Our Karma Nature

[Quantum Quack]

Karma Nature

I feel my thoughts on this subject can be best described by a letter I sent 8 years ago to a friend. Please find below this letter,


Dear Friend,

The subject of Karma is very complicated and all who talk of it have a different idea of what it is. I too have my own understanding of it and I hope that you too will form your own understanding in time.

Whilst I have not found any reality to the concept of previous lives and I might add I looked very hard for it, I accept that inherited Karma is possible. But for me knowing either way is not really important.

However what I do understand by experience and careful consideration is that if we do inherit our Karma, this inheritance is given us at the time of conception, genetically, as opposed to birth. Our nature is formed, that is who and what we are, at this time and our karmic destiny is already in existence by the time we leave our mothers womb.

We enter a reality that immediately impacts on us as our genetic NATURE allows, thus our Karmic NATURE determines our lives in CONJUNCTION with all that occurs to us both at a sub-conscious and conscious level.

It is my belief and knowledge that everything is connected to everything, that we are sub-consciously connected to each other. Every thought, decision, action is impacted on by this connection with all. The DEGREE of IMPACT being determined by our Karmic Nature.

So as we go through life we travel with everyone as a companion, their Karmic natures also affecting our responses etc. So we have an incredibly INTRICATE web of INTERACTIONS going on.

Our Nature (sometimes referred to as our BUDDHA nature) determines how we react to everything that happens to us.

So obviously it follows that the more we know our true nature the more we are aware of our individual Karma. It also follows that we become more aware of the karma of others as well.

It could be described as “Setting up the Rules (at conception) then allowing the game (life) to be played to see how it goes and what the outcome is”. An adventure to be played, yes!

A GENUINE fortune teller has achieved a greater degree of this awareness and can “see” your Karma as clearly as they can see their own. Also it is their nature to be RECEPTIVE to the connectedness and make judgements based on this receptiveness. This ability is often referred to as Clairvoyance. But please accept that these people are far from perfect and their perception is governed by many things such as described above. To truly SEE your path or Karma is extremely difficult and requires enormous acceptance and love of life and reality (Also the right Karma as well).

Within all this we have the ability, if our Karmic nature allows, to reach our highest natural needs such as the perfect love etc. The need to look in this direction is all part of the picture at conception. So when you feel that your search is strong then consider that this is also your Karma (Nature). As to whether you achieve your ambition is another issue again and is dependant on everyone else’s Karma as well as your own.

I suppose I could go on to suggest that if you achieve a greater understanding of yourself and your needs then you will no longer need a “medium” such as the fortune teller to find the truth of your path in life.

The question as to why you have inherited this Karmic nature is not necessary as only this life is the one that is of importance. Knowledge of past lives is nice but can mislead you into action that is actually against you present Karma Nature. Find yourself and your Karma is revealed. Allow for changes in directions and realisations and flow as best you can. As we all do whether we are aware or not. Awareness leads to less conflict with what is our BIRTHRIGHT and therefore greater contentment and happiness.

This is how I see Karma and this is only my experience with it. I look at what I know and say to myself that this is quite logical, if not scientific and I find no conflict with reality.

Summary

Our Karmic nature is present at conception.

Past life awareness is unnecessary if not misleading.

Our existence is governed by the impact of other peoples Karmic Natures.

The degree of impact is determined by our Karmic natures.

The more we know ourselves the greater we are aware of our Karma (Birthright)

Our success in achieving our Karmic needs is dependent on the Karmic needs of others.

The more self-aware the less conflict with our Karma, a happier existence follows quite naturally.

I was wondering if any one would like to comment on the subject of Karma...

 

[TheERK]

Sure, I'll comment.

Provide evidence that Karma exists. It's that easy. Otherwise, you can ramble on about it all day, but no thinking, critical mind could possible care.

 

[whitewolf]

Provide evidence that Karma exists. It's that easy. Otherwise, you can ramble on about it all day, but no thinking, critical mind could possible care.

