Perspective on Karma
"You make your own karma". For the most part, seems like the current concept of karma is as a system of reward and punishment wherein "good deeds" are rewarded and "bad deeds" are punished. In conjunction with reincarnation, individuals ultimately get "what they deserve". Even if it takes many lifetimes. As with the Christian "trinity", I've yet to come across an explanation of karma's workings that holds water.
That said, from what I gather the original concept of karma was stated in the following:
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad.
He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds.
And here they say that a person consists of desires.
And as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
---- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
Now we're getting into something
Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.
As an example, desire for salt or sugar works this way. Some years ago I had pretty much cut out salty foods from my diet. About six month later, my employer provided box lunches that included a bag of potato chips since we were working through. As I'd always loved potato chips, even though it wasn't in my diet, I figured I had the bag, might as well eat them. Upon placing a single chip in my mouth, I wanted to spit it out. It was revolting. Left the rest uneaten. It was really surprising. Prior to this, I'd always really liked salty foods - even often craved them. Chips. Salted nuts. Whatever. Bring them on. I still have no desire for them. A friend of mine said that she had had a similar experience with sugar.
Insofar as I can tell, pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors work this way.
Seems like most believe their unconscious mind to be largely, if not completely, static. It isn't. "You make your own karma".
Thoughts?
As an aside, one should note the wide gulf between the underlying concepts of the original and the current and ponder the impetus for such a dramatic corruption. A similar wide gulf can be seen between the gospel preached by Jesus during his ministry and the "gospel" believed by the vast majority of Christians.
That said, from what I gather the original concept of karma was stated in the following:
Now as a man is like this or like that,
according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be:
a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad.
He becomes pure by pure deeds, bad by bad deeds.
And here they say that a person consists of desires.
And as is his desire, so is his will;
and as is his will, so is his deed;
and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
---- Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6
Now we're getting into something
Essentially the concept is that the unconscious mind is conditioned by ones thoughts and actions. And, most importantly, it can be reconditioned. Ultimately ones unconscious mind is the result of self-conditioning.
As an example, desire for salt or sugar works this way. Some years ago I had pretty much cut out salty foods from my diet. About six month later, my employer provided box lunches that included a bag of potato chips since we were working through. As I'd always loved potato chips, even though it wasn't in my diet, I figured I had the bag, might as well eat them. Upon placing a single chip in my mouth, I wanted to spit it out. It was revolting. Left the rest uneaten. It was really surprising. Prior to this, I'd always really liked salty foods - even often craved them. Chips. Salted nuts. Whatever. Bring them on. I still have no desire for them. A friend of mine said that she had had a similar experience with sugar.
Insofar as I can tell, pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors work this way.
Seems like most believe their unconscious mind to be largely, if not completely, static. It isn't. "You make your own karma".
Thoughts?
As an aside, one should note the wide gulf between the underlying concepts of the original and the current and ponder the impetus for such a dramatic corruption. A similar wide gulf can be seen between the gospel preached by Jesus during his ministry and the "gospel" believed by the vast majority of Christians.
Comments (81)
Thats quite a leap. How exactly were you able to make it?
Obviously it is not the case that our unconscious is ultimately self-conditioned, though we certainly can consciously condition it to an extent.
I interpret "karma" in a pragmaticist's way (re: Peirce, Dewey): actions-reactions where the reactions are become good/bad habits, or virtues/vices (i.e. adaptive/maladaptive), in which the latter are self-immiserating (i.e. "dukkha") in the long run.
I was referring to the underlying concepts of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6. How was that "quite a leap"? It's pretty much a distillation of what it says.
How is it "obviously..not the case" in regards to "pretty much all unconscious desires and behaviors"?
And that's what I find troubling.
When people only do good for some future reward, not for 'good in itself'.
And some are judged as deserving of their illness or misfortune because they must have been bad in a previous life. 'What goes around comes around'.
The linked concept of reincarnation I find unacceptable.
Quoting 180 Proof
That makes more sense to me. A practical life philosophy. Being more of a help than a hindrance.
