Christianity vs karma

[csuguy]

Hi csuguy,

It still holds that whatsoever a man sows, that also he reaps, the law of action and consequence, cause/effect, successive relations, inter-active affections, corresponding sequences....still continues. Its a universal law that sin produces its own effects, and love as well,....each tree producing its own fruit,....every seed produces after its kind. My former commentary here holds, while readers can research where they feel karma pertains, in the realm of conditional existence, for it remains apparent and logical that all that is subject to 'conditioning' by thought, intention, words, actions...is governed by the law of balance and compensation (karma). 'God' (law) is not mocked,....since you cannot overturn or abrogate karma. You might be able to relax, absolve or reverse karma by various ways of repentance, atonement, making good karma...but as long as you can be conditioned by any 'action',...there is karma.

It also remains that goodness is its own virtue, evil its own punishment, so we are to do good while we can, or repent while we are able....since our own words and works judge us, the law of karma is measure for measure, even if we don't see the effects of our actions until some near or far future time,...all thoughts, intentions, words, actions have their effects. That's what we're considering/exploring here, for those interested to read the whole thread. There's always more to learn.

If you deny karma entirely, you deny natural and spiritual law, scriptural teaching and common sense logic, even though some things within the continuum of life appear random or accidental, or caused by 'sin' (in conventional Christian theology),...you still have a 'cause' behind effects. Even with 'sin', you still have to make atonement for sin,....and this 'atonement' includes in totality to be complete, a genuine repentance, transformation of heart & soul, a changed life, a return to RIGHT DOING. So,...either way you look at it,..the universal bar of God's judgment carries out its justice and mercy,....by lawful measure, and grace at last absolves all sin, providing salvation for man, no matter what your theory or system of 'salvation' claims, its terms, etc. "and they were judged according to their 'karma'"...the scripture says. Karma = action/doing/works. Thoughts, intentions, words, actions still carry out their causal impressions and effects. This is either a fact, an observational truth, 'science' or everything is just haphazard, accidental, random. That would be foolish to assume, although in the flux of movements some actions appear to be 'random' or 'accidental',...but this is a matter of deeper study into 'karma'. We've barely scraped the surface, as eastern schools go pretty deep into this. We'll continue do go deeper

Hi Freelight,

I'd like to point out that cause and effect do not equate to karma. No one denies that actions (can) have consequences. However, this is much different than saying there is some cosmic force keeping tally of our deeds and giving us our due in equal measure (eventually - over an infinite number of lifetimes). Also, one can accept the general principle of cause/effect without accepting samsara/rebirth/nirvana - concepts which are intertwined with karma.

In other words, I can reject karma while accepting the concept of cause/effect, action/consequence. I can also accept that there are consequences for actions, while at the same time holding that our actions do not receive a reaction of equal consequence. People can be far more blessed than they deserve, and people can receive far more suffering than they deserve.

More to the point - people can suffer due the actions of others, or be blessed by the actions of others. Yet the person suffering/benefiting has done nothing to merit any such thing - it is caused by someone else. The book of Job addresses this point.

As far as sin/repentance/forgiveness - these are completely incompatible with the idea of karma. The whole idea behind karma is that you get exactly what you deserve. However, you do not earn forgiveness by repenting of your sins; when you are forgiven, your debt is forgotten rather than paid for. So, once more, we find Christianity and Buddhism incompatible at a fundamental level.

 

[csuguy]

It seems very possible that this "logical conclusion" is still not the conclusion being reached by many inclined to think in terms of karma. Karma has also been used as a way of explaining why forgiving others for their past actions, rather than judging them for their current experiences, is the safer path to take. There would seem to be a significant element of contradiction in the belief systems of one who says "yes, I say they are at fault for their experience therefore I will not help them" and one who says "yes, I see they are hurting and therefore I am now at risk for not helping them." Both loving and unloving paths appear possible regardless of whether or not the higher principle invoked is labeled as karmic law or not.

"Idolizing" (or something less than idolizing) others well off could also be done through an effort to look for the virtues in their actions, and find greater opportunities for equivalent virtue in your efforts, or conversely as a way to look for the shortcuts to success by falling prey to greed in your thinking of how to reach the same success.

