if reincarnation is real do certain races require more

[ion]

cause and effect = karma

I disagree with that. To take an action is to cause an activity, true, but Karma is different. What we call karma is the replication of the action and activity. An action will cause an effect, karma is the returning of that action, generally reversed on the original doer.If you do something to someone, that will have an observable reaction, karma is not apart of that observable reaction it is when that action returns back to you, or, the repeating of that action from the original doer.

 

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you because of the law of symmetry, but it may not come back to you like that, but it will spread like that, if you do good or bad by your own judgment unto another, if there is a likelyhood of it the event will replicate itself and spread out from them to another who will also likely be an element in an event generated by symmetry.

 

Karma is symetry replecating events and drawing togeather the elements of those events wich you are one of if you were a part of the event. Karma is the manifestation of a whole world of events that come into being soley to reproduce an event. It is and was a creative force and vehicle of creation. It is here in our ego ruled human world that symmetry has been trandformed and held in position of the great cosmic judge that distributes justice. It has mutated into this because we ourselves collectively hold concepts like good, bad, and judgement/justice.

 

If you give a guy 20 bucks, the effect is that that guy now is carrying that energy, the karma is that because of yours and his beliefs, the action has extra elements, conotations and even emotions that will have to be rplicated, and is thus far more complicated then the actual event. The events that come into being will have there own cause and effect and unless the energy is difused some how, it will continue, and or spread indefinitely. The events that come into being to full fill the symetry are not necessarily a part of Gods original plan so to speak; not a part of the original continuim, but once they do come into being, you will be inescapably woven into the happenings. You wont be able to directly escape the happening, or opt out, or stop itwith force, but you can end it by altering your perception of it.

 

If you are stolen from, meaning that is how you defined and thus experienced an event, you are potentially in for a leangthy world of unpleaseant exerience, yet the universal effect was simply that you didn't have an object anymore, and if thats how you experienced it, that would end it. You might end up suffering a year or two or more events that would have never taken place otherwise, that eventually lead you to the point where you end up repeating the "crime", or it may happen again that you are "robbed" at least a second time. However if the feelings and definitions associated with the event have at all changed lets say by becomming lessened, the major event of being robbed when replicated, might become a minor one because of your change in values during the time it took to remanifest.

 

But also because of symmetry, to have something taken from you could easily equate to a situation where something will be gvven to you, and because of symmetry, it will some how be of equal value.More then likley also depending on the contents of your mind.

 

Its imortant that the original symmetry is between what we percieve as opposites, the yin and yang, but that the opposites do have the exact same elements as their composition, they are just different expressions of those elements so when humans concieved the concept of good, they drew fromof the abyss, the reality of evil, to get rid of evil would be easiestly achieved by stop thinking of anything as good. If you dont want to be stollen from, dont be possesive when somone wants something and give freely what you have, and if it is apart of your charecter, because of symmetry you will be replenished so that you can be taken from and so that you can give freely over and over again

 

To he who has, more will be givven, and to he who has not, even what he does have will be taken away. If you dont want to lose anything, do your best not to find anything. The excitement you feel when you find something that hasn't been let go of, is the same level of distress you'll feel when you lose something of equal value.

 

So an example of how to minimize karmic entanglements would be to not place much value on things and to try not to be too attached, that way if you find something it will be no big deal so it will be no big deal when you lose something.

@ion I like your post a lot. So are you saying that any "misfortunes" would be down to our own perceptions of good and bad, and if one is to experience "bad karma", it's down to their own particular attachment to that particular guilt?

 

If so, then we should kill karma in our practice...forget about it. Without it there, we can't drag ourselves down...

Hopefully I answered your question Rara

Edited August 29, 2013 by ion

[Apech]

I disagree with that. To take an action is to cause an activity, true, but Karma is different. What we call karma is the replication of the action and activity. An action will cause an effect, karma is the returning of that action, generally reversed on the original doer.If you do something to someone, that will have an observable reaction, karma is not apart of that observable reaction it is when that action returns back to you, or, the repeating of that action from the original doer.

 

...

