Why do most people psychologically try to reject the idea of karma?
Not physically?
Because it's a juvenile concept.
Still waiting on them Jews to be defeated
Because it is contrary to basic facts. You can just suicide bomb hundred of people and will never be punished. So much for Karma!
>>812151
Because they idea of a cosmic balance.is based of morality influenced.by your.culture.
People want to reject the idea of consequences for their actions. This is why atheism is popular too.
>>812167
> God literally could change every consequence of your action in one seconds at whim
If anything that is why religion was so popular. It is much harder to accept paradigm where magic force can't fix your mistakes and bring you from the dead.
>>812151
no ego stands the truth
>>812248
Even a sophisticated eastern understanding has its problems. Karma is understood as the law of cause and effect whereby certain actions inevitably have certain consequences, both the immediate consequences that branch out into an infinite web in the cosmos at large, and longer term consequences as karma leads to becoming in a direction parallel with ones actions [or as Aristotle might say, actions make habits make character].
The problem is that the morality of the dharma is not always in accord with the law of cause and effect. This is why the karmic system has to invoke ideas like rebirth or reincarnation, or say things like "Just take our word for" that something bad will eventually hit you for karmically bad actions.
The reality is that a morality based only on the law of cause and effect would not necessarily be a morality of truth and compassion.
>>812269
what do you think is the difference between rebirth and reincarnation?
>>812285
Reincarnation requires that you believe in an immortal soul, an unchanging or semi-unchanging essence that travels through a succession of bodies.
Rebirth does not believe in an unchanging self. In fact by the Buddhist understanding one's "self" is under a constant stream of changes even as one lives. When one dies, the phenomena does not end. The karmic line keeps going, here appearing as a thief, here as a king, here as a saint, there as a mighty Deva.
It's basically driven by resentment and envy. The Orthodox Christian idea that whoever does evil can be forgiven, and that those who are the most righteous will be punished the most, takes a lot more maturity and love to accept.
>>812318
1.
>The idea that the most righteous will be punished most
How the fuck is this not the epitome of resentment and envy?
2. Why the fuck are there so many Orthodoxy fags on? I fucking hate how many of you people there are, showing up and shitting up threads. Look, your stupid Russian version of Christianity is not nearly as clever as you think it is, nor is it relevant to this particular conversation. I fucking hate how you stupid people come in and derail threads like this. Keep it to your own generals.
>>812341
As I said I don't actually believe in any of these philosophies. I find no evidence for rebirth or reincarnation, and the karmic moral system is very, very flawed.
Buddhist metaphysics has some good stuff though.
>>812325
>How the fuck is this not the epitome of resentment and envy?
It's the truth, it's what Job is about. Saint John Chrysostom said, "Where there is not persecution, the Gospel is not being preached." Now he was bishop after Christianity was legal, and he was HEAVILY persecuted by both the state and other bishops.
I'm Greek Orthodox, pal
>>812269
the goal of the dharma is to stop the karma.
>>812351
Its not the truth, its a lie, stay in your own threads.
>>812357
The dharma in Buddhism is the teaching for avoiding rebirth by the attaining of Nirvana, but in Hinduism the word is synonymous with the moral law. I was obviously using the latter definition.
>>812293
Reincarnation idea is perfect because idea of creation and another two planets special for moralists and hold and paid wages to a lot of jailers and executioners is just mad.
If you're a bad person, good company will avoid you, and if you're a cynical, grumpy person, you're more likely to take that out on others but you're also likely going to see your own prospects in life similarly, so you're going to be depressed.
I think this tendency can be described as a sort of karma. I don't know of a spiritual force facilitating it however.
My layperson's understanding was that Karma was a Vedic concept that helped 'balance the universe' for human society. People might get away with being assholes in this life but at some point they have to pay the price in a future reincarnation. The fact that you can't be certain karma exists keeps people questioning / ignoring its existence which is why there's always a modicum of assholes to deal with.
Maybe there's some divine intention behind its existence but it's more like a natural consequence rather than direct intervention by a deity or something.
Like, when you catch an illness, you have a fever. The fever cleanses you of the illness. In the same way, it's less a punishment and more a physical law.
>>812374
>The fact that you can't be certain karma exists keeps people questioning / ignoring its existence which is why there's always a modicum of assholes to deal with.