It does not seem inherently un-christian to value excellence:
"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things." (Philippians 4:8 ESV)

Perceptions of the nature of "reward" seem to be a greatly variable factor in the relative value of metaphysical considerations from person to person.

Whether people realize the logical conclusion of karma or not - the fact remains. And there is plenty of evidence to support this as well -look at Hindu societies. They classically have a caste structure that one is born into. There are those without a caste who are forbidden from making anything of themselves - they just get to rot. Then you got laborers, then merchants, then warriors, and finally priests. Those at the top are the most well off, and those below must accept their role.

As far as forgiveness - forgiveness is entirely incompatible with karma. Karma is an impersonal force/phenomenon that gives you your just deserts. Karma doesn't care if you are sorry, or if you attempted to make up for your bad deeds: nothing will cancel your debt save for being caused to suffer in equal measure.

I agree with your sentiment that even if one deserves some suffering for their actions, we can still choose to show them kindness. However, there is a fundamental problem with simply assuming that people who suffer deserve it: it dismisses the idea that they are victims. If a woman is raped, for instance, this philosophy would tell us she deserved it. If someone is murdered, they deserved it. etc. This philosophy criminalizes the victims - and is thus fundamentally flawed and incompatible with Christianity.

Idolizing the rich/well-off is foolish and contrary to Christianity. Idolization is a sin. And idolizing the rich/well-off is silly since 1) most of them inherited their wealth, and 2) acquiring and maintaining that wealth is often done at the expense of the well-being of others. The scriptures make it clear that you cannot serve God and wealth; worldly desires and values are fundamentally at odds with the desires and values of God.

 

[freelight]

Karmic love bites......

Karmic love bites......

Hi Freelight,

I'd like to point out that cause and effect do not equate to karma. No one denies that actions (can) have consequences. However, this is much different than saying there is some cosmic force keeping tally of our deeds and giving us our due in equal measure (eventually - over an infinite number of lifetimes). Also, one can accept the general principle of cause/effect without accepting samsara/rebirth/nirvana - concepts which are intertwined with karma.

In other words, I can reject karma while accepting the concept of cause/effect, action/consequence. I can also accept that there are consequences for actions, while at the same time holding that our actions do not receive a reaction of equal consequence. People can be far more blessed than they deserve, and people can receive far more suffering than they deserve.

More to the point - people can suffer due the actions of others, or be blessed by the actions of others. Yet the person suffering/benefiting has done nothing to merit any such thing - it is caused by someone else. The book of Job addresses this point.

As far as sin/repentance/forgiveness - these are completely incompatible with the idea of karma. The whole idea behind karma is that you get exactly what you deserve. However, you do not earn forgiveness by repenting of your sins; when you are forgiven, your debt is forgotten rather than paid for. So, once more, we find Christianity and Buddhism incompatible at a fundamental level.

We've discussed this before, and your sustained view that the Buddhist concept of karma and Christianity may be 'incompatible',....however this depends on the 'terms' and definitions you've provided in your presentation,...there may be other aspects and dimensions to consider that may 'challenge' or 'counter' some of your points - and there are still variations within eastern and western schools on how 'karma' is approached or correlated 'philosophically'

I accept that you can accept 'cause/effect' relationships without subscribing to a particular Buddhist concept of karma, but I think this can be further researched, unless you have exhausted all knowledge and wisdom that could be efforded here, and have come to an absolute conclusion on the matter - for that you'd have to claim perfect knowledge, but you can only 'assume' anything on your own particular perception of a subject at any point in time. Granted it may be learned, due to your study on the subject,...but just saying...there may be more to learn.

Furthermore, we understand that a non-theist tradition such as Buddhism does not subscribe to the theist belief system of Chrsitianity, so will naturally differ from it on some fundamental levels since Buddhism has no 'original sin', 'salvation', 'atonement', 'soteriology/escahtological' issues to concern itself over like Christianity. I'm sure there are some Buddhists who were once Christians and vice versa (curious to see the % rate there), and every soul is currently NOW where they are at, for any number of perhaps 'karmic' reasons, because this is just how the cosmos has 'arranged' and 'coordinated' things. On that note, every religious philosophy and tradition has something of meaning and value to their members thereof and to the whole of existence (the grand equation and inter-relativity of the cosmos), but the subject is 'relative'.

