Question on traditional Karmic Law

[A Cup Of Tea]

I think this is a primarily west-east discussion but also a Tradition-Non-Tradition discussion.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

I just don't trust humans.

(I wrote this response the other day and somehow didn't get it posted).

Oh that is wonderful, Tea. Short and to the point. Do you think you could expand on that basic statement? Why don't you trust humans? What is it about human behavior that causes you to not trust them?

For me personally, my thoughts are close to yours on the matter, if not quite the same. I am suspicious of humans. What their agendas are; what their hidden agendas are.

 

[Devils' Advocate]

DA "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."

Thomas "Quite."

Getting back to this point. First off, my understanding of how karma works is minimal at best, so please do consider this when reading my response.

It seems to me that in the Hindu tradition, the karmic accountant is more a force of nature, or a natural law of the universe. Or perhaps it is a sum total of the minds of every individual on the planet in some sort of meta-consciousness that we are not aware of, yet never the less exists and plays its part.

All pure guesswork - and none more outrageous than a divinity that exists outside reality but is a part of it. Or so say I.

 

[wil]

I believe G!d to be that automated accountant..a natural law...a principle...that theory of everything that holds it all together

 

[Namaste Jesus]

For example, on the discussion of cleansing houses on another thread, Hindus simple wouldn't have the audacity to try it. We hire priests ...

I hope you will post your viewpoint on that thread as well. I was hoping to get multiple perspectives on the subject.

 

[Thomas]

I believe G!d to be that automated accountant..

What have you done with our Wil?! This is sheer anthropomorphism.

...a natural law

I think we're agreed that karma is beyond natural determination. Nature is amoral.

...a principle

...

...that theory of everything that holds it all together

No, that's another anthropomorphism. Is it not the expression of your hope, that science will discover the explanation for God?

 

[wil]

Yes, the G!d of the gaps... Our understanding of G!d is not the same as it was 3,000 years ago when 'he' was the blame of plagues and locusts and droughts....science has moved in there... different than when 'she' made the sun and moon traverse the skys and flooded the earth. Century by century the church (of all religions) has had to relinquish bits and parts that were of G!d to the explanations of science. We've been holding on to some miracles....do I think science will one day explain it all and all religionists will become secular and we'll have no more believers? Nope.

I think there will always be a gap, and in that gap will we will find folks holding on to belief in a power... I believe as we've seen over the centuries...that belief waning and science taking a stronger and larger grip on reality.

I have no 'hope' in such change....my 'hope' lies in a world where we live in peace and harmony, where we raise a Guinness in celebration of each other, and not in defeating another...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

What have you done with our Wil?! This is sheer anthropomorphism.

Nah. He goes on to say he views this as a natural law, not a God entity at all. Same Wil.

I think we're agreed that karma is beyond natural determination. Nature is amoral.

We did? When did that happen? We humans perceive nature as amoral looking at the animal world through the lens of our nature. I don't think anyone knows what goes on in the brains of animals; what they actually think of it all.

 

[Thomas]

Yes, the G!d of the gaps...

No! This is your theology, not mine. The phrase was coined by a Christian scholar as a critique of those who looked for God in the gaps of scientific knowledge. It was never a credible argument, and forms no part of traditional Christian doctrine. Nor any Abrahamic nor Hindu doctrine, either.

Our understanding of G!d is not the same as it was 3,000 years ago when 'he' was the blame of plagues and locusts and droughts...

No it's not, so why keep going back there?

Our understanding of science is not the same as it was 3,000 years ago either, but I don't use 3,000 year old concepts to try and discredit science, even though some people's notions are no less silly. I know a woman who's frightened to change a blown lightbulb because of the electricity left in the wire between the bulb and the switch ...

Century by century the church (of all religions) has had to relinquish bits and parts that were of G!d to the explanations of science.

LOL. Really?

When did Buddhism revised the Four Noble Truths to come into line with science? Or the Jews rewrite the Schema Israel, or the Hindus rewrite the Vedas or the Gita or the Upanishads? The Koran? The Bible?

In fact, can you show me where Christianity updated the Creed to bring it in line with contemporary scientific thought?

Wil, please, write it on a post-it and stick it on your monitor: There is no dichotomy between religion and science.

(On the other hand, century by century, science has had to relinquish bits and parts to later insights and explanations. I don't see you making much ado about science though, and science has had to rewrite fundamentals more than once in the last 3,000 years, which religion hasn't had to do ... )

Really ... I wish you'd stop fantasising about what you think we believe, and listen, for just once. Your notions about what God is and what we believe are, to me, quite medieval.

I believe as we've seen over the centuries...that belief waning and science taking a stronger and larger grip on reality.

Not really. Personally, I don't think science has got anything to do with it, and if it has, this its someone's misunderstanding science, or religion, or both. The fact that there are scientists at the top of their field who find no contradiction with their faith says much.

I think the trend is rooted in sociological change, not scientific discovery. Religion began to wane in France with the Revolution, for example. Nothing to do with science. Socialism was another stimulus for change. There was a rapid decline in belief post-WWII, well in place by the 50s, but in those days science was not much in the public eye, other than the A-Bomb.

Science as an answer to God is relatively recent, but largely an excuse (or laziness). The reality is it is not and never was a reason not to believe in God.

 

[wil]

I think the difference is .... Science books are updated.... Nobody is reading science books from 1700 years ago and teaching them to children...

We've updated the bible "the message" the new revised standard... but that is just in modern words or language...not updated with the knowledge and science of today...

