are speaking of karma within a single life or within many, we are still referring to our capacity to reap what we sow.


Point taken.



:hgk:

 

[HERESY]

karma is not a product of reincarnation. Nor do they necessarily go hand in hand. The principle of karma is independent of the principle of reincarnation.

Your doctrine teaches what? No need to go into the different types (sanchita, kriyamana and prarabdha) just explain what your doctrine teaches about karma and reincarnation. That way we can reconcile any misconceptions you may think I have.



:hgk:

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

In conclusion:

Karma is karma and reincarnation is reincarnation. In the context of Vedic knowledge, yes, karma goes beyond one physical incarnation but that is only because it also preaches the principle of reincarnation. If one is just to take the principle of karma and analyze what it means, one will find that it simply refers to action and reaction.

Srila Prabhupada gives the following definitions for karma:

(1) material action performed according to scriptural regulations;
(2) action pertaining to the development of the material body;
(3) any material action which will incur a subsequent reaction;
(4) the material reaction one incurs due to fruitive activities.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Your doctrine teaches what? No need to go into the different types (sanchita, kriyamana and prarabdha) just explain what your doctrine teaches about karma and reincarnation. That way we can reconcile any misconceptions you may think I have.

"My doctrine" teaches both karma and reincarnation. But this thread is not about my doctrine. It is simply about the principle of karma.

 

[HERESY]

Ok we'll both agree that action and reaction is the same as reaping what you sow. I don't label this as KARMA because your doctrine does not have a "simple" point blank concept.

Your doctrine teaches karma and reincarnation:


In the context of Vedic knowledge, yes, karma goes beyond one physical incarnation but that is only because it also preaches the principle of reincarnation.

Karma is an ACTION that happens (or one must do it) in order to achieve a specific "state":

(1) material action performed according to scriptural regulations;
(2) action pertaining to the development of the material body;
(3) any material action which will incur a subsequent reaction;
(4) the material reaction one incurs due to fruitive activities.

Karma is goal orientated , purpose driven and different from "you do the crime you do the time" which is basically you reap what you sow or you make your bed you lie in it. Your karma doctrine MUST go hand in hand with your reincarnation doctrine because one effects the other in a progressive sense. Can you see where I'm going?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

"Ok we'll both agree that action and reaction is the same as reaping what you sow. I don't label this as KARMA because your doctrine does not have a "simple" point blank concept."

Yes, it does. I have already explained that concept.


"Karma is goal orientated , purpose driven and different from "you do the crime you do the time" which is basically you reap what you sow or you make your bed you lie in it."

Karma refers to action. When is an action not goal oriented? When one "does the crime" is one not performing an action with a desired result?


"Your karma doctrine MUST go hand in hand with your reincarnation doctrine because one effects the other in a progressive sense. Can you see where I'm going?"

Karma effects reincarnation the same way sowing effects reincarnation. If you do not believe in reincarnation that is another debate altogether. Karma does not have to go hand in hand with reincarnation in the same way sowing doesn't have to. It all depends on whether one accepts the concept of reincarnation as fact.

What you are doing is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The baby being karma, (the thread topic), and the bathwater obviously being the concept of reincarnation.

 

[7-1-3 Click]

to me, what causes karma-GOD! plain and simple.

 

[HERESY]

Yes, it does. I have already explained that concept.

Let's simply agree to disagree on this one bro.

Karma refers to action. When is an action not goal oriented? When one "does the crime" is one not performing an action with a desired result?


I understand it refers to action thats why I typed this in my previous post:

Karma is an ACTION that happens (or one must do it) in order to achieve a specific "state":

When one does the crime and one gets CAUGHT thats when trouble creeps in. You rob a bank, you get caught. Your fault. You sowed those seeds now you must reap them. However you reap them HERE not 10,000 years later of repeating the same thing. Ok, so what about all the people who do things and DON'T get caught? They have to back step and get an animal body or they get another human body in a worse state? If the next state is worse than the previous state how hard will it be to come back to the orignal state AND supercede it?


