From: new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 1:10:22 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A theory of Karma, TMOers, and the TMO's "Persona"
--- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@ ...> wrote:
>
> Me: Right, I am assuming that any standard of morality needs to
> connect with my sense of what is moral for it to have any meaning for
> me. A moral position that allows for willfully imposing suffering is
> too far from my own standards to be useful to me.
Do you consider the laws of thermodynamics to be a moral position? I
assume not. Then why do you cast the "theory" of cause and effect as a
moral position? All of science is based on causal factors creating a
predicable effect. Why would any sane person take that as a standard
of morality?
Perhaps you are also making the mistake, IMO, of assuming humans
should pretend they should be the judge, jury and executioner of the
laws of cause and effect. To do so makes no sense
to me. Its like
saying, "the glass is wobbling on the edge of the counter. Let it fall
on the floor. That is its karma. So it is written, so it be done. To
help prevent this or to clean up the mess is against karma, against
the will of the universe. Leave it be."
That is as silly to me as seeing a kid not doing well in school,
perhaps due to learning disabilities, and declaring thats his karma,
and no one should intervene to help him. What the universe does, the
universe will do.* What we do, on the human level, is based on our
morality, sense of compassion etc. If we see someone who needs help,
hopefully we help them. I liked something SSRI said once. Opps SSRS.
He was talking about visiting some hospital with severely retarded
kids. Some said, "well, thats their karma, isn't it". He said, that
may be, but has nothing to do with us. These children are our
opportunity to express compassion, to do something good for
them."
* And frankly I would rather live in an ordered universe of cause and
effect rather than a random one where no laws of sciene, no laws of
cause and effect, no technology at all, are in effect.
Your position also perhaps that humans should not intervene to prevent
some karma, some cause and effect from happening, because its the laws
of nature acting and we should not interfer with the laws of nature.
Its Gods will, and all. Again, thats silly, IMO. If we see someone
not paying attention walking out into the street full of traffic,
its his karma to get hit by a car. Action is -- walk while not paying
attention. Effect is get hit by car. That karma is none of our
business. Its our business to grab the person and pull him to safety.
We don't sit and watch him get hit because that would interfer with
his karma and somehow upset the universe.
> I think that karmic theory was created at a time when Mosaic
style
> justice was in vogue on earth.
"An eye for an eye" and all is, IMO, mistakingly assumes humans should
be the judge, jury and executioner of the laws of cause and effect.
Huge mistake, IMO. And open to huge abuse. Nature does what it does
according to cause and effect. Thank god it does.
Human have morality, ethics and compassion and can act thusly. If
someone cuts out another's eye, human morality need not cut out his
eye. Its human society's choice to ask, why did them man do this? Is
he suffering some mental aberation? Can we help him?
Rehabilitation is a higher human value than retribution. Those that
live by retribution shall be retributed against. Live by sword, die by
sword. Live by rehabilitating the challenged, and he, and ones society
will be rehabilitated.
> Our standards and values have evolved
> since then.
Of course. That does not invalidate the laws of thermal dynamics.
Nor
does it invalidate or over turn, in general, the laws of cause and effect.
>For example if a child is behaving cruelly, I am pretty
> sure being cruel to him or putting him in painful situations is not
> going to open his heart in compassion to others.
And where for heavens sake, would putting him in painful situations
have anything to do with the laws cause and effect? That is such a
silly notion of karma, to me its unfathomable :)
>We have evolved
> different techniques since the old style "beat his ass" retribution
> style teaching.
Rehabilitation always trumps retribution. Though much of our penal
system is still based on the latter. Not as much progress as one might
think in 4000 years. Still, its our opportunity to rehabilitate rather
than retribute. Why you think that believing in cause and effect,
like thermodynamics, should mandate human society to criminal and
civil codes
based on retribution, is a huge leap of confusion, IMO. :)
>But karmic theory seems stuck in the dark ages of our
> past when we thought of things in those simplistic terms.
No not at all. Its your projection of some huge misunderstandings that
you have onto the law of cause and effect that is stuck in the mid ages.
> If someone
> is cruel, give him a life as a leper, that will straighten him out!
What an incredible strawman. Come on curtis, you can do better. :)
__._,_.___
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