I also note you hold to a rather rigid conception of karma and are comparing things with that 'definition', while my definition would appear much more liberal - but I kinda gather you figured that

 

[csuguy]

I also note you hold to a rather rigid conception of karma and are comparing things with that 'definition', while my definition would appear much more liberal - but I kinda gather you figured that

If I'm speaking about religion X, I try to remain true to that religions teachings/definitions/etc. There are many different Karmic Religions with some pretty drastic differences in their conception of what karma is. In this thread I've focused primarily on the Hindu/Buddhist conception of karma - which also seems to be your primary focus. If there is some alternate Karmic Religion that you feel is more compatible we could take a look at that - but the evidence is clear concerning Hinduism/Buddhism; they are fundamentally at odds with Christianity.

 

[freelight]

Karma in Jainism

Karma in Jainism

If I'm speaking about religion X, I try to remain true to that religions teachings/definitions/etc. There are many different Karmic Religions with some pretty drastic differences in their conception of what karma is. In this thread I've focused primarily on the Hindu/Buddhist conception of karma - which also seems to be your primary focus. If there is some alternate Karmic Religion that you feel is more compatible we could take a look at that - but the evidence is clear concerning Hinduism/Buddhism; they are fundamentally at odds with Christianity.

We're reviewing the universal meaning of karma as its similarly and differently expounded upon in the various religious traditions.

Jainism has a most interesting and in some ways more extreme view of karma, since karma is said to materially attract itself like sub-atomic particles, being actual 'matter' encrusting souls until karma is resolved or dissipated thru spiritual purification and good works. Therefore the whole of individual and universal existence is ever mediated by karma. - since all is metaphysically made of one universal substance, all things/beings are intrinsically related in some way so that this substance is always subject to the conditioning of karma, more or less...unless/until one attains a condition of 'moksha' (liberation).

See: Karma in Jainism

 

[csuguy]

We're reviewing the universal meaning of karma as its similarly and differently expounded upon in the various religious traditions.

Jainism has a most interesting and in some ways more extreme view of karma, since karma is said to materially attract itself like sub-atomic particles, being actual 'matter' encrusting souls until karma is resolved or dissipated thru spiritual purification and good works. Therefore the whole of individual and universal existence is ever mediated by karma. - since all is metaphysically made of one universal substance, all things/beings are intrinsically related in some way so that this substance is always subject to the conditioning of karma, more or less...unless/until one attains a condition of 'moksha' (liberation).

See: Karma in Jainism

Apart from perhaps a little more detailed view of what karma is (a physical substance, with 8 different types) - Jainism's view of karma at first glance appears to be more or less inline with the Hindu & Buddhist views. Not surprising as all of these religions originate in the melting pot of India, when there were plenty of competing gurus and the like.

Not the best source, but to quote that wiki article you provided:

Jains believe that karma is a physical substance that is everywhere in the universe.Karma particles are attracted to the soul by the actions of that soul... Jains cite inequalities, sufferings, and pain as evidence for the existence of karma. Various types of karma are classified according to their effects on the potency of the soul. The Jain theory seeks to explain the karmic process by specifying the various causes of karmic influx (āsrava) and bondage (bandha), placing equal emphasis on deeds themselves, and the intentions behind those deeds. The Jain karmic theory attaches great responsibility to individual actions, and eliminates any reliance on some supposed existence of divine grace or retribution. The Jain doctrine also holds that it is possible for us to both modify our karma, and to obtain release from it, through the austerities and purity of conduct.

As I pointed out with the Hindu/Buddhist conception, karma is the explanation for suffering and inequality in life - karma accumulating as a result of moral action. They apparently even go so far as to use the existence of suffering as evidence for karma (lolz). This means that their world view doesn't permit the idea that your suffering is anyone's fault but your own - your quality of life, the things that happen to you, are all a direct result of your own actions. Here is a quote from that article from a Jain monk:

The prosperity of a vicious man and misery of a virtuous man are respectively but the effects of good deeds and bad deeds done previously. The vice and virtue may have their effects in their next lives. In this way the law of causality is not infringed here.