Your doctrine uses karma in conjunction with reincarnation and thats simply my point. Now you may say "oh yeah thats obvious" but when you go that route you make "life" a series of WORKS and "be good" and thats what I don't agree with. Good karma = good things. Bad karma = bad things but when does the ENTIRE cycle end? When The Destroyer blows the whistle? You should do "good" because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Not so you can get to heaven or so you can become some super diety with 88 arms.


KARMA (taught by hindus) = Reward system based on nothing.


You go through all these hoops to get to point z bypassing point g and where does it get you? Illusion? If we are not to be concerned with the physical and material shouldn't karma and good deeds be of little value?


Karma effects reincarnation the same way sowing effects reincarnation. If you do not believe in reincarnation that is another debate altogether.


If you plant a seed in the ground and that seed sprouts to an apple tree guess what? It generates fruit which have apple seeds inside. The apples fall to the ground, bust open and the seeds sprout again. The ORIGINAL seed is not being "reborn" nor do the NEW tree's/ seeds have a connection with the old tree/seed.


If you hold the belief that reincarnation is TRUE (some hindus DON'T believe this) you NEED a "karma" law or stipulation otherwise your doctrine is changed. I don't believe in reincarnation and the hindu version of karma. The "karma" or action-reaction of the bible is a different concept.

What you are doing is called throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The baby being karma, (the thread topic), and the bathwater obviously being the concept of reincarnation.


Actually I haven't done that. You should go back and READ the FIRST page of this thread. Here are excerpts from different posters:


well murda if what they say is true and it stems from a past life then people like you and myself were some really fucced up individuals in the past life so we payin for it now.....


i wonder what I did in my past life....


As someone pointed out above, there is no time limit for Karma to work, you can't give it a day or a week or a year, it could take several lifetimes (if you believe in it).


From my understanding of karma, in order to believe in it, you must also believe in rebirth because the consequences for you good or bad actions come back to you in your next life, not this one. In other words, you can rape and murder 100 people in this life and you may never experience any sort of punishment. But when your next life comes along, you're gonna pay quite heavily.


These statements were made before I responded to the thread so if the baby was thrown out it was thrown out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before I even entered the bathroom.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Let's simply agree to disagree on this one bro.

What does this mean? That we should disagree whimsically? I'll decline on that offer. Let us further investigate this so-called disagreement using reason. I think we're almost there...

When one does the crime and one gets CAUGHT thats when trouble creeps in. You rob a bank, you get caught. Your fault. You sowed those seeds now you must reap them. However you reap them HERE not 10,000 years later of repeating the same thing. Ok, so what about all the people who do things and DON'T get caught? They have to back step and get an animal body or they get another human body in a worse state? If the next state is worse than the previous state how hard will it be to come back to the orignal state AND supercede it?

Whether they are reaped one year later or one thousand years later is irrelevant. Karma is karma is karma. You disagree with reincarnation, not karma.

Your doctrine uses karma in conjunction with reincarnation and thats simply my point.

As I have said before, this thread is not specifically about my doctrine. We are talking about karma, period. The principle of karma means reaping what we sow.

Now you may say "oh yeah thats obvious" but when you go that route you make "life" a series of WORKS and "be good" and thats what I don't agree with. Good karma = good things. Bad karma = bad things but when does the ENTIRE cycle end? When The Destroyer blows the whistle? You should do "good" because it's the RIGHT thing to do. Not so you can get to heaven or so you can become some super diety with 88 arms.

Exactly. This is Vaisnava philosophy. Karma is bad altogether. "Good" and "bad" karma is meaningless. The whole idea is to transcend karma. That is done not by karmic works, but by devotion to God.

KARMA (taught by hindus) = Reward system based on nothing.