Can you prove it doesn't exist? Once you provide some valid, serious, unbiased arguments to support your statement, life will get more interesting.
:m:

 

[Avatar]

karma yoga
..towards a better world

 

[Halcyon]

What does karma have to do with parapsychology and why is it being discussed here?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Can you prove it doesn't exist? Once you provide some valid, serious, unbiased arguments to support your statement, life will get more interesting.
:m:

He's not the one making the conceptual claim. The burden of proof is on the claimer.

 

[TheERK]

Can you prove it doesn't exist? Once you provide some valid, serious, unbiased arguments to support your statement, life will get more interesting.
:m:

You're joking, right?

If somebody introduces a concept that has no evidence, and I criticize the rambling about it, it's not up to me to provide evidence that it doesn't exist. I'm not making the claim.

 

[Quantum Quack]

However what I do understand by experience and careful consideration is that if we do inherit our Karma, this inheritance is given us at the time of conception, genetically, as opposed to birth. Our nature is formed, that is who and what we are, at this time and our karmic destiny is already in existence by the time we leave our mothers womb.

I think it is common knowledge that our genetic heritage is indicative of how we are going to relate to the world........

It could be described as “Setting up the Rules (at conception) then allowing the game (life) to be played to see how it goes and what the outcome is”. An adventure to be played, yes!

I think most geneticists will agree with this statement.

So what are you disputing.....I do admit my idea of karma doesn't agree with yours but hey I can't help that.....

In the letter I am talking about a physical "Karma" and make little reference to the "Hindu- istic" versions that makes use of reincarnation etc....

Of course this letter being 8 years old is only a little bit of the picture.....and all ideas and beliefs are fluid and certainly not rigid.

What the letter WAS about was attempting to put "karma" into a more practicle and scientific frame work....for a person who was trying to understand the disparity between science and the more...hmmm...how should I say it....esoteric metaphysics,,,or "paranormal" Karma.....

 

[whitewolf]

If somebody introduces a concept that has no evidence, and I criticize the rambling about it, it's not up to me to provide evidence that it doesn't exist. I'm not making the claim.

Actually, I'm not kidding. If it is so obvious that there's no such thing as karma, it should be easy to prove within a sentence or two. Please be kind enough. And I shall argue that it does exist and attempt to provide evidence, I promise. I may not defend the concept of karma that the initial post is about, but I shall try. Please play along, it should be fun!

 

[TheERK]

Actually, I'm not kidding. If it is so obvious that there's no such thing as karma, it should be easy to prove within a sentence or two. Please be kind enough. And I shall argue that it does exist and attempt to provide evidence, I promise. I may not defend the concept of karma that the initial post is about, but I shall try. Please play along, it should be fun!

I did not say it was obvious that there's no such thing as Karma. I said that it's simply worthless to talk about something when there's no evidence to back it up. If I ramble on for pages about a new concept called Amrak, and somebody says I'm wasting my time because there's no evidence for Amrak, then that person would be right. Me telling them that "prove there's no such thing as Amrak first!" would be a fallacy.

Therefore, you must provide the evidence, not me. Crunchy cat said it first.

 

[whitewolf]

Fine.
Law of Karma says, to each action there is a reaction. To each action a man makes, there is another man/object involved. True or not? My personal experience says it is.
Law of Karma further says, whatever man does to another, the sensation he produces will come back to him. True or not true? My personal experience says it is true. In Hinduism, karma relies on reincarnation, which we shall leave out of this, to simplify matters.
What QQ provided was a different interpretation.
Argue against me.
Now, as you see, there can be many interpretations of the same thing. If you wish to prove karma does not exist, you must prove that any interpretation of it can not exist. That I really want to hear, which is precisely why I asked you to prove your statement first. I am sincerely anxious.

 

[TheERK]

Law of Karma says, to each action there is a reaction. To each action a man makes, there is another man/object involved. True or not? My personal experience says it is.

