Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
Salyavin808, Thank you for your reply. From my side, it appears that you may be responding to some reaction as to what you think I wrote, not what I actually wrote. However, I recognize that my writing may be unclear, muddled and that I have been unable to coherently express my actual ideas. Regardless, we are in full agreement on your statement below. Sal: ideas can come from any source of inspiration, it's the principle of testing and criticising that gets to the bottom of it. Without the scientific process you never can be sure that what you know is the best explanation, which is why knowledge has accelerated so much in recent centuries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seerdope@... wrote : Salyavin808, Thank you for your reply. From my side, it appears that you may be responding to some reaction as to what you think I wrote, not what I actually wrote. However, I recognize that my writing may be unclear, muddled and that I have been unable to coherently express my actual ideas. Don't worry I always think about my posts, maybe it's the FFLer condition! I'm sure we'll sort it all out... But you do have a lot of interesting things to say about this stuff and I do enjoy reading a new voice on here, new perspectives give new insights and out of that maybe some new understanding? Regardless, we are in full agreement on your statement below. Sal: ideas can come from any source of inspiration, it's the principle of testing and criticising that gets to the bottom of it. Without the scientific process you never can be sure that what you know is the best explanation, which is why knowledge has accelerated so much in recent centuries.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seerdope@... wrote : Sal: ..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 For me, traditional cultures and their models and practices (Traditional) have a number of potentially useful hypotheses about how nature and the mind work -- developed on an observational basis refined over 1000's of years (in some cases), identifying what appears to work and that which does not in a particular area of investigation whereby the ineffective were presumably discarded and the promising and more effective practices refined and tweaked. Perhaps more akin to the trial and error of engineering new products compared to double blind placebo studies. Examining such well-honed hypotheses from Traditional cultures, in my view, does not insult anyone pursuing research in physics, neuroscience or any field in which traditional cultures may have pondered and toiled for many generations. Wow, you've come across well honed ideas about how the mind and nature work from traditional cultures? I missed those, but I don't think we are talking about the same thing. What I am looking for is a nuts and bolts explanation of how the brain and consciousness works. You don't get that from traditional theories, they have no way of understanding the nitty-gritty of how the brain works, that is the domain of neuroscience and I think it's doing a rather job, it's not complete but they've only just started. What science has revealed is astonishing, and accelerating. Yet, at the same time, what it admittedly does not know is also breathtaking startling. As far as neuroscience (NS) has progressed in the past 10-15 years, and as powerful and subtle as neuroimaging technologies have become -- as well as the computational power for crunching data as well as running complex simulations, NS still does not have, for example, a clear model and understanding where memories are . There have been great advances in understanding types of memories, memory formation, retrieval, neurosynaptic basis of learning and recall, how unstable some memories can be, etc. And while significant progress has been made, the role and mechanics of memory in so as to effectively be applied to enhance higher levels of peak performance such as increasing working memory and enhancing quick and efficient recall of encoded memory, maintaining memory with aging and disease, coping with deep disabling memories combatting addictive, compulsive, obsessive, non-productive behaviors, etc. is quite limited. I think the science of how memories work is more advanced than you think but the fact they don't have it 100% sussed doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. The brain is a machine and as such it can be understood. I could get googling and write an essay but I'm a bit pushed for time but I had a quick perusal of this: http://www.human-memory.net/ http://www.human-memory.net/ What is missing that any traditional thought system could add? Yet Traditional cultures possibly have a quite a bit of insight on and models of memory mechanisms -- as well as practices to enhance the positive aspects and nullify the negative attributes of memory mechanisms. My prior discussion of the traditional view of resolving sanchita karma as a requisite for spiritual liberation has a corresponding Traditional model of memory -- samskaras (deep impressions) and vasanas (clusters of such) in .a deep level of individuality in Traditional parlance the karana sharira (causal body). I am deeply interested in what modern science can reveal regarding such (that is rejecting it a viable hypothesis, finding some correlates of it, or fleshing out details of it, etc). However, it may be many years (to never) before science is able to adequately explore such. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. OTOH, a lot of Traditional knowledge about mind and memory at more tangible levels than karana sharira are being currently researched in many NS labs -- including Traditional herbs, various forms of meditation, etc. And research on and positive effects of Trans-Cranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is growing rapidly (I was in a recent experiment at a university and the results appeared surprisingly effective). Parallels to tDCS research and models and Traditional energy pathways, marmas, nadis etc may be a ripe and tangible path in inquiry. As I said, ideas can come from any source of inspiration, it's the principle of testing and criticising that gets to the bottom of it. Without the scientific process you never can be sure that what you know is the best explanation, which is why knowledge has accelerated so much in recent centuries compared to the
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
Enlightenment does not automatically give one instant knowledge of Indian philosophy. That's not what it is about and why so many TM'ers are confused. On 12/09/2014 09:15 AM, seerd...@yahoo.com [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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
---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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
On 12/09/2014 01:49 PM, salyavin808 wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Enlightenment does not automatically give one instant knowledge of Indian philosophy. 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? Yes.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
