Judy: "You're assuming, though, that the human idea of justice conforms to the universe's idea of justice. That may not be the case. Karma may work differently, for instance, for creatures that have free will versus for those that don't."
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. It goes back to Hume's paradox. God can't be moral, omnipotent and omniscient at once with the reality of suffering in the world. I think you are proposing a variation in which our sense of morality is dismissed as limited, but that redefinition takes away what I value in the concept of morality. I think that karmic theory was created at a time when Mosaic style justice was in vogue on earth. Our standards and values have evolved since then. 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. We have evolved different techniques since the old style "beat his ass" retribution style teaching. But karmic theory seems stuck in the dark ages of our past when we thought of things in those simplistic terms. If someone is cruel, give him a life as a leper, that will straighten him out! --- In [email protected], Louis McKenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > One thing is if we go back to where we learned of Karma which basically does not mean what he make it up to be. For example the word Karma means action. We make it up to be what goes around comes around. But the word means action what is the nature of action that is key. > > We live in a reverberating universe and as we know as long as we are under the effect of the Gunas we are bound by the laws of Karma. Then what happens if we go beyond the gunas? What happens if we transcend Karma? The do we choose or are we always chosing????? > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: authfriend <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 10:54:02 AM > Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: A theory of Karma, TMOers, and the TMO's "Persona" > > --- In FairfieldLife@ yahoogroups. com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@ ...> wrote: > > > > Well it seems to my unenlightened brain that if a lesson is being > > taught then the experience of the causality would be necessary. > > Babies who are born in suffering before they die don't have any > > ability to learn anything. > > Not that they're conscious of at the time. > > > It is not a simple "as you sow so shall you > > reap" philosophy, it requires a whole set of beliefs about what > > happens after we die. > > True, or simply trust that it's all working out > as it should. > > > The causality we experience in life is not just > > simply being extended in the karmic theory. It is part of > > a massive presumption about how the universe operates. > > > > But as I said, I understand that people can use such beliefs for > > good in their live. I am not against other people believing it. > > I just don't see any reason for me to believe it myself. > > > > I believe that we live in a random universe with no inherent > > justice, and it is up to man to do his best to impose justice > > when he can. > > But the same would be the case--up to human > beans to impose justice when they can--if > the universe was ruled by karma. > > Some people are more comfortable with the idea > of a random universe; others are more comfortable > with the idea that there is an all-encompassing > order to it--whatever gets you through the night. > > The thing is, belief in karma doesn't have any > practical implications in terms of how one > behaves, because it would be far too complex for > the human brain to figure out. You do the best > you can within your limitations. > > In the natural world animals are eating each other > > alive, so I don't put any faith in any natural law being capable > > of the level of kindness and justice a good man can achieve in > > the world. > > Why would natural law not apply to human beings > as well as animals? > > > Suffering in nature > > is at too high a pitch for me to have confidence that any > > mechanism is fairly metting out justice in this world. > > You're assuming, though, that the human idea of > justice conforms to the universe's idea of justice. > That may not be the case. Karma may work differently, > for instance, for creatures that have free will > versus for those that don't. > > Karma > > is not something that is obvious to me from my observations > > of the environment. It is a belief is dependant on lots of > > other beliefs that requires some effort and study to acquire. > > Sure. And those who find the idea of a random > universe disturbing may be motivated to explore > other possibilities to find one that enables > them to live their lives with greater equanimity. > That's really the only practical effect of such > a belief--or of the belief in randomness, for > that matter. We can't know for sure either way > (perhaps unless we're enlightened) . > To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
