Question on traditional Karmic Law

I'm reading Thomas as saying that karma, as it has been described, needs someone to value the intentions of the actor. I don't know enough about karma to judge how close we are to how karma actually "operates" but since we're all westerners here I'm sure we are pretty far of.
 
I don't know enough about karma to judge how close we are to how karma actually "operates" but since we're all westerners here I'm sure we are pretty far of.

Actually, the explanation I gave for Karma in #26 and #31 was derived from Hindu scripture not western concepts.
 
Actually, the explanation I gave for Karma in #26 and #31 was derived from Hindu scripture not western concepts.
But since that is second hand information and you are a westerner, accepting what you as absolute truth would be foolish I think. I haven't looked much at the site, haven't checked who the people behind it are so I can't speak to that. But the people who have spoken here? All very western.
 
I would assume that Thomas would say that in the Christian case God is the accountant. Whereas with karma there is no entity to be the accountant.
That's what I'm told, and yet it's all about accountability.

Christians do not endorse the notion of karma as it is expressed here, and moreover these distinctions are peripheral. The key is that Christianity (and the Abrahamics generally) have a completely different view of 'the person' compared to Hinduism or Buddhism. So much so I would say the differences are irreconcilable.

So if you believe 'all religions say the same thing', you may like to square that circle for me, too.
 
But since that is second hand information and you are a westerner, accepting what you as absolute truth would be foolish I think. I haven't looked much at the site, haven't checked who the people behind it are so I can't speak to that. But the people who have spoken here? All very western.

I wasn't implying that my explanation of Karma was the absolute truth. That would be foolish as, when it comes to Karma, there is more than one truth each dependent on the other. What I was trying to get across is that not all the responses to this thread have been based on western ideas.

True, I am from the west, but my views on Karma are far from western. Also, two of the responders to this thread are rather devout Hindus, even though one professes to be atheist. No western ideas at play there.
 
I wasn't implying that my explanation of Karma was the absolute truth. That would be foolish as, when it comes to Karma, there is more than one truth each dependent on the other.
Sloppy of me there. When I wrote 'absolute truth' I should have said perhaps 'correct understanding' or something along those lines.

Also, two of the responders to this thread are rather devout Hindus, even though one professes to be atheist. No western ideas at play there.
I didn't include Aupmanyav or Senthil because they haven't posted here for two months and I don't consider their contribute part of the dialogue that re-emerged last week. If either, or both, would comment on our analasys of Karma so far I think that would be a very important contribute to the discussion.

What I was trying to get across is that not all the responses to this thread have been based on western ideas.

True, I am from the west, but my views on Karma are far from western.
I think the difference here is that you separate eastern notions from the mind in a way I do not. Everything we learn is filtered through what we already think we know. I don't think we can separate our western minds from ourselves and everything we learn about non-western ideas will be coloured by this. I think language is a good comparison, where even when you can make yourself understood in a foreign tongue, even years of daily practice can leave notable spots on vocabulary, grammar or pronunciations. A misunderstood turn of phrase can stick out like a sore thumb.

So I'm always critical of my sources and if I want to understand I foreign religion or philosophy, I would go to the native who have studied the subject for most of their life. And still it would only be one persons perspective. I hope you see there isn't anything personal here...I just don't trust humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Since you asked ... I agree with what Thomas said above ... "So the differences are irreconcilable." This is also one of the reasons I rarely post here. Our paradigms are so very far apart that it's like birds squawking at dogs, and dogs barking back. Not much actually gets through.

Eastern 'ideas' about karma have a prerequisite to them ... an absolute belief in it. So they're not just 'ideas' at all, but a fundamental underlying principle that affects our entire way of life. So it's all karma. It's karma we're having this discussion. Earth's affect on us, the people we meet, within all that is the principle of karma. Just as all movement in the universe is subject to gravity, all thoughts, mind, consciousness, etc. is subject to karma.

Although Namaste Jesus will disagree with me, his 'eastern' view is pretty western in my view. It's a common theme, where one paradigm is used in applying thoughts to another. So he's a westerner thinking about eastern things. That subconscious mind is thoroughly western, in my opinion. So we often hit an impasse, which is fine.

