One word

I have not a depth of understanding of how karma works, but I know a lot of people feel it is a good explanation of how justice works. I feel like karma is very impersonal, so there is a sort of divide. 'One can learn by the carrot or the stick' is personal, but saying that suffering is caused by a previous life is impersonal. I cannot do anything about my past lives. That may work when you're talking about karma, but not when you're talking about God. If I say God is love or truth, then I mean it personally; because the personal and the impersonal experiences do not meet. Going by your karmic example, all children appear to be the same; yet there is good and bad karma. If you only used one word 'Karma', then there would appear to be a disjunction; because for some karma would be 'Love' and for others it would be 'Pain'. One word is simply not enough. Some would say it is too much. I have read people on these forums talk about how misleading a particular explanation of karma is, or ducka is, or how easy it is to misinterpret; so why would one word to describe God be any more straightforward? (rhetorical)
 
karma is very impersonal
Click to expand...

YES! YES! YES! Karma is very-very impersonal & mechanical.
What I described is that
a] Of course, there is individual's fate/karma;
and,
b] there is mass-karma ---meaning multi-person's shared destiny (Note: there is examples of both Good & Bad events that occur enmass).

The example has been given:
Q. Why are some born poor and some rich? Why are some born handsome and some ugly?
A. Past Actions (past Karma)

Past karma can be stopped &/or over-ridden by present conscientious living.
Past karma is mechanical and thus automated without regards to the affected person's state-of-mind. Equi-mindedness is the best means to stay centered and calm.

Yet, since "there are no coincidences" ---one's own karma (karmic-reaction; karmic-payback) is custom taylored for it reciepient.

One person's karma is another's blessing ---it depends on one's level of cultivated sophistication; IOW, one's level of cultivated sophisticated consciousness.


I would like to see you, DREAM, write more on the idea of the Impersonal ways Nature affects people. Can you expand on your thoughts of this, please?

Going by your karmic example, all children appear to be the same
Click to expand...

Do you mean that my example says All karma affects kids without their personal beings being taken into account? That would not be correct ---All persons inherit what is due them. Remember, "Oliver Twist" [the Movie Musical] ---such, stories should remind the Child viewer to strive for success in life "Or else, see what happens" ---Similarly, "Les Miserables" [the Musical] leaves a person with the same sentiment, lest such viewing/audiences reap only an entertainment factor.

The gladiators fought in Rome's colosseums ---and that too would be a stark morality play for those that see great value in theirown mortality, while it lasted.
 
I am not understanding how karma would be true for individuals. It would make sense to me for a conglomerate of humanity, because groups can learn from deaths. I would say that when children suffer in society that society is suffering, so it is paying for its bad choices. It is like society is hemorrhaging when that happens.
 
I am not understanding how karma would be true for individuals.
Click to expand...

Individuals are on the dockette everyday ---the Judge must adjudicate "each particular" case with proper "Partiality" because each case is "unique".
 
Dream said:
Shall I tell a child born into lifelong torment of God's love?
Click to expand...

I would think a child living a tormented life would be the best candidate to tell of "God's" love. It might help alleviate their torment.

Of course, I'd prefer that you also tell them about the Buddha's Four Nobel Truths about suffering and the Eightfold Path. These teachings will help them understand what suffering is and how to best approach living amongst it.

Then, with this new understanding, in time they might come to see that the love has always been there, even amidst the suffering.
 
Wow, citizenzen, tells it brutely true.

But here are the challenging ones:

baggy-pants.jpg


These fashionista's have it good! No communist party thugs watching over their political leanings.

But . . . can they operate a sweat-shop clothing line factory's daily routine?
Can they manufacture sport shoes?
Can they produce rubber tree resin into the soles of their shoes or Tires?
Can they produce shoe laces?
Can they produce smelted iron ore?
Can they produce electric components for automotive use?
Can they produce concrete road-beds?

Yet they are leaving their e-coli marks where they repose themselves ---and for that we are grateful for conscription rules of engagement.

The Rig Veda begins with the phrase:
"Now in the Human form of life, let us enquire unto what is the absolute truth"
 
CitiZenZen said:
I would think a child living a tormented life would be the best candidate to tell of "God's" love. It might help alleviate their torment.

Of course, I'd prefer that you also tell them about the Buddha's Four Nobel Truths about suffering and the Eightfold Path. These teachings will help them understand what suffering is and how to best approach living amongst it.

Then, with this new understanding, in time they might come to see that the love has always been there, even amidst the suffering.
Click to expand...
Citi,
you make an interesting point. I don't mean to detract from your point, however I will take it that you would use an 8 fold path or 4 noble truths, not 1 simple word. The occasion dictates the necessary words. Is that right?
 
Nick the Pilot said:
I would distinguish...
Click to expand...

From wikipedia...

Distinction without a difference

A distinction without a difference is a type of argument where one word or phrase is preferred to another, but results in no difference to the final outcome. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid.​
 
Dream said:
I have read people on these forums talk about how misleading a particular explanation of karma is, or ducka is, or how easy it is to misinterpret
Click to expand...