In one sense I suppose this can be viewed as empowering: you can even reach the heavens if you are good enough. However, in practice this means that people are victimized as a result of their suffering. If you are suffering its because YOU did something bad and deserve to suffer.

For a religion that claims to not know the full truth of anything, they can be quite judgemental (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada). Karma maybe a convenient notion, but it is very short sighted - they can't even consider the possibility that one's suffering is purely the product of circumstance or else the result of another's bad deeds.

Some interesting points where Jainism does differentiate from Buddhism, however, is 1. the existence of the soul, and 2. any violent act accumulates karma (not just intentional violence).

 

[freelight]

Sowing & reaping..........

Sowing & reaping..........

Apart from perhaps a little more detailed view of what karma is (a physical substance, with 8 different types) - Jainism's view of karma at first glance appears to be more or less inline with the Hindu & Buddhist views. Not surprising as all of these religions originate in the melting pot of India, when there were plenty of competing gurus and the like.

Not the best source, but to quote that wiki article you provided:



As I pointed out with the Hindu/Buddhist conception, karma is the explanation for suffering and inequality in life - karma accumulating as a result of moral action. They apparently even go so far as to use the existence of suffering as evidence for karma (lolz). This means that their world view doesn't permit the idea that your suffering is anyone's fault but your own - your quality of life, the things that happen to you, are all a direct result of your own actions. Here is a quote from that article from a Jain monk:



In one sense I suppose this can be viewed as empowering: you can even reach the heavens if you are good enough. However, in practice this means that people are victimized as a result of their suffering. If you are suffering its because YOU did something bad and deserve to suffer.

No matter your view or understanding of 'karma',...the law of self-responsibility, and sowing and reaping cannot be abrogated. This law is upheld in the scriptures, for souls are judged according to their works (karma). So,...no matter how you qualify, define or assume karma to work, even in your paradigm of grace,....you still get the harvest of what kind of seeds YOU plant. - work/action then, any movement of spirit-soul-body has causal influence that produces effects....there is still some kind of 'karmic-compensation' going on, no matter how much grace or love absolves or atones for certain actions.....we still have some genuine responsibility, or else there would be no such thing as 'rewards' or 'punishments', let alone the concept of 'earning'. Spiritual earning is something you dont hear much about in Christianity, but the school of Niscience does teach this concept

For a religion that claims to not know the full truth of anything, they can be quite judgemental (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada). Karma maybe a convenient notion, but it is very short sighted - they can't even consider the possibility that one's suffering is purely the product of circumstance or else the result of another's bad deeds.

Some of their rules and austerities may be strict, but I dont think they are necessarily judgmental (let alone dogmatic), and in fact their practice of 'Anekantavada' renders them rather tolerant, fair and accepting of all different points of view regarding a subject. (I may do a thread on this).

Also, I've noted and agreed previously that not all suffering is wholly SELF-inflicted or mediated....as sometimes we are affected by other peoples karma, and sometimes even take on some of their karma (transmuting it) thru mediative work, such as in prayer, intercession, or close association with other souls, especially in the case of ministers (where we serve as mediators).

Even when we consider the atoning sacrifice of Jesus giving his soul-life, his grace did take on the 'karma' (to some degree) of the world, and its effects, if you believe he 'tasted' death for all men. So the Lord Jesus, the avatar of Love does indeed relieve our suffering to a degree by us accepting his love, and whatever 'atonement' it affords. (I however had a different view on blood-atonement here ).

However,...the principle of self-responsibility and need for genuine repentance can never be totally 'substituted' by the work, sacrifice or offering of another. - back to the principle of 'responsibility'. - on one level, you are responsible for your own sins and your own atonement,....this is provided for by God's grace,...but the principle of self-responsibility holds, as ethically sound and morally just, since a soul dies for its own sins,...and is responsible via repentance for its own salvation. All is provided for by God of course. Now if you want to factor in Jesus sacrifice, you have to account for all levels of how 'forgiveness' and 'atonement' works, and this does not totally absolve or annul personal response-ability.

Some interesting points where Jainism does differentiate from Buddhism, however, is 1. the existence of the soul, and 2. any violent act accumulates karma (not just intentional violence).