Forget "hindus". Beside that the term is not even applicable, many modern day "hindus" are the less intelligent, demigod worshipping type that Krsna refers to in the Bhagavad-Gita. If you want to understand this you will have to take it from the Vedic Shastra Itself.

You go through all these hoops to get to point z bypassing point g and where does it get you? Illusion? If we are not to be concerned with the physical and material shouldn't karma and good deeds be of little value?

Exactly. Devotion to God is of utmost value and good deeds come automatically. One who desires the fruits of his work is called a karmi. Karmis are in the business of attaining things that are fleeting in nature. Devotees (Vaisnavas) are in the business of attaining things that are eternal in nature. Yes, in the neophyte stage of Vaisnavism one is motivated more by this eternal benefit, but the advanced devotee cares only that he (or she) may engage himself in serving God. He doesn't care for liberation but only asks that in his next life he is able to remember God and render devotional service unto Him.

If you plant a seed in the ground and that seed sprouts to an apple tree guess what? It generates fruit which have apple seeds inside. The apples fall to the ground, bust open and the seeds sprout again. The ORIGINAL seed is not being "reborn" nor do the NEW tree's/ seeds have a connection with the old tree/seed.

Good thing to. Imagine if the souls in trees were perpetually reborn as trees.

If you hold the belief that reincarnation is TRUE (some hindus DON'T believe this) you NEED a "karma" law or stipulation otherwise your doctrine is changed. I don't believe in reincarnation and the hindu version of karma. The "karma" or action-reaction of the bible is a different concept.

"Hindus" can believe whatever they want. They can also believe that "hindu" is a Vedic term.

These statements were made before I responded to the thread so if the baby was thrown out it was thrown out waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before I even entered the bathroom.

Okay. I am not conversing with those people. I am simply saying that the principle of karma, in and of itself, is the same principle of reaping what we sow.

 

[HERESY]

What does this mean? That we should disagree whimsically? I'll decline on that offer. Let us further investigate this so-called disagreement using reason. I think we're almost there...

If you wish to keep going in circles thats fine by me.

Whether they are reaped one year later or one thousand years later is irrelevant. Karma is karma is karma. You disagree with reincarnation, not karma.

No. I disagree with reincarnation AND the way karma is applied to reincarnation. I disagree with being reborn over and over because of ones deeds. If it were a simple case of "we are reincarnated" and it had NOTHING to do with actions-reactions, karma, reaping what you sow I would STILL have a problem with reincarnation. The fact that actions - reactions dictate the reincarnation adds more fuel to the fire.

If the next state is worse than the previous state how hard will it be to come back to the orignal state AND supercede it?

Exactly. This is Vaisnava philosophy. Karma is bad altogether. "Good" and "bad" karma is meaningless. The whole idea is to transcend karma. That is done not by karmic works, but by devotion to God.

Do likes and dislikes = karma? Is this raga-dvesha? If likes or dislikes are karma why should one transcend karma when it is good to be devoted to god and one should like being devoted to god? If prarabdha is here and now how can it be transcended?

As I have said before, this thread is not specifically about my doctrine. We are talking about karma, period. The principle of karma means reaping what we sow.

Read my previous posts. If you want to label reaping what you sow as "karma" feel free to do so. I don't label it as "karma". In any case we are past that point.

Forget "hindus". Beside that the term is not even applicable, many modern day "hindus" are the less intelligent, demigod worshipping type that Krsna refers to in the Bhagavad-Gita. If you want to understand this you will have to take it from the Vedic Shastra Itself.

The term is not applicable? O.k. I'll role with that one.

Exactly. Devotion to God is of utmost value and good deeds come automatically. One who desires the fruits of his work is called a karmi. Karmis are in the business of attaining things that are fleeting in nature.

And those things bind the person and blind him. I don't believe you should be attached to the fruits of works or to even be bothered by them.

