On 12/9/2014 9:27 PM, anartaxius wrote:
>
The way I look at 'karma' is it is just action, what comes to you,
what you do, and the effect of past life, what happened then, cultural
conditioning, etc. One does not even have to think of it as 'past
lives', just 'past life'; ten minutes ago could be past life. Maybe
you insulted someone and felt badly about that. That becomes part of
the effect of past life. Maybe you got clobbered by a falling tree,
but survived. That becomes part of past life. There are things you can
do to maximise unloading the effect of past experience, but that does
not mean it will be comfortable, or quickly, or completely disposed of.
>
The term /"karma"/ in Sanskrit means action or deed. Everything we
experience is in the past for the simple reason that the future is not
here yet and the now passes into the past in a split-second; even a
thought we have is a nano-second into the past. We know from science
that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction - the law
of cause and effect. Human excrement always flows down stream - this is
a fact, from the highest mountain down to a single blade of grass. Karma
has no exception so long as we are bound to the earth - gravity sucks.
So we are agreed so far.
>
From what I hear, most people who 'awaken' are not completely free of
the effects of the past, and they can still do admittedly stupid
things, be jerks, and don't know all that much, but now they can see
past a lot of the conditioning and work toward a more pleasant state
of experience. That is the real value of 'awakening'. It is not you
are some cool or mystical state, but that you have the ability to
navigate better, become more perceptive in moving toward doing this or
not doing that. That is because most of the most problematic baggage
you brought into the spiritual path has been modulated to some extent,
and the baggage of the spiritual path itself is seen to be, well, not
what you thought it was, so most of that mental baggage can be
discarded and the load is much lighter.
>
When the historical Buddha first /"awakened"/, that is experienced
enlightenment he is quoted as saying, /"So simple, so transparent!"/
What exactly did Shakya the Muni experience? He realized in a flash of
insight that everything is co-dependent on other things. He realized
that the world is the result of Causation - one thing leads to another -
there is nothing in the cosmos that is absolutely independent of other
things. He did not see God or a Deity - he saw existence as it really is.
He saw all his past lives and the suffering he had endured; he saw his
future lives and all the suffering would be suffering; and he saw all
the lives of all the people in the past and in the present, all they
suffering they had endured and would endure. He realized that all life
is marked by suffering - he saw and realized how things really are: from
this, that.
>
With regard to the external world, I have never heard of a spiritual
luminary coming up ideas like quantum mechanics, biological evolution,
higher mathematics, or even basic physics. It does not appear the
internal world and external world sync up all that well as far as
practical knowledge of the exterior world.
>
The highest and most universal knowledge we have is probably
mathematics, which works on the mental as well as the physical world.
The operation of the cosmos has two sides: intelligence, which is the
cause of everything, and the manifestations of intelligence, which are
the physical and psychological features of the everyday world. In the
world of basic physics we observe that there is harmony - things do not
just go here and there at random. Just like in billiards, there is an
action that results in actions - the Q-ball either hits or misses but
there is always a reaction that occurs.
The question is, does the theory of karma or cause and effect operate on
the mental level of thoughts and volition? According to MMY /"because
Transcendental Meditation directly approaches intelligence, rather than
the manifestations of intelligence, it solves problems by introducing
harmony and well-being at the most basic level, and not by dealing with
problems themselves. That's why it is so effective." /
>
When M was learning about biology and DNA, he seemed to be completely
in the dark about what it was all about, but improved somewhat with
time in his ability to manipulate such ideas. People have this idea
that as soon as you are awake, in 'unity', you will know everything
and you will be absolutely free. This is hogwash. What you will find
out is what freedom is and what its opposite is and how they relate,
and this makes it easier to navigate through life, but the body is
still constrained by action in the world, and the functioning of the
components of the body. People still get old and weak and sick, and
eventually die. What you get is to watch the process of life with
minimised fear and with clarity, and that makes it much more enjoyable.
Does anyone know if Maharishi ever learned to drive a car? I did hear
once, he surprised people by ordering his own aeroplane tickets.
>
Apparently MMY had a degree in physics from Allahabad University - you
don't get one of those without knowing math up to calculus. From what
I've read, MMY could read and write three languages. I suppose he could
do almost anything he wanted to do. You don't get to be the CEO of a
worldwide movement worth billions of dollars without having some life
skills. Nobody ever said that MMY didn't know how to manage a yoga camp!
>
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote :
---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.