Can you @180 Proof or anyone explain to me the belief in the 'Karmic banking system'?
@ArguingWAristotleTiff spoke of it recently in the Shoutbox.
It's the first I've heard of it.
Apparently, it is when you make karmic deposits and withdrawals.
The goal is to make as many deposits as possible and as few withdrawals as needed.
How does that work?
It matters because it puts the reasons for your fate in the hands of religious authority. If you question that authority, for instance, that authority may explain that the eventual result of their being questioned by you is you being reborn as a dung beetle. It also matters in regards to social status and upward mobility if you happen to deserve being, for example, an untouchable in the Middle East.
Because the underlying metaphysics include concepts like the twelve link chain of dependent origination, etc etc.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
I might have a better idea of where to begin if you explained more, if only a little.
Sorry, that woo is above my pay grade. :smirk:
You don't know your woo?
I was counting on you :groan:
Well, at least I know what I don't know. :sweat:
Well, at least I now know that you know what you don't know.
Is there anything else that you know that you don't know that I should know? :smirk:
Never mind, it's all a load of bull anyway...but I was trying to keep an open mind and let someone blow the woo mist away. A mystery it can remain :sparkle:
The less pleasure you indulge in (consume), the more sensitive you become to pleasure, and less is needed to feel pleased, then less resources must be used up for it.
The more pleasure you indulge in (consume beyond need), the more insensitive you become to it, needing more resources to feel pleased, making for a higher cost. Creating a downward spiral of less and less ability to feel pleasure at greater and greater cost.
That model could make for a pretty good hedonic philosophy: The art of deriving maximum pleasure with minimum consequence.
But were you looking for every day example, or were you asking about withdrawing from past lives and depositing for future lives?
Edit (I left out the deposit side... I guess the less one has to use up one's time and resources to satisfy one's carnal needs/desires, the more time/energy can be deposited toward creative things.
So maximum creativity and minimum consumption.)
Thank you. That has given me something to think about.
The pleasure angle I hadn't considered.
I'd been thinking along the lines of banking of good deeds for some future reward. Benefit.
And confused about the meaning and method of 'taking as few withdrawals as needed'. Cost.
Quoting Yohan
Is that karma, though?
Quoting Yohan
I am looking for what it means in the here and now, the practical world.
For example, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling?
Consider the tetrapharmakos ... or cognitive behavioral therapy.
Yes, that's Greek philosophy and CBT, I understand.
Where is the connection with Karma?
That is a quick, easy and basic definition; virtually meaningless.
There is more to it than that. There is also the element of justice determining who we can be or become in this life, or the next.
The causal relations of personal interactions with a cycle of effects...ad nauseam.
Apparently as transactions in a 'Karmic banking system':
Quoting Amity
Still puzzling over the withdrawal side of karma.
How are these drawn down and from where?
It sounds like there is a need for a certain type of 'negative' action or reaction?
Is that right @ArguingWAristotleTiff?
I've been searching around and found this:
Quoting SPIRITUALLY SPEAKINGTHE PRINCIPLES OF KARMIC ACCOUNTING
https://thedailyguardian.com/the-principles-of-karmic-accounting/
So, this is the supernaturalistic or spiritual view not the naturalistic.
I am still puzzled and have questions:
If anyone holds the karmic banking system as a strong belief, how does that fit in with crisis management or counselling?
Is it used as part of the counselling process?
If so, how do you manage the acute mental health crisis of someone who cares nothing for karma?
Or is it more about the trained professional bringing a personal attitude and philosophy of kindness and loving care? In that case, what extra does karma bring to the table?
Well, from a naturalisric perspective, "the more" is woo-woo ... :sparkle:
My impression of Indian culture before it underwent westernisation, is that it's belief in reincarnation encouraged slower and more sustainable lifestyles, but that it's belief in karmic justice encouraged social neglect of the downtrodden.
Question: To what extent do the metaphysical beliefs of a culture become determined by the practical necessities of it's society? Clearly they must be correlated to a certain extent, but do they converge in the long run?