Huh? This doesn't make any sense. All you're saying is that every action involves something. As far as I know, this has nothing to do with Karma.

Law of Karma further says, whatever man does to another, the sensation he produces will come back to him. True or not true? My personal experience says it is true.

Ok, here's something of substance. You are claiming that your actions produce an effect (usually true), and then furthur claiming that the same effect will come back to you. However, there is no evidence that this is true. Example: a man somehow gives a woman great pleasure, and then immedietely kills himself. His first action, giving pleasure, was never returned to him. This violates this supposed Law of Karma, unless you somehow invoke reincarnation, which you said yourself you will not do (good thing, as there's no evidence for that either.)

Awaiting your reply. If I made a false assumption about what you were saying, please correct me. Otherwise, refute my example.

Eric

 

[whitewolf]

His first action, giving pleasure, was never returned to him.

He gained pleasure by giving pleasure. (muahaha.) Specify in order to further examine this example.

As far as I know, this has nothing to do with Karma.

Great point. What does "karma" mean to you?

(Don't even say "reincarnation" or else....)

Wolf.

 

[sargentlard]

Whitewolf

Your personal experiences do not hold any validity in favor of your arguement. Personal experiences occur to me which seem extraodinary but there is am simple, logical, answer for them.

and yes theerk was correct because he did not make the claim...you simply asking him to prove it doesn't exist is an easy way to cop out of your lack of any REAL and credible answer that IT DOES EXIST.

If you wish to prove karma does not exist, you must prove that any interpretation of it can not exist.

There is a difference between interperation and actual effect causing force. I can interpret little strings exist which shape the universe but that does not mean that string theory is any more credible.

Law of Karma says, to each action there is a reaction

No, I believe Physics says something like that.

Law of Karma further says, whatever man does to another, the sensation he produces will come back to him.

Says...not is. There is no real evidence for this.

If it is so obvious that there's no such thing as karma, it should be easy to prove within a sentence or two.

I believe you should also do that exact opposite.

 

[TheERK]

He gained pleasure by giving pleasure. (muahaha.) Specify in order to further examine this example.

This is not necessarily true. Perhaps he simply decided to give her pleasure in a way which did not pleasure him, or at least not to the same magnitude--for example, oral sex.

Here is another example. Person A, who hates Person B, is watching while Person B kills himself. Person A takes great pleasure in Person's B's action, yet Person B is dead and cannot receive this pleasure.

Great point. What does "karma" mean to you?

(Don't even say "reincarnation" or else....)

Wolf.

It's not about what it means to me. Taken popularly (which happens to be wrong--Karma simply means 'action', or so I've heard), Karma means that you reap what you sow. However, since I don't believe this is always true, I don't believe Karma is a law that is true.

 

[whitewolf]

There is no such thing as a selfless deed, because the individual that does the deed receives pleasure from knowing he is doing a selfless deed (paradox, yes, lies in human nature). So yes, both in the case of oral sex get the pleasure. Different kind of pleasure, but still a pleasure. Person who pleases is very happy that the other is pleased, no?

Person who kills himself is happy to die as he kills himself. Here, we run into the risk of providing psychological studies as examples, so I don't like this instance. Actually that would be a good idea. Have any access to articles? Easier to find studies of this than of pleasure from sex etc.

I have to add that more often than not each gets what he deserves. Especially in the modern world. I can see where you're heading with that, there is plenty of injustice. But yes, Hindus found comfort in reincarnation. Which implies there's a soul. Proof of soul's existence would be interesting to see.

Really, this whole proof thing is more of a sport to me, and whatever result comes up, I'm sure we'll all keep our beliefs. So, for shits and giggles, provide as much evidence as you can think of.

PS. Sarge, do your Soyka project.