Devotees (Vaisnavas) are in the business of attaining things that are eternal in nature. Yes, in the neophyte stage of Vaisnavism one is motivated more by this eternal benefit, but the advanced devotee cares only that he (or she) may engage himself in serving God. He doesn't care for liberation but only asks that in his next life he is able to remember God and render devotional service unto Him.

Why does he need a next life if he is advanced and has come to the point of knowledge and truth? Is it best to keep serving god life after life after life? To endlessly serve god and not be apart from him is something every believer in god should strive for. I have no problem with that but what I do have a problem with is the playing field. Is serving god life after life after life the ULITMATE purpose? Is it the ultimate gratification a soul can accomplish? When I said gratification I mean it in the most generic form. I don't mean it as bliss but "level".

Good thing to. Imagine if the souls in trees were perpetually reborn as trees.

Each tree produces leaves and fruit based on what type of tree it is. An apple tree will never chage and produce an orange. If that cycle is not interuppted why is the spiritual?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

No. I disagree with reincarnation AND the way karma is applied to reincarnation. I disagree with being reborn over and over because of ones deeds. If it were a simple case of "we are reincarnated" and it had NOTHING to do with actions-reactions, karma, reaping what you sow I would STILL have a problem with reincarnation. The fact that actions - reactions dictate the reincarnation adds more fuel to the fire.

Why is it that actions - reactions dictating the reincarnation adds more fuel to the fire? So you are saying that it wouldn't be as bad if reincarnation were dictated by something else? What would you prefer that it be dictated by?

If the next state is worse than the previous state how hard will it be to come back to the orignal state AND supercede it?

As hard as you make it.

Do likes and dislikes = karma? Is this raga-dvesha? If likes or dislikes are karma why should one transcend karma when it is good to be devoted to god and one should like being devoted to god? If prarabdha is here and now how can it be transcended?

Liking God transcends karma.

Read my previous posts. If you want to label reaping what you sow as "karma" feel free to do so. I don't label it as "karma". In any case we are past that point.

And it was never an issue of labels.

Why does he need a next life if he is advanced and has come to the point of knowledge and truth? Is it best to keep serving god life after life after life? To endlessly serve god and not be apart from him is something every believer in god should strive for. I have no problem with that but what I do have a problem with is the playing field. Is serving god life after life after life the ULITMATE purpose? Is it the ultimate gratification a soul can accomplish? When I said gratification I mean it in the most generic form. I don't mean it as bliss but "level".

This is a matter of humility. It is showing how in the advanced stages of Vaisnavism one does not even desire liberation from the material world. All one desires is to continue loving God. Of course, such a person is already liberated even while still residing in this world. And when they leave their body they go directly back to God in His spiritual abode.

Each tree produces leaves and fruit based on what type of tree it is. An apple tree will never chage and produce an orange. If that cycle is not interuppted why is the spiritual?

What is this spiritual cycle you are talking about?

 

[HERESY]

Why is it that actions - reactions dictating the reincarnation adds more fuel to the fire? So you are saying that it wouldn't be as bad if reincarnation were dictated by something else? What would you prefer that it be dictated by?

It's a fact people automatically associate karma with reincarnation. They see "karma" as part of hinduism thought/logic and that it specifically pertains to that. IMHO I would prefer that the doctrine/concept of reincarnation didn't exist. It takes universal law (action reaction) and uses it as a means for manipulative and self serving purpose.

As hard as you make it.

As hard as you make it? As hard as you made it in the previous life that led you to the current or as hard as you make it in the present according to your choices?

Liking God transcends karma.

This does not answer my question. If I need to clarify my questions just let me know. Do likes and dislikes = karma? Is this raga-dvesha? If likes or dislikes are karma why should one transcend karma when it is good to be devoted to god and one should like being devoted to god? If prarabdha is here and now how can it be transcended?


So basically all likes should be thrown out the window unless it's liking god?

And it was never an issue of labels.