Yes, since Jainist view of karma is really 'material',....the action itself and its affection, produces the same effect as if the act was 'intentional', so some material or atomic substance of the 'act' muddies the soul as it were. I would gather however, that karma on a psychological level may be more impactful when an intentional sin is committed, as opposed to unintentional,...as would appear to be along the Buddhist line of thought.....'intention' being a major factor in karmic results.

I've recently seen some lectures by a few spiritual teachers that seem to discount the notion of karma altogether, and say its basically based on your belief as well, if karma really has any effect or meaning to anyone or anything. I would suppose to a degree, one's personal belief or attention on the subject may render it less meaningful or important. Hmmmm. As far as relativity goes, relationality, cause/effect, action/consequence relationships go, and that we reap what we sow (to some degree according to some patterned law of conductivity), it would appear karma, or an understanding of it on some level, is fundamental to life, and definitely includes the kind and quality of results that our thoughts, words and actions produce. So,...naturally...its an interesting topic

 

[csuguy]

No matter your view or understanding of 'karma',...the law of self-responsibility, and sowing and reaping cannot be abrogated. This law is upheld in the scriptures, for souls are judged according to their works (karma). So,...no matter how you qualify, define or assume karma to work, even in your paradigm of grace,....you still get the harvest of what kind of seeds YOU plant. - work/action then, any movement of spirit-soul-body has causal influence that produces effects....there is still some kind of 'karmic-compensation' going on, no matter how much grace or love absolves or atones for certain actions.....we still have some genuine responsibility, or else there would be no such thing as 'rewards' or 'punishments', let alone the concept of 'earning'. Spiritual earning is something you dont hear much about in Christianity, but the school of Niscience does teach this concept

You are trying to force a paradigm onto Christianity that doesn't fit. While at the Judgement we will be rewarded based upon our deeds, there is also forgiveness for sins - which means we won't be judged for the deeds we have been forgiven for. Additionally, our deeds don't account necessarily account for the good/bad we experience in life. The book of Job in particular addresses and dismisses such an idea. Sometimes - yes. However in the Abrahamic Faiths it is incorrect to think that if someone is suffering its because they deserve to, or if someone is blessed that they deserve to be. Life is more complicated than that - a good person can suffer because of the sins of others, or out of circumstance. A bad person can live very well through no merit.

Some of their rules and austerities may be strict, but I dont think they are necessarily judgmental (let alone dogmatic), and in fact their practice of 'Anekantavada' renders them rather tolerant, fair and accepting of all different points of view regarding a subject. (I may do a thread on this).

On some matters perhaps, but clearly not when it comes to the suffering of others.

Also, I've noted and agreed previously that not all suffering is wholly SELF-inflicted or mediated....as sometimes we are affected by other peoples karma, and sometimes even take on some of their karma (transmuting it) thru mediative work, such as in prayer, intercession, or close association with other souls, especially in the case of ministers (where we serve as mediators).

Now you are deviating from the religion being discussed - adding in your own ideas. In the Karmic Religions like Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism - all suffering is ultimately self-inflicted via karma.

Even when we consider the atoning sacrifice of Jesus giving his soul-life, his grace did take on the 'karma' (to some degree) of the world, and its effects, if you believe he 'tasted' death for all men. So the Lord Jesus, the avatar of Love does indeed relieve our suffering to a degree by us accepting his love, and whatever 'atonement' it affords. (I however had a different view on blood-atonement here ).

Again - you are trying to force a foreign concept onto Christianity that doesn't work. In the first place, Christianity does not fear suffering or promise to take away people's suffering. Rather, Christianity promises that you will suffer just as Christ did if you follow him. In the second place, Christ's sacrifice established the New Covenant through which we MAY be forgiven and redeemed - if we follow him to and do the will of God. His sacrifice didn't produce an automatic annulment of the worlds sins (else all would be saved, end of story). But he was given the authority to forgive sins, and he instructed us on the matter of forgiveness.