For example, if modern society is to survive then it needs to adopt environmentally sustainable lifestyles together with long-term ecological investments that will benefit future generations more than today's. Does this necessity imply that society's environmentally unsustainable belief that "You only live once" will mutate towards a belief in reincarnation that encourages people to work for tomorrows generations rather than today's ?
Yeah, I know dat cause you effected that in my GC :sparkle:
Interesting.
Do you have an example to support your impression of the effect of the reincarnation belief?
Perhaps taking care of any kind of life in the countryside because that could be your late Auntie?
I think I have a little understanding of how there would be little sympathy for the downtrodden.
After all they deserved it...right...
Quoting sime
Good question. What are the practical needs of society? The basics as per Maslow?
If they are not met, then how would that affect any metaphysical beliefs?
Why metaphysical and not personal, economic or political beliefs...?
Unmet practical needs will lead to a less than happy populace.
How will they react? And what is the tipping point for action at individual, local or global level...?
Quoting sime
Some might question the need for survival of modern society.
Some might question the methods and whether the results would be of benefit.
It's not everyone that holds the belief; religious or selfish attitude that "You only live once" so let's party and trash the place :party:
Some want to love and live in the moment with care, still considering the future.
Some people work for themselves and future generations because they care about their families.
Nuclear and beyond.
More are becoming aware of the effects of their action/inaction only because they are seeing it.
Here and Now.
I don't think this implies a kind of spiritual awakening or belief in reincarnation.
But it might...for some...
Well, that was thought-provoking. I don't even know if what I've written makes sense.
GC has shut down. That's what happens... :yawn:
No. Religious followers are devotedly at the mercy of their leaders whims and leaders with that much power tend to be corrupted by it.
Yes, I understand that any distressed individual requires close and careful attention.
But it takes more than simply being there.
And it does involve a philosophy, way of thinking or looking at life.
That's the human element.
A counsellor's own strong beliefs in e.g. karma, God, are important to recognise and clarify.
Any strong, absolute or dogmatic belief has the potential to affect their action/reaction, even as they maintain a professional practice.
And it's not always possible to be 100% there, physically or mentally.
Counsellors can be at the end of a phone...with no visual cues...or at the end of their tether.
And so on.
How are the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 not "pragmatic"? It incorporates how you interpret karma. Plus is much deeper and profound.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of karma, as it's commonly understood today, are rooted in a fear of living in an "unjust" world.
Seems likely that the underlying concepts of reincarnation are rooted in the fear of death.
Neither hold up to scrutiny. They are the products of irrational thought as a way to alleviate the anxieties of those fears. Many believe them today for those very reasons.
On the other hand, the original underlying concepts of karma, as given in the OP, are reasonably sound.
It's your assertion. You don't know what you had in mind when you made it? Thus far your responses have been extremely brief. You are the one who needs to "explain more". You have things backward.
Quoting praxis
It's as if your objection is that the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 don't fit with with the underlying concepts of Buddhist doctrine. Are you unaware that the Upanishads have been around much longer? So the pertinent question is how did Buddhist doctrine make that leap rather than how did I make that leap. Once again you have things backward.
Why should this be problematic?
Doing something for "good in itself" gives one the pleasure of feeling proud about one's morality, so it still falls under "doing good for some (future) reward".
It's like putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water, as opposed to putting a spoonful of salt into a great river. Putting it into a cup of water makes the water undrinkable; putting it into a great river makes no discernable difference to the taste of the water. The salt here is standing for bad deeds, and the amount of water for good deeds.
Quoting Amity
Hence until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is remiss to make fun of those who have fallen on hard times or to feel schadenfreude towards them. Because until one has exited the cycle of karma, one is still subject to falling on hard times.
Quoting Tom Storm
It matters because you can mitigate it, at least on the level of how you think about it. Without karma, you'd be hopelessly left to your fate.
If you've ever apologized for something wrong that you did, or ever tried to make amends, then you were in fact relying on the workings of karma.