But when that impasse is there for you all the time, and not just with any one individual, then it's difficult to enter any discussion. For example, on the discussion of cleansing houses on another thread, Hindus simple wouldn't have the audacity to try it. We hire priests ... trained experts who actually know what they're doing. The forces in a house need to have established boundaries ... good ones get to stay, 'others' are politely asked to stay outside the lines. Then, in order to keep it that way, constant diligence is required. Only dharma, (a code of ethics, vegetarianism, no smoking, no booze, etc) goes on inside that boundary. All other activity is outside and the devout Hindu will immediately take a bath and purify himself upon re-entering that sanctuary.

As for karma ... well, it just is what it is ... a natural law, within the universal dharma, a manifested by God, as is anava, and other bondages. The soul is released from earthly cycles only when all karmas (effects on the individual caused by the principle) are resolved.

All this is not intellectual at all, but an intuitive understanding. Hindus operate more in the intuitive mind than in the intellectual realm.

Aum Shanthi
 
  • Like
Reactions: wil
Since you asked ... I agree with what Thomas said above ... "So the differences are irreconcilable." This is also one of the reasons I rarely post here. Our paradigms are so very far apart that it's like birds squawking at dogs, and dogs barking back. Not much actually gets through.
I know what you mean, but if you have the patience simply sharing your perspective can have a large long term impact on the forum and the discussions. You and I don't interact much, but as I hope you see from my previous post if you talk about Hinduism I will listen to you above most other here. Your opinion matters to at least one person here, and I think there are more.

Thank you for sharing, I think you added well to the discussion.
 
Now that, I like!

I do get your point and I didn't take it personal.
And I want to point out that your positon matters as well. I don't think your opinion on karma is objectively less valuable, but weighs more or less depending on the context. I feel I threw your opinion specifically under the bus on my previous posts, but originally I was talking about all us white males and how that fact can become...problematic.
 
Eastern 'ideas' about karma have a prerequisite to them ... an absolute belief in it. So they're not just 'ideas' at all, but a fundamental underlying principle that affects our entire way of life.
Seems to me the 'western' religions (which started in the middle east?) have similar traits have they not? Acceptance of un-provable 'facts', belief in things we can't understand?
 
Although Namaste Jesus will disagree with me, his 'eastern' view is pretty western in my view. It's a common theme, where one paradigm is used in applying thoughts to another. So he's a westerner thinking about eastern things. That subconscious mind is thoroughly western, in my opinion. So we often hit an impasse, which is fine.

Surprisingly enough, I do agree with you here. I do indeed define eastern philosophy in western terms and as you so aptly point out, quite often that difference in paradigm leads to an impasse.

Personally, I have no trouble working around that difference to get to the heart of the matter, but I do realize that others simply can not get past it.
 
Seems to me the 'western' religions (which started in the middle east?) have similar traits have they not? Acceptance of un-provable 'facts', belief in things we can't understand?

Indeed, they do have their own 'realities' for the followers. I'm guessing karma isn't one of them.
 
Senthil: "lol ... and what exactly is 'the heart of the matter'?"

Just a reference to the topic of the thread. The main point as it were.
 
Last edited:
Okay ... All I actually care about in such question threads is whether or not anybody's answer helped the OP to clarify his own thoughts on the matter. When we don't get feedback from the OP it's hard to know. The ensuing discussions that often result from such a question don't really interest me, unless of course they help the OP get further clarity.
 
I agree with what Thomas said above ... "So the differences are irreconcilable."
Thanks for that. It actually settles the question.

Our paradigms are so very far apart that it's like birds squawking at dogs, and dogs barking back.
That's refreshing. I'm really bored of everyone declaring we're all saying the same thing.

So they're not just 'ideas' at all, but a fundamental underlying principle that affects our entire way of life.
When talking of man in my tradition we say this absolute belief is brought about by metanoia, or 'change of heart'.

For example, on the discussion of cleansing houses on another thread, Hindus simple wouldn't have the audacity to try it. We hire priests ... trained experts who actually know what they're doing.
A good point, and one that applies equally in my tradition, which I should have made clear.
 
Back
Top