However,...the principle of self-responsibility and need for genuine repentance can never be totally 'substituted' by the work, sacrifice or offering of another. - back to the principle of 'responsibility'. - on one level, you are responsible for your own sins and your own atonement,....this is provided for by God's grace,...but the principle of self-responsibility holds, as ethically sound and morally just, since a soul dies for its own sins,...and is responsible via repentance for its own salvation. All is provided for by God of course. Now if you want to factor in Jesus sacrifice, you have to account for all levels of how 'forgiveness' and 'atonement' works, and this does not totally absolve or annul personal response-ability.

If the responsibility for sin remains then you haven't been forgiven. Forgiveness = letting go of the debt (of sin); the one who committed the act is free from needing to pay it back. You simply demonstrate again and again how karma and Christianity don't work together.

Yes, since Jainist view of karma is really 'material',....the action itself and its affection, produces the same effect as if the act was 'intentional', so some material or atomic substance of the 'act' muddies the soul as it were. I would gather however, that karma on a psychological level may be more impactful when an intentional sin is committed, as opposed to unintentional,...as would appear to be along the Buddhist line of thought.....'intention' being a major factor in karmic results.

I've recently seen some lectures by a few spiritual teachers that seem to discount the notion of karma altogether, and say its basically based on your belief as well, if karma really has any effect or meaning to anyone or anything. I would suppose to a degree, one's personal belief or attention on the subject may render it less meaningful or important. Hmmmm. As far as relativity goes, relationality, cause/effect, action/consequence relationships go, and that we reap what we sow (to some degree according to some patterned law of conductivity), it would appear karma, or an understanding of it on some level, is fundamental to life, and definitely includes the kind and quality of results that our thoughts, words and actions produce. So,...naturally...its an interesting topic

Yea I enjoy studying these different sects and religions - interesting to see all the different ways people can approach these topics. Just understand when you freely mix ideas across religions - you are no longer staying true to those religions.

 

[freelight]

A Hindu viewpoint..............

A Hindu viewpoint..............

You are trying to force a paradigm onto Christianity that doesn't fit.

I don't think so,...since I've been explaining and expounding on the universal principle of karma, and merely showing that the law of cause/effect, sowing/reaping, action/consequence is also recognized within the Bible, and by conscious beings everywhere really. I've also criticized Way2go who started this thread that to posit 'Christianity' is against 'karma' is not entirely correct, although as you propose, you can specify on particular points of philosophical or doctrinal issues where Christian theology does not accept 'karma' as defined and proposed within some of the karmic religions of the east, and on those particulars we would agree on some disagreements, since Christianity has a whole different world-view, cosmology, soteriological/eschatological paradigm, within its own 'sin/salvation' model which other religious tradition do not subscribe to. So I share this more from a theosophical point of view, recognizing Christianity already has its own set of dogmas it subscribes to.

Yea I enjoy studying these different sects and religions - interesting to see all the different ways people can approach these topics. Just understand when you freely mix ideas across religions - you are no longer staying true to those religions.

Excellent. I'm not necessarily trying to stay true to any one given religious tradition, but expanding, exploring, correlating different points within all of them, synergistically, and OF COURSE adding my own thoughts and commentary.

And still, "God is not mocked,....whatsoever a soul sows, it shall also reap accordingly to the law of seedtime & harvest". So the dynamic force of the law of 'action' and corresponding results...in their various cause/effect relationships...still has some significance (they correspond, relate, correlate, are inter-dependent in some way, either directly or indirectly). That's all I'm noting, and researching here.

Pulkit Mathur of The Spiritual Bee explains some good insights on karma from an Advaita Vedantic (a school within Hinduism) view - will share a series of her vids chronologically

 

[quip]

Simple Definition of karma

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

Simple indeed. :chuckle:

At least he's got math down.

 

[freelight]

Hindu views on karma......

Hindu views on karma......

Simple indeed. :chuckle:

At least he's got math down.

Unfortunately 'karma' is not a mechanical law that compensates an exact 'measure for measure' compensation for actions (as to be mathematically equivelant or some other precise measurement),...there are repurcussions, consequences and effects that condition karmic inter-actions, but yes....ultimately all actions are compensated and mediated appropriately because of the laws and principles of karma that exist, plus various conditioners.