Actually, I remembering hearing about a US psychologist who spent many years trying to find proof for reincarnation. Naturally this led him to India, where the vast majority of the population believe in reincarnation.
When he noticed that people still do bad things even though they believe in spiritual consequences, he asked someone why this was. The response he got was basically, "people don't care,"
>>812347
>the karmic moral system is very, very flawed.
why? is because its flexibility?
And what kind of evidence you want?
>>812393
Because without the assumption of rebirth the law of karma has absolutely no connection with the moral laws of any given religion or philosophy.
Okay, so effect follows cause. That doesn't mean a bad cause will always follow from stereotypically immoral behavior.
Its the same problem I have with "Natural Law" theories of ethics. The REAL natural law is a lot more hardcore, cruel, and dickish than the idealistic morality they're trying to paint as natural. In the same way, the REAL karmic law is a lot more hardcore, cruel, and dickish than the one that is popularly promoted.
As to proof, historical or scientific would do, but honestly I'm really in no mood to go through whatever guru or sages who TOTALLY remember their last 1000 lives you would be inclined to show me. If you want to discuss philosophy, by all means, but I'd really rather not get into clickbait-tier proofs for rebirth.
>>812403
From what I understand, it's not necessarily "do good things and good things will happen to you," but rather a subtle series of actions that influence patterns in behaviour and psychology that operates over many lifetimes.
>>812412
Exactly, but that component of karma is also worthless to me, because just because action leads to becoming, doesn't say anything about the type of man I want to become.
If I wanted to be a compassionate sage, this advice would be helpful for me, but what if I desire to instead becoming a masculine, domineering warrior? The law of karma for ME would be behaviors that would be totally out of line with the dharma.
In short, karma can't tell you where to go, only how to get there. And in the absence of a complex metaphysics justifying an objective perfect state complete with heaven and hell realms, its pretty subjective.
>>812358
Why? I don't demand atheists to "stay in your own threads".
>>812430
Clarification: Yes I know the objective perfect state is DIFFERENT from the heaven realms. High amounts of positive karma does not moksha make.
>>812433
Because your religion has nothing to do with the current discussion. You coming in and saying "Karma sucks, Jesus is great" isn't advancing the discussion.
If you were say, comparing Aquinas theories of natural law to karma, and positing why they were superior, that would be a different story. But as is, you're simply breaking topic to evangelize or hype up your own philosophy. And for whatever reason, there is a ton of Orthodox Christians who feel the need to bust into every philosophy thread on /his/ to do so.
You can discuss philosophy from a religious perspective while still staying on topic. Saying "People deny karma because they're bad immature people. They'd know this if they followed my enlightened ways" is not contributing.
>>812443
No, I think my religion is quite pertinent. I see karma as a promise of Prosperity Gospel, a promise to satisfy revenge, and basically a way to ignore injustices by assuming that people who are abused deserve it. It is extremely repugnant compared something evil will *not* be punished if it is forgiven, as well as encouraging forgiveness rather than holding a grudge. Christianity says that if you stand up for what is right, you will suffer for it, whereas the idea of karma says that if you suffer it is because of your wickedness.
>>812151
Odd, seems to me most people believe in Karma, at least in one form or another: namely in that good things happen to good people and bad things happen to bad people.
Which I keep trying to tell them that is clearly demonstrable bullshit.
Personally, I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. Cuz it would be damned awful if we actually deserved all the crap that happens to us.
>>812430
The sage is the ideal figure of all philosophy. Sure, we can pervert philosophy to justify injustice but that perversion is a permanent stain on your soul. Even without heavens or hells then you will have wasted the only life you got for a mere hedonistic pleasure when you could have been a sage and experienced the endless bliss of moksha/samadhi.
>>812403
>scientific
I think the scope of science can't reach this question.
I get your doubts tho, anyway I find the buddhist concept of rebirth really interesting (I can't find a better word). Years ago I would totally dismiss it , but now I can't.
>>812430
>The law of karma for ME would be behaviors that would be totally out of line with the dharma
Now this is a problem I have with Buddhist ethics (bigger problem for me than rebirth.). I can't figure out how samurais , or shaolin monks did reconcile it. Maybe we are too used to fixed rules.
>>812467
Then you have totally misunderstood the concept even as it understands itself. I do not believe in karma, but you have no idea what karma even is.