The observable world from the single cell organisms all the way to the stars show a decided lack of karma. It is just a scam created by the ancient Indians. Pretty good one too - people are still buying into it wholesale. From: salyavin808 no_re...@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru) ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, noozguru@... wrote : Enlightenment does not automaticallygive 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 whatit 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@... [FairfieldLife] wrote: It appears that at least some who seek orfeelthat they are have realized an enlightened state --- andtalk and walk withinthe broad framework of vedic / hindu / yogic / buddhist/ tantric traditions,have very limited understanding of the types and rangeof karma within thosetraditions(1) resulting in oddpronouncements and claims, as well as aglaring absence of understanding of what realization andliberation actuallymean within the traditions in which they practice. Attimes further obfuscatedby their critics' lack of such. The lack of understanding of thedistinctionsbetween prarabdha and sanchita karma is an example. Tome, that presentsa large red flag -- regardless of whether I accept thetheories of karma,reincarnation, realization, liberation, etc. That is,if a person hasconsistently practiced methods with these traditions,uses the vernacular ofthese traditions to describe their experiences, and usecriteria from thesetraditions to claim various attainments -- then, for me,it is highlyinconsistent and strong warning signal if theirunderstanding, words,experiences, self-appraisals of their actions and itseffects indicate littleto no conceptual and experiential understanding of thedistinct types of karmas-- which is perhaps the most fundamental core factorwhich affects anyrealization or liberation within these traditions. I can appreciate these inconsistencies andactaccordingly (2) without myself necessarily accepting thetheories of karma,reincarnation, liberation, etc.). That is I hold them ashypotheses which, whilehaving some explanatory power, are not particularlysuited to repeated largescale double-blind placebo based studies. Nor are a lotof other thingsin life -- so one muddles along as best they can. Overmy life, I have observeda number of interesting points of possible supportingevidence. All of which Irealize may be spurious correlations and worthless. Onthe other hand,these have at least kept the door open on my rational,skeptical mind to thepossible validity of these traditional knowledgetheories. From these traditions' view(traditionally) if one is incarnate, everyone,including fullyrealized, liberated ones. all still have prarabdha(3)karma that must be livedout. No way around it. Further, every incarnate being isgenerating kriyamanakarma (karma generated in this life) to the last breath.And kriyamana karmahas or will have its full effect, regardless of one’sstate, realized/liberatedor not. Bad Kriyamanakarmawill have corresponding effects
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
Sal: ..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 For me, traditional cultures and their models and practices (Traditional) have a number of potentially useful hypotheses about how nature and the mind work -- developed on an observational basis refined over 1000's of years (in some cases), identifying what appears to work and that which does not in a particular area of investigation whereby the ineffective were presumably discarded and the promising and more effective practices refined and tweaked. Perhaps more akin to the trial and error of engineering new products compared to double blind placebo studies. Examining such well-honed hypotheses from Traditional cultures, in my view, does not insult anyone pursuing research in physics, neuroscience or any field in which traditional cultures may have pondered and toiled for many generations. What science has revealed is astonishing, and accelerating. Yet, at the same time, what it admittedly does not know is also breathtaking startling. As far as neuroscience (NS) has progressed in the past 10-15 years, and as powerful and subtle as neuroimaging technologies have become -- as well as the computational power for crunching data as well as running complex simulations, NS still does not have, for example, a clear model and understanding where memories are . There have been great advances in understanding types of memories, memory formation, retrieval, neurosynaptic basis of learning and recall, how unstable some memories can be, etc. And while significant progress has been made, the role and mechanics of memory in so as to effectively be applied to enhance higher levels of peak performance such as increasing working memory and enhancing quick and efficient recall of encoded memory, maintaining memory with aging and disease, coping with deep disabling memories combatting addictive, compulsive, obsessive, non-productive behaviors, etc. is quite limited. Yet Traditional cultures possibly have a quite a bit of insight on and models of memory mechanisms -- as well as practices to enhance the positive aspects and nullify the negative attributes of memory mechanisms. My prior discussion of the traditional view of resolving sanchita karma as a requisite for spiritual liberation has a corresponding Traditional model of memory -- samskaras (deep impressions) and vasanas (clusters of such) in .a deep level of individuality in Traditional parlance the karana sharira (causal body). I am deeply interested in what modern science can reveal regarding such (that is rejecting it a viable hypothesis, finding some correlates of it, or fleshing out details of it, etc). However, it may be many years (to never) before science is able to adequately explore such. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. OTOH, a lot of Traditional knowledge about mind and memory at more tangible levels than karana sharira are being currently researched in many NS labs -- including Traditional herbs, various forms of meditation, etc. And research on and positive effects of Trans-Cranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is growing rapidly (I was in a recent experiment at a university and the results appeared surprisingly effective). Parallels to tDCS research and models and Traditional energy pathways, marmas, nadis etc may be a ripe and tangible path in inquiry. To me, the possible options are to ignore anything science has not yet developed a well established theory and large set of supporting experimental (which leaves out a large part of life), or explore. Traditional models that for me have some explanatory power -- along with any corresponding practices that a long-term cross-generational research record indicates may have some promise in addressing contemporary problems and concerns. In the areas of memory for example, I do not believe that I am not insulting anyone in neuroscience labs by doing so. From what I can see, at least some are vigorously exploring such themselves -- alongside their careers in science.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