Pulkit Mathur continues her dissertation on karma in Part 2to reveal more on this -

All actions intended or unintended by conscious beings enact effects which are mediated by a divine intelligence, since it is within the mediative network of consciousness that all potentials and possibilities are being actualized, experienced. Pulkit posits within Vedantic philosophy that the soul (atman) is that which mediates all karma, since the 'atman' is 'Brahman' (God), so it is that divine entity/soul/divinity within that is 'mediating', 'processing', 'judging' all activity then allowing the personality to undergo the working out of that karma, resolving/absolving it. Karma in this context serves as a learning-mechanism and opportunity to foster good actions and ultimately liberation (moksha). In Advaita Vedanta the soul(atman) is 'God' (Brahman)...same essence, identity,...so no matter how one differentiates or appropriates the divine arbiter...all karma is being mediated by God and the personality as they work together in evolving, learning, transcending, etc. In all these transactions, Deity mediates his law thru justice and mercy, since grace is always extant and abundant since the divine will is towards good, benevolence, blessing, freedom, joy.

When Paul says "God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows, that also he shall reap",...'God' also refers to divine law, the law of attention, for whatever a man sets his mind upon, that he reflects, that is what he brings into his experience. While this may not infer exactly a concept of karma as articulated among eastern religions, it is still within the context of karma, since the act of attention and sowing one's focus upon a thing, enacts a result from that ACT of attention, upon the 'flesh' or the 'spirit', in Paul's terms. Still,...the scriptural pattern, that all will be 'judged according to their works', and there are rewards given to those who overcome, is naturally by the law of compensation. We can term it what we like, but 'karma' is inclusive of the principle at work, various aspects and features of it. There is a 'measure for measure' aspect to it all, but grace and love ultimately absolves all, and liberates one in the Spirit.

 

[quip]

I see all of creation as "god" thus the functions of karma/kamma have a more earthy function...in my opinion.

 

[way 2 go]

Originally Posted by way 2 go

Simple Definition of karma

karma
kill a person -1 fornicate and have a child +1 = even

Simple indeed. :chuckle:

At least he's got math down.

well I'm not wrong since karma is made up
no such thing as a "law of karma".

 

[quip]

well I'm not wrong since karma is made up
no such thing as a "law of karma".

Gee whiz....I'm glad all this mess is cleared up now. Makes one wonder why the OP was ever initiated in the first place! :idunno:

 

[way 2 go]

karma is useless, just another path to hell while you strive
for a better reincarnation .

 

[quip]

karma is useless, just another path to hell while you strive
for a better reincarnation .

For your karmic sake...you better hope you're right.

 

[freelight]

karma is useless, just another path to hell while you strive
for a better reincarnation .

I think readers can read the thread so far, and make their own determination on understanding what karma is - research and education on the subject is essential to treat the subject fairly. All thoughts, intentions, words and actions have effects. This is why it does matter what you do or do not do within the greater scheme of movements in space and time, and how that affects your conscious experience.

The entire Bible (and most every religious tradition or system of ethical law) would support this understanding, and the fact that 'God' and his messengers teach man the ways, codes and principles to live by, further verifies this observation.

'Heaven' and 'hell' are reflective states of consciousness, for the mind tends to reflect (like within a mirror) what it gives its attention to, while the law of seedtime and harvest of a certain mentality or action, produces its own effects (fruit), - as long as actions persist....there is karma. (this is what karma is). This makes one responsible for his actions, or those effects which are caused by his own intentional willful acts. Such is the law of accountability. karmic effects may be modified or attenuated by various factors within different contexts.

Your consciousness and actions are birthing new experiences for you from moment to moment, day to day, year to year. You don't need a theory or even belief in 're-incarnation' to accept the principle of 'rebirth' philosophically and apply it within a greater religious life-context of being careful of your attitude and behaviors. Do recall the scriptures speak of a 'Book of Remembrance' and a 'Book of Life',...so there is an 'accounting' of choices and deeds kept in the akashic records. No good choice or deed goes unrewarded, neither does any sin or evil go without suffering or punishment somewhere along the line. There is perfect justice and merciful provision in the cosmos. Such is the way the Universe works.