 

[TheERK]

There is no such thing as a selfless deed, because the individual that does the deed receives pleasure from knowing he is doing a selfless deed (paradox, yes, lies in human nature). So yes, both in the case of oral sex get the pleasure. Different kind of pleasure, but still a pleasure. Person who pleases is very happy that the other is pleased, no?

First of all, there is such a thing as a selfless deed: that which is done by accident or unintentionally. Surely these things are still actions. In fact, I may influence somebody's mood without ever even being aware of it.

Also, my main point was that the degree of pleasure given and received are totally different. If this is true, then Karma fails: it is absurd to suggest that the punishment of murdering 1000 people can be "karmically returned" with a pinch on the arm.

Person who kills himself is happy to die as he kills himself. Here, we run into the risk of providing psychological studies as examples, so I don't like this instance. Actually that would be a good idea. Have any access to articles? Easier to find studies of this than of pleasure from sex etc.

Not really a risk, so much as a blatant error. A person who kills himself is not necessarily happy at all, and depending on the method of suicide, may not even realize how painful it can be until it is too late. No references needed; all that is required is a single case of this being true for a karmic law to fail.

I have to add that more often than not each gets what he deserves. Especially in the modern world. I can see where you're heading with that, there is plenty of injustice. But yes, Hindus found comfort in reincarnation. Which implies there's a soul. Proof of soul's existence would be interesting to see.

First of all, I'm almost sure that when you see a family mourning over a crippling and fatal disease that their helpless newborn baby is quickly dying from, the last thing you would ever dream of saying is "he got what he deserved." That is just sick. Unless you have damned convincing proof of reincarnation, and I doubt that any exists, there's no justification of this.

Second of all, some people derive pleasure in causing other people pain. It is that simple. Some people enjoy hurting others, and an argument that "deep down, they're really guilty" fails, because such guilt is merely a function of the brain, and their brain may be unable or disinclined to produce guilt (perhaps the reason for their bad behavior in the first place). Furthurmore, it is not too hard to imagine people like this who never get caught and punished. What do you make of these people, without invoking reincarnation?

 

[cosmictraveler]

Main Entry: kar·ma
Pronunciation: 'kär-m& also 'k&r-
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit karma fate, work
1 often capitalized : the force generated by a person's actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person's next existence.

So if you believe any one of these religions then it is a belief not a fact. Religions are built upon beliefs most of the time, either you accept them or not. Whatever gets you through the day I'd say.

 

[snakker]

How come our current life has to do with our past life, i dont agree with that... I wonder, what was the past life of the first human...

I wonder...

 

[snakker]

Lets use okham's razor... Anyone know that one?

ok it states that whenever there are two equally predictable hypothesis, then you must choose the simplest and most obvious one, always.

Lets look at a model scenario to show this in action...

A man goes in the street, he sees a woman looking at a mcdonalds post and he gets run over by a car driven by a man.

Karma hypothesis: The man used to be a nazi in his past life and he threw a baby at a wall to death. So by some miracle, he was given life again in this world, forgetting completely all his sins, as he has a new life, a new brain etc, and he crossed the street, so the woman was put there to make him die.

Chaos hypothesis: The man is a result of the sexual intercourse of his parents, the only traits he acquires is the pressure to like women and genetic traits. He sees a woman, he is aroused. The woman is hunngry and is looking at mcdonalds because her stomache is upset. The man, completely baffled by her natural beauty, ignores the street. A man is driving the car and sees the woman too. The crash takes place. By chance, nothing special. Plus, it happens all the time, that's why it's called an "accident".

And now for the verdict, using Okham's razor, we see that the second is much more probable, and is in fact simpler than the first, so we take it.

Conclusion, Karma is just making things more complicated than they already are, and in fact does not help understand anything in life, this means that it may have been reasonable for the people who invented it since they were primitive, but it definately is not desirable for much more evolved and rational people like ourselves. The second hypothesis would definately be the answer, the first hypothesis has almost no logic to it, since the person must suffer for his sins, but instead is simply killed while enjoying one of lifes greates views (almost anyways ).