In your opinion.

This is a matter of humility. It is showing how in the advanced stages of Vaisnavism one does not even desire liberation from the material world. All one desires is to continue loving God. Of course, such a person is already liberated even while still residing in this world. And when they leave their body they go directly back to God in His spiritual abode.

If they go directly back to god in his spiritual abode whats the use of living over and over serving him? It's an ENDLESS cycle of serving god and having NO knowledge of even doing so. The person is free but does not desire freedom........how fitting......


Loving god is the ultimate purpose and state of the liberated soul?

What is this spiritual cycle you are talking about?

The advancement/change/evolution of the soul. That apple tree does not change it's properties so it can grow cherries and lemons. Yet your saying the essence or soul of the apple tree advances to another stage. This is interruption.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

It's a fact people automatically associate karma with reincarnation. They see "karma" as part of hinduism thought/logic and that it specifically pertains to that. IMHO I would prefer that the doctrine/concept of reincarnation didn't exist. It takes universal law (action reaction) and uses it as a means for manipulative and self serving purpose.

I understand that these two concepts are typically taken hand in hand.
Can you elaborate on that last comment?

As hard as you make it? As hard as you made it in the previous life that led you to the current or as hard as you make it in the present according to your choices?

Both. Think of it as a layer of karma. It gets thicker and needs to be burned off. The thicker the karma the longer time it takes to burn. The longer time it takes to burn the more suffering there is. If one gets a body worse than the one they had before then that means that they are adding more karma rather than burning it off.

This does not answer my question. If I need to clarify my questions just let me know. Do likes and dislikes = karma? Is this raga-dvesha? If likes or dislikes are karma why should one transcend karma when it is good to be devoted to god and one should like being devoted to god? If prarabdha is here and now how can it be transcended?

Raga-dvesau refers to the attraction and repulsion of sense objects in this material world.

Bhagavad-Gita 3.34

indriyasyendriyasyarthe
raga-dvesau vyavasthitau
tayor na vasam agacchet
tau hy asya paripanthinau

"Attraction and repulsion for sense objects are felt by embodied beings, but one should not fall under the control of senses and sense objects because they are stumbling blocks on the path of self-realization."

This does not mean that all desire, all likes and dislikes dwell on the mundane level. As I said, liking God transcends karma.

So basically all likes should be thrown out the window unless it's liking god?

You can say it like that. I would say that all lustful atachment should be transformed into loving attachment for God. The basic desire of love is the same but when we seek love in the things of the material bodily senses, that is called lust.

If they go directly back to god in his spiritual abode whats the use of living over and over serving him? It's an ENDLESS cycle of serving god and having NO knowledge of even doing so. The person is free but does not desire freedom........how fitting......

If you haven't read the other thread we've been conversing in then you should go there before you read this one. I have already explained all of this (a few times) over there.

Loving god is the ultimate purpose and state of the liberated soul?

Yes. It isn't simply a dormant idea of love for God. It is also an active love and a reciprocation of those feelings between God and the individual souls.

The advancement/change/evolution of the soul. That apple tree does not change it's properties so it can grow cherries and lemons. Yet your saying the essence or soul of the apple tree advances to another stage. This is interruption.

No, but the apple tree changes because eventually all material forms perish. So the interruption is inherent to the nature of this material energy. The soul has no interruption. It is what it is, eternally but because it subjects itself to this "interrupted" energy there is this transmigration from one form to another.
Your logic makes the mistake of assuming a material designation of the soul, particularly in this example as "apple tree". You are thinking that the soul in the apple tree is uniquely made for this apple tree. The soul is transcendental. It is not an apple tree, or a mantis, or a dog, or even a human. So this philosophy of "interruption" does not pertain to the soul. It only makes sense in the context of material birth and death.

 

[40ozThugsta]

people will get what they deserve whether it be in this lifetime or another. . . . . .

yeah they gone DIE :knockout: