---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <noozguru@...> wrote :
Enlightenment does not automatically give one instant knowledge of Indian philosophy. Suits me, I'm not remotely interested in it. I heard that its value was that it had an analogue in particle physics but it doesn't. Just as well really because the ability to gain knowledge of the external world by NOT looking at it and coming up with explanatory ideas for inner visions that explain reality would be a bitter blow to everyone toiling in laboratories to come up with fundamental physical ideas. That's not what it is about and why so many TM'ers are confused. But as the philosophy is a description of an experience - at least the journey to realisation is - the experience itself should be recognisable as the philosophy. But as the description bears no relation to the kind of world we know we live in and understand through non-meditative ways of gaining knowledge, I suspect the description is in error and what we have is a state of being that only gives one a different impression of the outside world. But one that we'd struggle to explain so any metaphor is a good starting place I suppose. As for the rest of it, people have come up with all sorts of ways of explaining things, some good and others not so much. Some appear unprovable without a deeper knowledge of physics than you can get just from looking at things and coming up with ideas to explain them - which is how all things are known. Karma seems like one of those, it sounds like a good idea but it's underlying principle is anthropomorphic and has no parallel in the external world. On TM courses they tell you that quantum physics explains karma but it doesn't, all it explains is the behaviour of subatomic particles. So unless it isn't a neurophysiological state, enlightenment will be the same whether you know anything about Indian philosophy or not. Wouldn't it? On 12/09/2014 09:15 AM, seerdope@... mailto:seerdope@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It appears that at least some who seek or feel that they are have realized an enlightened state --- and talk and walk within the broad framework of vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist / tantric traditions, have very limited understanding of the types and range of karma within those traditions(1) resulting in odd pronouncements and claims, as well as a glaring absence of understanding of what realization and liberation actually mean within the traditions in which they practice. At times further obfuscated by their critics' lack of such. The lack of understanding of the distinctions between prarabdha and sanchita karma is an example. To me, that presents a large red flag -- regardless of whether I accept the theories of karma, reincarnation, realization, liberation, etc. That is, if a person has consistently practiced methods with these traditions, uses the vernacular of these traditions to describe their experiences, and use criteria from these traditions to claim various attainments -- then, for me, it is highly inconsistent and strong warning signal if their understanding, words, experiences, self-appraisals of their actions and its effects indicate little to no conceptual and experiential understanding of the distinct types of karmas -- which is perhaps the most fundamental core factor which affects any realization or liberation within these traditions. I can appreciate these inconsistencies and act accordingly (2) without myself necessarily accepting the theories of karma, reincarnation, liberation, etc.). That is I hold them as hypotheses which, while having some explanatory power, are not particularly suited to repeated large scale double-blind placebo based studies. Nor are a lot of other things in life -- so one muddles along as best they can. Over my life, I have observed a number of interesting points of possible supporting evidence. All of which I realize may be spurious correlations and worthless. On the other hand, these have at least kept the door open on my rational, skeptical mind to the possible validity of these traditional knowledge theories. From these traditions' view ("traditionally") if one is incarnate, everyone, including fully realized, liberated ones. all still have prarabdha(3) karma that must be lived out. No way around it. Further, every incarnate being is generating kriyamana karma (karma generated in this life) to the last breath. And kriyamana karma has or will have its full effect, regardless of one’s state, realized/liberated or not. Bad Kriyamana karma will have corresponding effects. There is no free lunch, no freebies, no license to act badly. Kriyamana karma may return quickly, or later in this life, or simply add to the large stockpile of sanchita karma yet to be taken on in prarabdhic chunks in future lives. However, with various practices, when identity with tightly bound sense of individuality lessens or ceases, returning karma may be experienced more as a drop in a bucket than a torrential rainstorm. Traditionally, burning off ones karma has nothing to do with this life, that is one does not burn off prarabdha and kriyamana karmas. It is sanchita karma, the underlying, hidden from view karma that is burned off (or seeds in causal body "roasted") -- the mountain of karma yet to be resolved 1) in future lives, and or 2) through effective practices in this or future incarnations. (Old MMY story -- MMY: "you all have a mountain of karma". Charlie Lutes: (apparently assuming he was far ahead of the pack): "M. do I have a mountain of karma left?". MMY: "No Charlie. You have more like a huge mountain range of karma left.") A lot of practices such as those that promise and look towards "support of nature" and focus on success in worldly life as distinct signs of spiritual progress, as well as practices such as sponsoring yagyas, etc. are focussed on reducing the intensity of this current life (prarabdha and kriyamana) karmas. Not a bad thing in itself. However, it is possible one can pursue such practices and feel better, life becomes more successful, obstacles are removed, etc -- without materially affecting sanchita karma, and thus not affecting ones progress towards realization and liberation. And such practices can expand ones identity, loosen the shackles of the mind and apparently provide a sense of freedom -- which may be confused with real liberation --- without much affecting the remaining range of sanchita karma and the need to keep coming back to resolve such past karma. Traditionally, liberation / realization is not obtained until sanchita karma is fully burned / resolved / roasted. Thus if someone claims liberation (within vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist framework of practices, descriptions, vocabulary, etc) but has no clue about sanchita karma, caution may be prudent. (1) And while there are variations of understandings the key points regarding karma seem fairly consistent across the considerable number of sects and paths across these multiple traditions. (2) as in my quip "Run Forest Run" -- a line I liked in (what I I believe was) a prior Curtis post (lets call it an homage instead of plagiarism). (3) Traditionally the intensity of some types of prarabdha and kriyamana karma can be reduced through various practices but generally not eliminated.