For example, by recognizong that acting out of hostility will bring along more hostility.
Putting a spoonful of salt into a cup of water might make it undrinkable but it can still be a good, bring medicinal benefits as in e.g. a gargle.
Even if were bad, isn't that more of a negative contribution or action rather than a negative withdrawal?
I suppose a withdrawal of water from a reservoir could be either a positive ( to quench thirst, satisfy demands of industry)
or a negative ( reduces amount of water available).
While we can think of it in these real or natural/physical terms, I still am unclear as to how it works, if it works, in a supernatural or spiritual way.
Quoting baker
How so?
This social neglect is a possible consequence of not believing in karma at all, or of believing oneself to already be "above karma" (and thus not subject to it).
But this neglect is also a way to push the downtrodden to "try harder". It's similar to how secular societies implicitly believe that punishing people will motivate them to better themselves.
I don't think so. Belief in reincarnation or rebirth might encourage people to be more careful in what they do; if they seem themselves as the recipients of their own actions down the line, they're less likely to do harmful things. But since belief in reincarnation or rebirth is generally considered woo, we're left only with the tentaive love that people have for their children.
Quoting sime
Indeed. In fact, it is said that trying to figure out the exact workings of karma would make one insane.
However, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of the principle of karma for informing one's course of action. Namely, if you predict that suffering for yourself, for others, or for both would ensue from something you intend to do, then you shouldn't do it.
Because you believed in the _mitigating_ effects of your apology or efforts to make amends.
Because metaphysical beliefs come first.
One meets one's practical needs because one has certain metaphysical beliefs.
There's no point in eating if you have no idea what you're eating for, living for, or if what you've been living for is gone.
That doesn't address the question. Tell you what, I'll rephrase:
Which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic"?
Reread my first post . Whatever you find missing from my conception answers your question. Btw, I wasn't proposing an exegesis of any particular sacred scripture when I summarized my understanding of the concept, so your question is besides the point I made. Of course, you can dismiss my idea of "karma" as heterodox deflationary bastardization or just merely a confused misconception of the ancient Hindu idea, which would be valid exegetically I suppose.
My mistake, I only glanced at the quotation in the OP, not that thats a good excuse. Nevertheless my point remains, theres underlying metaphysics that you appear to be dismissing.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Quoting 180 Proof
This gets us back to the first question quoted above. You're talking in circles.
Evidently you are unable to articulate how the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Or even which of the underlying concepts of Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6 are not "pragmatic". Why don't you just admit it?
Wouldn't that be the "underlying metaphysics" according to Buddhist doctrine? This doesn't help your case either.
I wonder about karma a fair amount because I often feel that I get some forms of instant karma. Of course, I realise that I may be overinterpreting. However, one aspect which may be possible is that the unconscious aspect of oneself gives us the lessons which are needed. In this way, the law of karma is the law of cause and effect but involving the deeper aspects of mind rather than simply being about cause and effect on a physical basis. Also, it doesn't have to be about punishment although it is possible that some underlying sense of guilt may have a kind of atoning aspect.
The other aspects is whether or not the idea of karma is dependent on rebirth. If there is some kind of chain of births it may be that the present lifeforms are influenced in some way by the present ones, rather than literal reincarnation. That would be like the influence of the ancestors on the people being born, perhaps, in a basic way, like DNA, The body returns to dust and everything is recycled in new forms.
Quoting 180 Proof
so make of my idea of "karma" what you will or dismiss it. :roll:
No, you pointed that out yourself.
Parallel to that, the refusal to believe that the consequences of one's actions will come back to haunt one is what makes people refuse to even consider karma and reincarnation/rebirth.
If you believe that if you lie, someone will lie to you, would you still lie?
If you believe that if you steal, someone will steal from you, would you still steal?
You seem to be trying to find ways for belief in "karma" to be rational not unlike Christians who believe in the Trinity or that by believing in the "atoning sacrifice of Jesus" they receive "eternal life".