 

[quip]

so there is an 'accounting' of choices and deeds kept in the akashic records. No good choice or deed goes unrewarded, neither does any sin or evil go without suffering or punishment somewhere along the line. There is perfect justice and merciful provision in the cosmos. Such is the way the Universe works.

Here's where we differ.

One does not seek good karma any more than bad karma, lest you cling to the concept; suffer in such ego desires.

 

[freelight]

Many sides to a subject...........

Many sides to a subject...........

Here's where we differ.

One does not seek good karma any more than bad karma, lest you cling to the concept; suffer in such ego desires.

That viewpoint is acknowledged among some,...I highlight 'karma yoga' (the practice of good works, charity, kindness, etc.) as a preferable course of life, instead of leading a sinful life, a gesture taught in most religions schools, which is both logical and reasonable. You can lead a life of complete dispassion or non-action if you like, but just noting the scriptural injunction to "overcome evil with good",...."do what is right, NOT what is wrong"...these are basic moral principles to consider and live out, lest you lead a life of suffering. The Buddhist variations on the theme of 'karma' are noted, as one can approach or interpret this in their own terms or understanding.

Yes,...the complete non-dual path of letting go of everything, non-attachment would have one cling to no belief or concept of anything whatsoever, if you want to try that route, but that person will still be subject to any results of his deeds, so this religious principle of conduct still holds, regardless of one's belief about it. IF you as a person cannot escape 'karma', then would you prefer to do good deeds for the sake of goodness itself, and that its a positive life-affirming and bliss-sustaining path, or prefer to do negative harmful actions and incur the suffering and pain that such a life will give to you? A lot of this is common sense, regardless of whatever 'nuance' you put on it.

Since you cannot escape karma, act consciously and wisely, because karma is inescapable, unless you can attain complete non-attachment, non-action, or transcend all duality and cause/effects relationships. Does a rejection of the law of gravity negate its effect? - hence forth I propose these considerations so you might consider the logic or wisdom being shared therein, if there there be any here. Do you find anything irrational or illogical about karma that I've shared so far here?

 

[quip]

That viewpoint is acknowledged among some,...I highlight 'karma yoga' (the practice of good works, charity, kindness, etc.) as a preferable course of life, instead of leading a sinful life, a gesture taught in most religions schools, which is both logical and reasonable. You can lead a life of complete dispassion or non-action if you like, but just noting the scriptural injunction to "overcome evil with good",...."do what is right, NOT what is wrong"...these are basic moral principles to consider and live out, lest you lead a life of suffering. The Buddhist variations on the theme of 'karma' are noted, as one can approach or interpret this in their own terms or understanding.

Yes,...the complete non-dual path of letting go of everything, non-attachment would have one cling to no belief or concept of anything whatsoever, if you want to try that route, but that person will still be subject to any results of his deeds, so this religious principle of conduct still holds, regardless of one's belief about it. IF you as a person cannot escape 'karma', then would you prefer to do good deeds for the sake of goodness itself, and that its a positive life-affirming and bliss-sustaining path, or prefer to do negative harmful actions and incur the suffering and pain that such a life will give to you? A lot of this is common sense, regardless of whatever 'nuance' you put on it.

Since you cannot escape karma, act consciously and wisely, because karma is inescapable, unless you can attain complete non-attachment, non-action, or transcend all duality and cause/effects relationships. Does a rejection of the law of gravity negate its effect? - hence forth I propose these considerations so you might consider the logic or wisdom being shared therein, if there there be any here. Do you find anything irrational or illogical about karma that I've shared so far here?

It's not a question of living dispassionate or living a life of non-action.(which is impossible BTW).
Rather its living with the compassionate understanding that there is no karmic ledger to complete....just simply action and reaction. The problem with the good/bad dichotomy is that intentions of good commonly turn to bad...and vice versa (states of impermanence) Many good actions are, as you stated, common sense. Others are not so easily constrained within such simplistic mental constructs. Clinging to such concepts only contrives the relationships between causes to their expectations on effects.

Bad karma is simply a necessary aspect of existence. There cannot be good karma without bad karma, no more than there may be an up without a down. We ultimately learn goodness from bad karma, it's not to be avoided or feared through self-righteous segregation but rather all must exist through it and thus compassionatly accepting it.