If you are referring to Buddhist usage, then one could see what the man himself said...

Kamma:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

Dukkha:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. "


A Glossary of Pali and Buddhist Terms


...although it is a bit of a linguistic jaunt from Prakrit to English...and so the end result is bound to be .... different...


s.
 
Originally Posted by Nick the Pilot I would distinguish love as personal love vs. compassion as impersonal love.
Click to expand...

I see your point.

Distinction without a difference
Click to expand...

This reflects the "acintya-bheda-bheda-tattva" [lit., 'simultaneously oneness and difference'] principle of God's transcendence.
God is simultaneously identical to all moving and non-moving particles of creation . . . simultaneously different.
IOW, Brahman eminates from him yet he is aloof from from it.

There is the maxim: "Milk is the source of butter and cheese, yet both are different". ---thus, the skill 'to discriminate' is equal to intelligence. [ie: the square peg goes into the square hole]
 
Kamma - seams to be the sanskrit word, kama [lust, desire, pleasure]

"That which causes one to sin is called lust" - Gita

"Intention" is the prime motivating factor before acts are made manifest ---such are the related sub-topics connected to the study of the "motivation of actions'.

Dukkha - seams to be the sanskrit word, duhkha [distress; opp of sukham, happiness]
 
Action chart from the Gita

I composed this mini-chart from the verse of the Bhagvad-gita's maxims ---they are very subime ---even I will take a much longer time to see it's applications.
 

Attachments

  • Action Chart From Bhagavad-gita Verses JPEG.jpg
    Action Chart From Bhagavad-gita Verses JPEG.jpg
    92.9 KB · Views: 4,774
bhaktajan said:
"acintya-bheda-bheda-tattva" [lit., 'simultaneously oneness and difference'] principle of God's transcendence.
God is simultaneously identical to all moving and non-moving particles of creation . . . simultaneously different.
IOW, Brahman eminates from him yet he is aloof from from it.

There is the maxim: "Milk is the source of butter and cheese, yet both are different". ---thus, the skill 'to discriminate' is equal to intelligence. [ie: the square peg goes into the square hole]
Click to expand...

This concept would appear to address the same One/many, God/man riddle that appears in many traditions, and like the Christian trinity expresses the problem as a fundamental mystery.

Now later Buddhism in a parallel way posits the total interdependence of nirvana/samsara, the absolute and the conventional. And the Advaita tradition posits the idea of “anirvacaniya”, inexpressibility, which to the extent I understand it appears to characterize conventional reality as simultaneously real, since fundamentally Nirguna Brahman, and unreal, since obscured by the coverings of false perceptions.

Now, it seems to me that on the simplest level the difference between “acintya-bheda-bheda-tattva” and these other approaches is the attitude toward supernatural beings, whether in terms of the ultimate or intermediaries. In other words, the other approaches appear to be far less interested in preserving the literal existence of such beings, seeing them as tangential or provisional to definitive understanding.

Does that seem right to you? If so, how does your tradition (ISKCON?) stand in relation to Advaita and Buddhism?

Vimalakirti
 
Thank you Vimalakirti,
Wow. Now that is some question!

I will ruminate on it and when I return from my cave I will have a response.

One of the men from Mars [as opposed to Venus],
Bhaktajan

I'll be back ASAP.
 
Amergin said:
How can you believe that? God is fictional but according to fictional anthology of the Bible, he is certainly not LOVE.

God sets up a sting operation. He places a tree of Knowledge in the middle of the garden and forbids Adam and Even to seek that knowledge (i.e. remain bipedal apes).

He knows the human brain is primed with an unquenchable desire for knowledge. Adam and Eve seek knowledge (eating the fruit) and God takes away their immortality. How can God be LOVE?

Cain and Abel burn sacrifices to God. Cain, the farmer burns crops. Abel the shepherd burns a sheep. God rejects Cain's offering but is pleased by Abel's. That act of turning brother against brother caused a killing. Moreover, God instigated it all. How can God be LOVE?
Click to expand...

Hi Amergin.

May I suggest a kinder & gentler way to say these things?

Your central point I think is that the Christian Bible is a work of fiction. Fair enough, but it follows that you should read it as such, i.e., not literally, and keeping in mind that any work of fiction is open to innumerable interpretations and readings. One doesn’t normally rail at characters in Anna Karenina or in a play by Shakespeare, whatever one thinks of these particular works as a whole.

Certainly the Christian Bible, like the Koran, is much more dangerous than any novel or play, since it’s liable to be used as an instrument of coercion, but like a work of fiction it too has been open to innumerable interpretations and readings, with some much more benevolent than others. To read the Christian Bible as literally as you appear to be doing here is to repeat the error of the fundamentalists.

The texts reflect the violence and barbarism of the various cultural milieus in which they were written, but rather than celebrate that violence they struggle with it, as they struggle with ideas of legitimate power and justice. They are exceedingly human texts. But love them or hate them they’re in the DNA of the culture. They’re not going away any time soon. The answer to the bad and hateful readings of the fundamentalists is not more bad readings from an opposing perspective but better readings from all perspectives.

Vimalakirti

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top