No dichotomy? You are saying that the miracles will be validated by science someday?

I guess the new bibles could be Conversations with G!d...or ACIM?

 

[farhan]

I am asking this from our learned Buddhist friends mainly but Hindus and all others welcome to chime in. The basic premise of the dilemma is how much karmic consequence incurs for those who are mentally challenged. I know that karma looks at actions but my understanding is that intentions are perhaps part of it. My training is of esoteric western school (Agni Yoga) and I think(if I remember properly) in the Teaching(AY) intentions are mitigated. In other words if one is a bad father or son based on your predisposition and emotional baggage(mental illness) who is this factor into the karmic balance? On the other hand every negative act could be explained and psychoanalyzed.

Well I am not from the karma camp, but have read it a lot and have reasonable knowledge of how it works.
The current life is a karmic result of the seeds sown in the previous lives. So if one is mentally challenged, its because he did something evil in previous life. Now in this life, the karmic intensity for resowing new seeds will be according to the freewill that one had in this incarnation. For example one is a bad neighbor because he likes teasing others. Other is a bad neighbor because he is hopelessly depressed. Former has more freewill than the later, so his sowing of new karmic seeds will be very intense compared to the later one.

 

[Thomas]

not updated with the knowledge and science of today...

LOL. Well, if you can point out where the Bible is making scientific statements, and present that to the relevant authorities, I'm sure they'll take it on board. Or you could write a best-seller ...

No dichotomy? You are saying that the miracles will be validated by science someday?

OMG Wil ... you're really not getting it.

I guess the new bibles could be Conversations with G!d...or ACIM?

Anything one fancies, really. Consumerism is all about choice.

 

[Senthil]

@ Farhan
Firstly, the Hindu and eastern perspective on 'evil' is another of those irreconcilable differences. Over time, mainly because of poor translating, our (Hindu) idea of anava accompanied by other stuff perhaps, has been translated as 'evil'... more of the misconceptions that arise form looking at the dharmic faiths through an Abrahamic lens. In SD, because of the soul's evolution over many lifetimes, it slowly uncovers the shroud of anava, and eventually sees more light, or behaves more in line with Godliness. This is just the natural evolutionary (of the soul, not to be confuses with Darwin's evolution) process ... in simple terms, growing up, going fro stupidy to wisdom, over many lifetimes.

Also, the OP's question had to do with making karma, not receiving karma. So there are always two concepts at the same time ... 1) what we are creating, and 2) what is being returned. So in all actions we can be the giver, or the receiver, just as in communication, there are the 3 components of talker, message/medium, and receiver.

The question was how much does ignorance, or a mental handicap affect what returns, not if the mentally handicapped was in that state because of previous action. So the answer, reiterated, is that karma is lessened by the ignorance one is under. A 3 year old child acting selfishly does not accrue the same karma as the sage, doing the same irresponsible thing.

 

[Thomas]

We humans perceive nature as amoral looking at the animal world through the lens of our nature. I don't think anyone knows what goes on in the brains of animals; what they actually think of it all.

I'm of the opinion that we can't rule out some form of moral values in the animal kingdom ... but I was talking about nature as a whole, the universe, the weather, tectonic shift ...

 

[Devils' Advocate]

(On the other hand, century by century, science has had to relinquish bits and parts to later insights and explanations. I don't see you making much ado about science though, and science has had to rewrite fundamentals more than once in the last 3,000 years, which religion hasn't had to do ... )

This is an astonishing statement from you. You are essentially agreeing that science throws out old ideas when they are proven to be false, and religion has never thrown out much of anything in 3000 years. Religion hasn't had to? Or it doesn't need to because none of it is provable anyway. This here, this exact discrepancy is why science and religion are not compatible. Religion is basically static, with the exception of differing moral values over the centuries (Christians don't burn witches at the stake no more, etc.).

Another point I would add is that the only times religion has indeed thrown out something is when science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the religious point of view is wrong. Earth as the center of the universe sort of stuff.

 

[Thomas]

This is an astonishing statement from you.

I know ... I was replying in kind.

If you take Christianity, the core tenets are the 12 propositions of the Creed. They remain unchanged. Monotheism remains unchanged, although the view of 'God' within that has undergone radical change, and is (I believe, or at least hope) ... but then the idea of 'science' in its core tenets remains unchanged from the Greeks, so my comments were well OTT!

It's just this whole science v religion thing is such a nonsense ...












You are essentially agreeing that science throws out old ideas when they are proven to be false, and religion has never thrown out much of anything in 3000 years. Religion hasn't had to? Or it doesn't need to because none of it is provable anyway. This here, this exact discrepancy is why science and religion are not compatible. Religion is basically static, with the exception of differing moral values over the centuries (Christians don't burn witches at the stake no more, etc.).

Another point I would add is that the only times religion has indeed thrown out something is when science has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that the religious point of view is wrong. Earth as the center of the universe sort of stuff.[/QUOTE]

 

[Devils' Advocate]

It's just this whole science v religion thing is such a nonsense ...

We do agree on that! Even if we are on other sides on the subject itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I believe G!d to be that automated accountant..a natural law...a principle...that theory of everything that holds it all together

The Hindu Office of Death has a qualified accountant, Chitragupta, to keep the accounts and present the same before the Lord of Death, Yama, to pronounce the reward and/or punishment. The whole procedure takes less than a minute, very efficient.No waiting for us till the day of judgment.