 

 

You have invented your own version. Karma literally means 'action' and every action has fruit (result) ... the result reflects the original action such as if you plant a plum stone you get a plum tree. You should strive to do wholesome acts not for selfish reasons of thinking it will be better for you but because the result for everyone will be better.

[ion]

You have invented your own version. Karma literally means 'action' and every action has fruit (result) ... the result reflects the original action such as if you plant a plum stone you get a plum tree. You should strive to do wholesome acts not for selfish reasons of thinking it will be better for you but because the result for everyone will be better.

I see the fundamental reality of it. I didn't invent anything. So why do you see that karma, translating to action is actually cause and effect/ action/reaction? Action is what I've been talking about, and the resulting activity, not necessarily the direct reaction.

 

If you plant a plum, alot more then just a tree growing alo happens, but none of it is caused by the plum seed being planted. The tree grows, becomes an eco system and a splendid harbor for birds.

 

What defines an act as wholsome and why should their activation be based on an emotional attatchment? Why is it better to commit a wholsome act then to commit an act for purely logical reasons? Or why is it selfish to commit wholesome acts because I believe as a primate it is in my biological nature to commit wholesom acts in the name of the group or groups I am designed to be a part of?

 

Truly it is the tao to have wholsome acts be the spontaneous response to the stimuli and should never be an action taken by a POV. Spontaneous act of selflessness is our true nature. It is our true nature to have good will towards others and to be unattatched and so open with our possesions and selves. When these things are cultivated, the one who cultivated those things will spontaneously act without pretention or causation.

 

However it is logical to watch out for symmetry And the point you made about karma translating to action is one logical reason to not make wholsome acts consciously for any reason especially emotionally based;. Because your reasoning is emotionally based and on a POV, then it will be an action taken. Beyond the direct result which will undoubtedly just add to the overall imbalance in the world, you will also creating entanglements and that is why karma as the conventional understanding is asociated with action , because all egotistical action creates entanglements that will undoubtedly lead to many people, the "original" commiter of the action included, accumulating more "bad" karma that will absolutely have to be lived out and dealt with.

 

Buddha taght a way to avoid accumulating karma and stepping out of the repetitive cycles of action causing activity that creates more action wich multiplies obligated activity that must play out.

 

Killing karma as rara put it, is largely what buddhism is about, and it is the karmic cycles that we create with our actions that are the inspiration for many of the buddheist approaches to liberation.

 

The idea is not to cause something because there will be a direct effect, but there are unseen reactions symply by taking action what ever it may be, good or bad, selfesh or selfless. The symetric response to action, what ever it may be is to bring balance to an imbalance, if you do what you think is good in the name of your perception, your opposite is bound to do the same thing but you'll call it bad, and if you dont let go right there, the reasoning you held onto will cause you to act again as an elaborated diversified reflection of the first action, yet with the aspect that it intigrated from its causation, and if you never see the connection it will expand, and elaborate as it moves forward in time until it is so different appearing from the initial action that you wont be able to make the connection til after you die. Not to mention all the other people who as a result of your action took certain actions and accumulated mor karmic time themselves.

 

Karma and reincarnation are not methods of assencioun. Peoples lives dont tend to get better and better after each birth, they get worse and always end up accumulating more karma, and if symmetry cant bring the events to completion and dissolution (which is its nature,) because of concepts we wont let go of, especially the ego concept, then a symetric awareness to the one who accumulated the karma one will come into being simply to deal with the accumulated karma that it HAS to be apart of.

 

There is no entity that is reincarnated because there never was one incarnated, however the cognition and tendencies of a being can be synthesised and an analog awareness can be made to be born, in which case a very similar sense of self arises within the being which can connect the current awareness to the "original" in the dimmension of spirit and mind outside of time and space where those barriers are not. So there is a linking ofnear identical energies with a fused self awareness that trancends the death barrier by creating a symmetric being to develop the near identical self awareness for the soul purpose of acting out the symmeties creeated by action...in otherwards to deal with accumulated karma that your awareness, emotions, and cognition are an intrinsic part of.

 

Buddha taught the way out of that because the nature of this thing in relation to the human ego will naturally accumulate more and more bad karma indefinitely simply by trying to swat a fly that is annoying you , or looking out in the chaos and feeling like things arent what they should be to where you desire to change things/take action. If you see that things arent as they should be then that is a symmetry of your mind and any action taken, good or bad, will be off kilt and cause more problems for one.

