Yeah, agreed. Karma is a feeling or an intuitive thing that seems to work well as a personal teaching mechanism for me, but I find it impossible to apply to the actions of someone else, except as a kind of slang - for example, if someone is really speeding on the freeway, and later I see him get pulled over by a cop, I might think, "bad karma dude". :-)
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "PaliGap" <compost1uk@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <babajii_99@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Karma is not a notion of any particular movement or religion... > > > > > > > > > > It is a spiritual notion and a fact of physics... > > > > > > > > But by most accounts, it's inscrutable. > > > > > > > > So why claim knowledge of the unknowable? > > > > > > Exactly. > > > > > > It's not even a "fact of physics." It's a theory, a > > > belief. People who believe in karma have *related* it > > > metaphorically to the laws of thermodynamics, as in > > > "for every action there is an equal and opposite > > > reaction," but that's just a metaphor. Cause and > > > effect in a limited physics sense can be proven; > > > cause and effect in terms of human action/reaction > > > and "karma" never can. > > > > I would prefer to put this differently. I would have > > thought that there is no difference whatsoever between > > cause and effect for every day widgets and "cause and > > effect in terms of human action/reaction". > > In physics, cause and effect can't even be > established consistently at the "widget level," > if you make the widgets small enough. :-) I > may consider karma a viable belief system, but > I would never equate it with science. As far as > I can tell it's a belief, and an unproven one. > > > But I think us karma believers typically add an extra > > dimension to the austere and blind "laws of thermodynamics": > > the moral dimension. So there becomes a qualitative (or > > "moral") measure to the action/reaction principle. > > That's where I would differ from most believers > in karma, *especially* any of the New Agers. I > don't see any "moral" component to karma at all. > Of course, I don't see any "moral" component to > the universe at all, either, so I'm being consis- > tent. :-) > > "Morals" are made up human theories about how > things "should" work. They do not, in my opinion, > have anything to do with the ways that things > actually work. We'd "like" to believe that only > people who somehow "deserve" to get snorfed by > an earthquake or a tsunami actually get snorfed, > but I see no evidence that this is true. Nor do > I see any evidence that people who lead thoroughly > amoral lives and hurt people right and left "pay" > for their actions karmically. It's a theory. I > may have an intuitive feeling that on some level, > over centuries of incarnations, things might > "balance out" on some level, but that's all it > is, an intuition, a feeling. > > > That's an act of faith of course and goes way beyond > > physics. But nothing wrong in that per se? > > Where I think people go wrong is to try to project > what *they* believe is "moral" onto Nature or God > or "the mechanics of karma," in an attempt to sug- > gest that "Nature/God/karma thinks the way I do." > I don't know about you, but if I were searching > for a one-word description for that suggestion, > the word "ego" leaps out at me. :-) > > In general, my life experience tells me that any > person who uses the word "moral" a lot isn't very > moral, even by their own standards. The more they > use the word, the less moral they are. YMMV. > > > > What's going on when people try to say that they > > > "know" that some disaster was "caused" by something > > > or other is really, "I want you to believe that I > > > 'know' when in fact all I'm doing is projecting > > > my dislike of or hatred of someone onto them, and > > > claiming that God or Nature or 'karma' feels the > > > same way I do." It's bullshit, and I stand by my > > > first word, sick bullshit. > > > > Rather harsh! > > I think it's accurate. Especially in the context > of Robert's comments. > > > I see it more as a logical issue. The proposition "bad > > things happen to you if you do bad things" might be true. > > But from that, the proposition "if bad things happen to > > you, you've done bad things" doesn't follow. In fact > > my own belief is (probably) that the first proposition is > > true, and the second is false. > > I would agree with you, and especially with your use > of the word "might." Karma is a THEORY. Nothing more. > Those who claim it's more, or worse, claim that they > know how it "works," are pushing the envelope of > sanity in my opinion. I think they're just stating > how they'd like things to work if they were running > the universe. Fortunately, they're not. :-) >