>>812470
The sage is the ideal figure of sages. Nietzche was right, priests and philosophers put contemplation at the top of human experience because they were the ones doing the contemplating. The sage is degenerate, and most of our 'ideal' moral wisdom actually refers to someone with all the symptoms of senility. A refusal to conflict, an over-sensitivity, etc.
>>812475
They reconciled it because karma has absolutely nothing to do with moksha or nirvana. In Buddhism, the sage has totally passed beyond all merit and demerit.
>>812487
>Then you have totally misunderstood the concept even as it understands itself. I do not believe in karma, but you have no idea what karma even is.
Yes I do. It was a doctrine developed by Bahamians to justify the caste system in India.
>>812493
No. No it was not. Even if it was, that would not speak anything about the validity of the idea itself.
Your entire argument seems to rest on the idea that since karma says bad effects come from bad actions, that anyone suffering bad effects has committed bad actions, and therefore no on should help him.
This is not how the idea works, either in practice or in the mythology, because practicing good deeds is still good karma even if its against bad beings. That is why numerous Bodhi descended into hell-realms to preach in their mythos.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Because it is the unfounded belief that everybody gets what they deserve. Toddler gets run over by a car - deserved it, that'll teach you to do bad things in previous lives.
>>812430
Because the whole concept of karma revolves how much suffering actions can bring.
Yes, if you wanted to be a domineering warrior, the actions to get you there would be different to a becoming a wise sage, but the actual karmic actions you do would still operate under the same framework - that is, how much they bring or alleviate suffering.
>>812487
>[karma is wrong because] Nietzsche was right
Careful with all those edges, son.
>>812507
Practicing good deeds means giving alms etc. It doesn't mean calling out people for their injustice.
>>812519
Not that guy, but at least give a proper response given he didn't just dismiss your muh spiritual shit as New Age trash. Is attacking the argument like something beyond this thread's scope?
>>812516
if you find a hungry little cat in the streets, you may:
A take it home and feed it, when he grows up you have to castrate him or he will go to the streets and make more hungry cats. But castration hurts and leads to a dull live.
B Take it home, feed him and no castration , letting there more hungry cats in your town..
C let it die
what is the less suffering option?
>>812539
It's not us mere mortals who count up the suffering points, it's the karma gods (^:
>>812539
From a buddhist standpoint, karma is affected by the intentions of an action, so I'd go with A. Sure the cat won't be able to get his feisty on, but the intention is to make him not experience sex, it's to prevent future suffering through the breeding of more helpless cats.
Buddhist monks have gone on record saying that they kill rats in their monasteries, because even though Buddhism preaches non-violence, killing that one animal will prevent the infestation and sickness of many more rats and humans.
>>812553
Nice rationalization. What they should be doing is building rat theme parks and putting them there. Fuck them for killing innocent creatures, their souls are stained forever (^:
>>812553
>Right intention
Those 2 words lets karma ethics to justify even Hitler or Stalin.
>>812584
>expecting any sort of coherent moral philosophy from nutjobs
>>812151
>anything bad that happens to you is deserved because of actions in a past life
Yeah that sounds really fair to Syrian war orphans or genocide victims
>>812620
The best part is that in trying to deny the claim for an immortal soul that would be the deserving part, they just talk about the fabric of the universe or some shit, which turns it into a perfectly immoral universe. What you got you deserve because of the actions of others. Bravo /his/.
>>812151
Is this right?
>Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म; IPA: [ˈkərmə] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed; it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).
I think people might reject spirituality in this manner because it's not measurable.
Karma has nothing to do with "paying the toll".
It's about the cycle of happiness and unhappiness within a single person, which very often results from poor understanding about why/how you are doing anything whatsoever. Freedom from karma is called moksha, liberation. This is where the various eastern philosophies come in; they try to explain how to achieve moksha.
Some call it dharma, which leads to the infantile and pathetically ascetic notion of karma being a universal feedback for one's actions.
>>812584
Not at all. It's actually pretty simple. If your intention is to harm, deceive or steal in anyway, it's not karmically pure. If, however, your intention is to explain, help or console, it's karmically pure.
>>813173
Whatever genocide leader: "My intentios are to liberate my people, help the country walk towards a better society and so forth, but is impossible if we dont kill the [jews/burgoeis/heretic/fedoras]"
Having good intentions could lead to any course of action.
>>813472
>> Having good intentions could lead to any course of action.
yes and this what westerners fail to grasp and refuse to hear.