 

Buddhas approach, and Im sure that there are plenty of you who will accuse me of inventing this, was to die before your physacal death and to deal with the issue that most of us are tortured by at death while still "alive" His actions created no karma, good or bad because he was completely selfless and thus took no action.

[Urpflanze]

I don't think Karma is as simple as if I do good, then add plus to my account, and if bad, then negative. That's book-keeping, not karma-keeping. I think if Karma can be defined as Y where Y = f(X), then X certainly will include the "choices" that you have made in life. The point is, life ceases if we stop making choices, no matter how simple and shallow they seem. Every day we sift through a pile of choices, consious or unconscious. And these choices create ripples - in our life, in the life of the affectee of the choice, in the society where the choice was made, and so on - it's like a wave that expanses when you throw a stone in a pond. The center of that wave is your choice, but it ripples through the water affecting everything. So, I think the best thing that we can do about our Karma is to make Awared Choices. Bad, or good - hardly matter, but we should be able to forsee to a certain degree how this choice can affect lives in different, probable ways (is it a coincidence that this word rhymes with waves?) and accept/acknowledge responsibility for it with all our rational and moral might. Once that ripple of awareness is created, once we have charged it with a specific intent or responsibility, a cosmic siren attaches to it to that signals a synchronicity-bound door of exit to the about-to-get affected innocent lives. That's why they say in magic - be very specific about what you desire. Vague is the folly of the Fool. Bad Karma is unresponsible, vague and blind choices. Like headless chickens.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Urpflanze

[Marblehead]

Like headless chickens. IMO.

I prefer headless chickens. They are easier to cook.

[steve]

I prefer headless chickens. They are easier to cook.

The boneless ones are even easier -

 

[Urpflanze]

I prefer headless chickens. They are easier to cook.

 

That's a very valid point-of-view. Nature certainly loves to deal cards this way.

[Marblehead]

That's a very valid point-of-view. Nature certainly loves to deal cards this way.

Hehehe. I have been reading the posts in this thread but had nothing to say but I had the opportunity to be a smart ass so I jumped right in.

[Aaron]

It's very hard not to think of this thread in regards to racism, since the very question is based on the pretext that race somehow relegates a person's value in regards to karma. This is sort of like saying it's okay to point out the bad qualities of one race because of all the bad things they've done, as if that somehow has something to do with one's individual merit. This is the old western mindset of the "sins of the father" that's coming into play. I am not responsible for anything my father has done and the good and bad he did is not inherited by me. We each have the ability to choose our future and we each our brought into this world with a clean slate. No one kills an infant because their father was a murderer, at least no one with a sense of humanity and compassion.

 

The universe is not sentimental, it views all things equally. Karma has less to do with reincarnation than our awareness of the nature of reality,

 

Aaron

[Apech]

I see the fundamental reality of it. I didn't invent anything. So why do you see that karma, translating to action is actually cause and effect/ action/reaction? Action is what I've been talking about, and the resulting activity, not necessarily the direct reaction.

 

.....

 

I agree that the result of action is not necessarily direct.

[C T]

I agree that the result of action is not necessarily direct.

I think its very direct, just not immediate perhaps, and thats why the pause could create the illusion that karma is not real.

[Apech]

I think its very direct, just not immediate perhaps, and thats why the pause could create the illusion that karma is not real.

 

Yes you are right that's what I meant ... 'not immediate'.

[Marblehead]

... the illusion that karma is not real.

Hehehe. For me reality suggests that karma (the Buddhist form, not cause and effect) is not real.

[Bubbles]

Hehehe. For me reality suggests that karma (the Buddhist form, not cause and effect) is not real.

 

Is the Buddhist idea of karma really different from cause and effect? I am not sure but I admit I am ignorant and biased.

[Marblehead]

Is the Buddhist idea of karma really different from cause and effect? I am not sure but I admit I am ignorant and biased.

Yeah, me too ignorant about Buddhist Karma. I have heard so many variations of the "truth" about Buddhism from so many people on this board I really have no idea what the common (and based strictly on the teachings of the Buddha) truth is.