Well, you seem to have lost the context again. Even after my last post laid it out for you. Doesn't seem to be any point in trying again.
Isn't this the "underlying metaphysics that [ I ] appear to be dismissing"?
Quoting praxis
How isn't the "twelve link chain of of dependent origination, etc etc." referring to Buddhist doctrine
Actually I'm much more concerned with "conceptual analysis" rather than "scriptural dogma". You just make one illogical leap after another and instead of owning it, you choose to DENY it.
You appear to be dismissing pre-Buddhist metaphysics.
You seem to have in mind a point that you haven't explicitly stated. Can you explicitly state it or at least elaborate on it?
What do you have in mind?
Deliberately training yourself in some way or, as you say, self-conditioning your unconscious, is one thing and karma is another.
In the last paragraph of the OP you seem to suggest that your conception of karma is the pure original and what exist today is a corrupted version. Thats a remarkable claim, if that is your meaning.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Scriptural dogma. :sweat:
Yes. What exists today, as it's commonly understood, is a corrupted version.
As I responded to another poster earlier:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
It's really simple:
The original is reasonably sound.
What exists today are products of irrational thought.
As such, what exists today is a corrupted version.
Yet another illogical leap by you. It does not logically follow that I am concerned with "scriptural dogma" rather than "conceptual analysis" just because I cited scripture. I only cited the scripture as a way of introducing a couple of talking points. You should consider taking classes in Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking. Seems like you are also in denial of your deficiencies in those areas.
Yes. If you live by the sword, you'll die by the sword.
Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment.
If your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills were improved, you might just be able to understand what others post. It's unfortunate you let your pride get in the way.
Not necessarily, no. A man of bad acts may see the harm he's caused and change his ways. Conversely, a man of good acts may become corrupt.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Who can say what deeds are pure or bad? A religious authority. :grimace:
Quoting ThinkOfOne
They are stupid, a person is more than a collection of desires.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Not at all, we resist our desires all the time.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
No, intention is not necessarily followed by action.
Quoting ThinkOfOne
Yeah no, people get away with shit all the time.
The trick is in having the power to define what is pure and what is evil to the cow-eyed masses. :roll:
Why can it not simply be natural cause and effect? Very few (if any) actions absolutely terminate in their intended consequences. Anything you do continues on, past, and through what you intend.
Seriously. Take reading comprehension and critical thinking classes. It can only help you.
Superficially they sound similar, however the underlying meanings are very different. Context is everything.
Could be. You're a contrarian, so you'll find people always contradict you.
Various theories of karma have in common that they view karma as a feedback loop, but they differ in the scope of this feedback loop (and thus in the applicability and usefulness of the concept of karma).
For some, like the OP, the scope of karma is strictly intrapersonal, psycho-physiological, operating only within the particular person.
Some populist theories of karma propose an interpersonal scope of the feedback loop (what you do to others, others will do to you).
Some theories go further and expand the feedback loop over several lifetimes, ie. they introduce the notion of reincarnation/rebirth (whereby they can conceive of the feedback loop as being either intrapersonal only, or interpersonal, or both).
:up: :up:
Only in fatalistic conceptions of karma. Such fatalistic conceptions deny that in the present moment one has any chance to act any differently than in the past and that one is hopelessly at the mercy of one's past actions.
But I'm having the impression that the OP is only after the intrapersonal theory of karma and considers the interpersonal one "irrational".
And this is also one of the problems with an intrapersonal understanding of karma. Without regard for other people, who gets to define what the pure deeds are and what the evil ones?
There is nothing that would stop such a self-referential-only person from developing into an absolute egomaniacal narcissist that goes around killing, raping, and pillaging, feeling good about himself because he defined those deeds of his as pure and good.
Got a somewhat reliable link/citation to the BU 4.4.5-6? Or are you foollin' this backwoods kid with that translation?
The above OP/quote is for the record. To prevent any mysterious changes to it.
Do you have any doctrinal support for this idea?
Which established theory of karma says this?
:blush: How about things at your end? Any "doctrinal support" that asserts the contrary?