Let's take this from the general to the specific. For me, traditional cultures and their models and practices (Traditional) have a number of potentially useful hypotheses about how nature and the mind work Can you give maybe three useful hypotheses that really are useful from traditional cultures, preferably that do not require belief in the hypothesis? For example the shamanic traditions from Native American cultures are all very well and good, but they don't make me think that I am getting a message from the Earth every time I see a hawk or a deer. That stuff only works if you believe in the premise of the model. In addition, the traditional models from places like India are worthless to me when I look at the culture and situations of the people there in India. In other words, if you have this rich culture and the place is in the shape India is in, what good is it? From: seerd...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2014 6:19 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru) Sal: ..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 For me, traditional cultures and their models and practices (Traditional) have a number of potentially useful hypotheses about how nature and the mind work -- developed on an observational basis refined over 1000's of years (in some cases), identifying what appears to work and that which does not in a particular area of investigation whereby the ineffective were presumably discarded and the promising and more effective practices refined and tweaked. Perhaps more akin to the trial and error of engineering new products compared to double blind placebo studies. Examining such well-honed hypotheses from Traditional cultures, in my view, does not insult anyone pursuing research in physics, neuroscience or any field in which traditional cultures may have pondered and toiled for many generations. What science has revealed is astonishing, and accelerating. Yet, at the same time, what it admittedly does not know is also breathtaking startling. As far as neuroscience (NS) has progressed in the past 10-15 years, and as powerful and subtle as neuroimaging technologies have become -- as well as the computational power for crunching data as well as running complex simulations, NS still does not have, for example, a clear model and understanding where memories are . There have been great advances in understanding types of memories, memory formation, retrieval, neurosynaptic basis of learning and recall, how unstable some memories can be, etc. And while significant progress has been made, the role and mechanics of memory in so as to effectively be applied to enhance higher levels of peak performance such as increasing working memory and enhancing quick and efficient recall of encoded memory, maintaining memory with aging and disease, coping with deep disabling memories combatting addictive, compulsive, obsessive, non-productive behaviors, etc. is quite limited. Yet Traditional cultures possibly have a quite a bit of insight on and models of memory mechanisms -- as well as practices to enhance the positive aspects and nullify the negative attributes of memory mechanisms. My prior discussion of the traditional view of resolving sanchita karma as a requisite for spiritual liberation has a corresponding Traditional model of memory -- samskaras (deep impressions) and vasanas (clusters of such) in .a deep level of individuality in Traditional parlance the karana sharira (causal body). I am deeply interested in what modern science can reveal regarding such (that is rejecting it a viable hypothesis, finding some correlates of it, or fleshing out details of it, etc). However, it may be many years (to never) before science is able to adequately explore such. Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. OTOH, a lot of Traditional knowledge about mind and memory at more tangible levels than karana sharira are being currently researched in many NS labs -- including Traditional herbs, various forms of meditation, etc. And research on and positive effects of Trans-Cranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) is growing rapidly (I was in a recent experiment at a university and the results appeared surprisingly effective). Parallels to tDCS research and models and Traditional energy pathways, marmas, nadis etc may be a ripe and tangible path in inquiry. To me, the possible options are to ignore anything science has not yet developed a well established theory and large set of supporting experimental (which leaves out a large part of life), or explore. Traditional models that for me
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
On 12/9/2014 1:43 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Enlightenment does not automatically give one instant knowledge of Indian philosophy. That's not what it is about and why so many TM'ers are confused. /Apparently they don't teach Buddhist logic at most universities, like they do at UT in the Center for Asian Studies, but if anyone wanted to learn about Western philosophy they could takes courses and earn a degree in philosophy at MUM, like Curtis did. But most TMers aren't interested in academic subjects like philosophy - ///case in point - /which is probably why they teach mainly Management at MUM, instead of Indian philosophy. / On 12/09/2014 09:15 AM, seerd...@yahoo.com [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
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
Enlightenment does not automatically give one instant knowledge of Indian philosophy. 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 12/9/2014 4:53 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Yes. According to Sam Harris there is /...no evidence for consciousness exists in the physical world. /Thoughts and ideas are not material. http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness
Re: [FairfieldLife] Prarabdha vs Sanchita Karma and Spiritual Liberation (was Greatest Guru)
On 12/9/2014 4:59 PM, Michael Jackson wrote: The observable world from the single cell organisms all the way to the stars show a decided lack of karma. Karma is defined as action or work. Everything from a single cell organism up to and including the stars, is dependent on action. Everything is co-dependent and nothing exists in isolation - there is no stasis. It is just a scam created by the ancient Indians. Pretty good one too - people are still buying into it wholesale. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, karma is not considered to be a judgement enforced by a God, a Deity or other supernatural being. Rather, /karmic results are considered to be the outcome of a natural process of cause and effect./ *Encyclopedia Britannica*, 11th Edition, Volume 15, New York, pp 679-680.