 

I've heard about the past lives of so many people regarding karma I just have to negate the entire concept of karma because it is so contrary to logic, reason, and observable reality.

[Apech]

Yeah, me too ignorant about Buddhist Karma. I have heard so many variations of the "truth" about Buddhism from so many people on this board I really have no idea what the common (and based strictly on the teachings of the Buddha) truth is.

 

I've heard about the past lives of so many people regarding karma I just have to negate the entire concept of karma because it is so contrary to logic, reason, and observable reality.

 

If you are ignorant about 'Buddhist' karma then why make statements about it? And I would suggest that you don't listen to people on this board about it because there are a lot of misconceptions floating around. Karma does literally mean 'action' and this includes the effect of action (i.e. cause and effect). It doesn't matter about the exact mechanism of this but what is important is that you cannot act in a vacuum and that whatever you do has an effect. So when you make moral choices you can bear this in mind. This is instead of the theistic concept of 'commandments' or laws or rules issued by some kind of supreme being ... you don't need that at all ... which is why many people find it a useful idea.

[Bubbles]

I've heard about the past lives of so many people regarding karma I just have to negate the entire concept of karma because it is so contrary to logic, reason, and observable reality.

 

I think this is worth a separate thread.

 

I also agree with Apech based on my limited understanding

[Marblehead]

I think this is worth a separate thread.

Are you going to start one?

 

I also agree with Apech based on my limited understanding

I have already forgotten what Apech's thoughts are on this. My short-term memory is really short.

[Bubbles]

Are you going to start one?

I don't think so. I have forgotten almost all the technical details I read about karma years ago. So I would not be able to contribute much. But I do think it could be a good discussion if fundamentalists and trolls stay away from it.

I have already forgotten what Apech's thoughts are on this. My short-term memory is really short.

 

Below, I have selected the part I find relevant.

 

 

 

Karma does literally mean 'action' and this includes the effect of action (i.e. cause and effect). It doesn't matter about the exact mechanism of this but what is important is that you cannot act in a vacuum and that whatever you do has an effect. So when you make moral choices you can bear this in mind.

[Apech]

Are you going to start one?

 

I have already forgotten what Apech's thoughts are on this. My short-term memory is really short.

 

It is your karma to forget

[steve]

Karma is a very simple concept and worthy of some attention.

Apech, CT, and bubbles seem to have a good handle on it.

There is no need to make the leap on faith regarding reincarnation.

One can benefit from a study and understanding of the idea of karma without preconceptions, projections, or expectations.

If an understanding of karma is useful to you, wonderful!

If not, that's fine too.

And you can certainly also just ignore it altogether but that doesn't mean it is not at work all around you at every moment.

[Marblehead]

I don't think so. I have forgotten almost all the technical details I read about karma years ago. So I would not be able to contribute much. But I do think it could be a good discussion if fundamentalists and trolls stay away from it.

Well, that would eliminate me. Hehehe.

 

Below, I have selected the part I find relevant.

Okay, now I remember having read that. (I really did read it. Hehehe.)

 

In my own conversations I always use "cause and effect" and never "karma".

[Marblehead]

Well, as Apech said, it is my karma to not believe in karma.

 

And Steve, if we ignore reincarnation we would be pretty much in agreement.

 

What goes around comes around and all that stuff.

[Bubbles]

Well, that would eliminate me. Hehehe.

Which category do you fall into?

 

 

In my own conversations I always use "cause and effect" and never "karma".

So in my book you would qualify for such a discussion. The word 'karma' doesn't have to be an idol.

[Bubbles]

Well, as Apech said, it is my karma to not believe in karma.

If you acknowledge cause and effect, you don't have to make a belief out of it. It is just reality, right?

 

And Steve, if we ignore reincarnation we would be pretty much in agreement.

 

What goes around comes around and all that stuff.

Reincarnation is a pretty bad and confusing word actually because it suggests a substratum that would incarnate in different bodies. Buddhists don't accept that idea. From what I read, their idea is different and smarter than that. Perhaps some knowledgeable member (no troll, no fundamentalist) could give it a go?