Karma

[china]

Karma is the process of time, the past moving through the present to the future; this chain is the way of thought. Thought is the result of time, and there can be that which is immeasurable, timeless, only when the process of thought has ceased. Stillness of the mind cannot be induced, it cannot be brought about through any practice or discipline. If the mind is made still, then whatever comes into it is only a self-projection, the response of memory. With the understanding of its conditioning, with the awareness of its own responses as thought and feeling, tranquillity comes to the mind. This breaking of the chain of karma is not a matter of time; for through time, the timeless is not.
Karma must be understood as a total process not merely as something of the past. The past is time, which is also the present and the future. Time is memory, the word, the idea. When the word, the name, the association, the experience, is not, then only is the mind still, not merely in the upper layers, but completely, integrally.

 

[AnnaG]

Thought is the result of events. You put too much importance on time.

 

[china]

Thought is the result of events

Some thought .
You put too much importance on time.

Just enough importance regarding time for the few to enjoy reading the nature of Karma according to eastern mind .

 

[In Between Man]

No such thing.

 

[Cliffy]

No such thing.

What? Karma, time or eastern mind. Alley, you need to learn to be a little more articulate. There is no god in the bible, there is no historical basis for any of it and Christ is a construct from many older mythical characters. There is only one law in the universe, "for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction" - Karma. Put that in your bong and smoke it!;-)

 

[AnnaG]

Karma in Sanscrit translated is "volitional action that is undertaken deliberately or knowingly". And according to Oxford's dictionary means "sum of person's actions in one of his successive states of existence, viewed as deciding his fate for the next".
3rtpes: Satvik karma is without attachment, selfless and for the benefit of others; Rajasik, which is selfish where the focus is on gains for oneself; Tamasik, which is undertaken without heed to consequences, and is supremely selfish and savage.
According to Mahatma Gandhi, "the Tamasik works in a mechanical fashion, the Rajasik drives too many horses, is restless and always doing something or other, and the Satvik works with peace in mind." I like that description.

 

[AnnaG]

No such thing.

I think you are referring to karma in general, and the Bible promotes that people not sin in this life in case they jeopardize their entrance to heaven in the next life. Same principle, and I think this is where Christianity got the idea from in the first place.

 

[In Between Man]

What? Karma, time or eastern mind. Alley, you need to learn to be a little more articulate. There is no god in the bible, there is no historical basis for any of it and Christ is a construct from many older mythical characters. There is only one law in the universe, "for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction" - Karma. Put that in your bong and smoke it!;-)

Well, the definition of karma as is seems is:

Karma is the process of time, the past moving through the present to the future; this chain is the way of thought. Thought is the result of time, and there can be that which is immeasurable, timeless...

And that word salad goes against the truth in Jesus and God, so therefore a reasonable person can conclude that this man-made, flawed philosophy is false.

And don't try to merge an actual law of physics ie " for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" with some sort of dreamed up spiritual machine that you name "karma". That's your M.O. You merge "truth" with "relativism"; and "tolerance" with "validation", and so forth...

 

[AnnaG]

I think you are referring to karma in general, and the Bible promotes that people not sin in this life in case they jeopardize their entrance to heaven in the next life. Same principle, and I think this is where Christianity got the idea from in the first place.

*big grin*

 

[In Between Man]

I think you are referring to karma in general, and the Bible promotes that people not sin in this life in case they jeopardize their entrance to heaven in the next life. Same principle, and I think this is where Christianity got the idea from in the first place.

There's no "karma" concept in the bible. I don't know where you get that. Not sinning is how your suppose to act anyway. You don't act good because if you don't bad things might happen to you. That's superstitious.

 

[AnnaG]

There's no "karma" concept in the bible. I don't know where you get that. Not sinning is how your suppose to act anyway. You don't act good because if you don't bad things might happen to you. That's superstitious.

roflmao You believe in a god, for which there is no proof, to explain things that science can explain better and without dogma, and you call karma superstition? aaaaaaaaahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahaaaaa

 

[In Between Man]

roflmao You believe in a god, for which there is no proof, to explain things that science can explain better and without dogma, and you call karma superstition? aaaaaaaaahahhahahhahahahahahhahahahaaaaa

How does your version of "science" explain it "better"? It certainly can't account for existence, the laws of logic, absolute truth, absolute morals...

 

[Cliffy]

I prefer John Lennon's version of (instant) Karma. The Vedas are 6000 years old. John died just a few decades ago. You believe non sense written by a bunch of uneducated goat herders from 2000 years ago. At least science is still trying to figure stuff out instead of saying they know all the answers.

 

[In Between Man]

I prefer John Lennon's version of (instant) Karma. The Vedas are 6000 years old. John died just a few decades ago. You believe non sense written by a bunch of uneducated goat herders from 2000 years ago. At least science is still trying to figure stuff out instead of saying they know all the answers.

Whose saying they have all the answers? I'm excited to see the latest astronomy pics. I want labcoats to solve and fix things, who doesn't?

 

[AnnaG]

How does your version of "science" explain it "better"? It certainly can't account for existence, the laws of logic, absolute truth, absolute morals...

Science doesn't explain afterlives because there is no evidence for them. Science came up with evolution, deism came up with magic.
Science is logical by necessity, deism relies upon dogma written by humans in a book.
What are absolute truth and absolute morals?
And what's with the stupid big black thing with words in it? BTW, it's a bit far fetched to think that some "god" invented itself, invented stuff from nothing, and so forth.
Besides, who said there was nothing to begin with?

 

[AnnaG]

And on top of that, I am not atheist. That'd be Les. I am agnostic.

 

[Lou Garu]

Definitions I work with
"Karma= what goes around , comes around"........................................ I find it good enough for gov't work
"Atheist=Believes there is NO God" ........................................................a leap of faith no matter how you cut it
"Agnostic=Doesn't know 'till there's proof
one way or another" .................................................................................'bout as honest as you can get

 

[AnnaG]

Definitions I work with
"Karma= what goes around , comes around"........................................ I find it good enough for gov't work

Close enough.

"Atheist=Believes there is NO God" ........................................................a leap of faith no matter how you cut it

No, it is not a leap of faith. It is a belief based on a lack of evidence.

"Agnostic=Doesn't know 'till there's proof
one way or another" .................................................................................'bout as honest as you can get

As with atheism, there are different types. This agnostic says that it doesn't matter if there are gods or not because we could never know the nature of one, and if they do exist they have extremely little or no interest in Earthly goings on.

 

[Lou Garu]

Close enough.
No, it is not a leap of faith. It is a belief based on a lack of evidence.
As with atheism, there are different types. This agnostic says that it doesn't matter if there are gods or not because we could never know the nature of one, and if they do exist they have extremely little or no interest in Earthly goings on.

Hi AnnG
As I pointed out this are the definitions " I " go by, I suppose I should have qualified more strenuously .
As an old former holy roller , I never got called on it. (trust a scientist tho ) :wink:

 

[china]

Wow....wisdom north of the 49th .