Karma - Is it a Universal or Dharmic principle?

[TransmutingSoul]

That doesn't help anyone, Tony. Sharing a story about someone does no real good at all. You have to go out there and help. The 'good news' when unwelcome is not good for anyone. If you want to help the Baha'i 'persecution' problem or any other group persecution, you can write a letter to your international affairs government minister, or give a subtantial donation to Amnesty International, or the International Red cross. Proselytizing hurts more than it helps. It's very misguided charity, in my view.

I would ask, what makes you think we are not out there trying to help?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I would ask, what makes you think we are not out there trying to help?

Regards Tony

I never said that, although that is information I got from the ex-Baha'i forums. "Way too much focus on proselytizing, and none on real charity."

My point was that sharing your Baha'i message (proselytizing) isn't true charity in any way. You may well be giving $10 000 Aussie bucks a month to the local food bank, I have no idea.

 

[Dawnofhope]

But only when applied to yourself. It's for learning and the soul's development, and the Hindu view is to accept your karma cheerfully and with dignity, not to whine, 'Why me? Why me? Why has God forsaken me?" and all that nonsense.

Of course it all falls apart if you put it on other people, or take it upon yourself to cause suffering for others. Then it's your karma to return. That's why I'm so against proselytizing, or himsa toward anyone. It causes suffering, does more harm than good. So we have to rid ourselves of this, ''I'm smarter, I know what's good for you, and all that." Tough.

Abdu'l-Baha talked of accepting our karma with radiant acquiescence.

The afflictions which come to humanity sometimes tend to center the consciousness upon the limitations. This is a veritable prison. Release comes by making of the will a door through which the confirmations of the spirit come. They come to a man or woman who accepts his life with Radiant Acquiescence.
— Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy

Like most aspects of the spiritual life, it is between ourselves and God how we respond to the trials and afflictions that come are way.

At the end of the day we are responsible for one life, and one life only and that is our own. It is for each of us to read the reality of our own lives and decide a path that works best. For you its as a Saivite Hindu within your current sampradaya. For me as a Baha'i. That does not mean we can not learn from each other. I doubt if we'll make too much progress without humility.

 

[Vinayaka]

Abdu'l-Baha talked of accepting our karma with radiant acquiescence.

The afflictions which come to humanity sometimes tend to center the consciousness upon the limitations. This is a veritable prison. Release comes by making of the will a door through which the confirmations of the spirit come. They come to a man or woman who accepts his life with Radiant Acquiescence.
— Abdu'l-Bahá, Divine Philosophy

Like most aspects of the spiritual life, it is between ourselves and God how we respond to the trials and afflictions that come are way.

At the end of the day we are responsible for one life, and one life only and that is our own. It is for each of us to read the reality of our own lives and decide a path that works best. For you its as a Saivite Hindu within your current sampradaya. For me as a Baha'i. That does not mean we can not learn from each other. I doubt if we'll make too much progress without humility.

Obviously I disagree. I (the soul) am responsible for all the actions in all the lifetimes that came before this one, and all into the future. That's karma, and I accept it.
Nobody makes much progress without humility. But there is a hidden irony there too. One can be proud of their humility, so to speak. Amongst the Baha'i I've dialogued with on here, there has indeed been a range in the condescending tone felt, some almost unbearably proud, and others far less so. The idea of infallibility can't possible be interpreted as humble in any way.

 

[Marcion]

I agree that that is a valid criticism of people, but not of the doctrine itself. It doesn't acknowledge kriyamana karma, or the actions one can do at the moment. So if you understand karma well, when you see suffering, it is your duty to alleviate it as much as you can, building punya (merit) and reducing your own pile of sanchita karma.

The suffering creature is a welcome chance to serve the Lord in His created aspect. If however this is done without offering away this act of benevolence, then the potential effect of the good deed is stored as an extra samskara within the karmic load which will have to be expressed in future as a reactive momentum so as an extra hindrance to liberation.

So it is best to avoid acquiring merit (or indeed the opposite) by always taking the ideation of the Cosmic Consciousness as the One who acts through your action and it is only He who is being served by your action. And so there is no merit on your own side (because He gives all and nothing is yours to begin with, so He is in fact serving Himself).

The idea that many Hindus take a wrong or even evil viewpoint regarding karma is perhaps caused by their cruel rigid caste system and the lack of social care taken of people with bad fortune such as people with handicaps, too little education or lack of financial means. I'm not sure whether their seeming indifference to the suffering of others is caused by their belief in karma or not. A similar relative indifference is found in Africa among non-Hindus so it could also be a cultural or climate thing.

 

[Vinayaka]

The suffering creature is a welcome chance to serve the Lord in His created aspect. If however this is done without offering away this act of benevolence, then the potential effect of the good deed is stored as an extra samskara within the karmic load which will have to be expressed in future as a reactive momentum so as an extra hindrance to liberation.

So it is best to avoid acquiring merit (or indeed the opposite) by always taking the ideation of the Cosmic Consciousness as the One who acts through your action and it is only He who is being served by your action. And so there is no merit on your own side (because He gives all and nothing is yours to begin with, so He is in fact serving Himself).

The idea that many Hindus take a wrong or even evil viewpoint regarding karma is perhaps caused by their cruel rigid caste system and the lack of social care taken of people with bad fortune such as people with handicaps, too little education or lack of financial means. I'm not sure whether their seeming indifference to the suffering of others is caused by their belief in karma or not. A similar relative indifference is found in Africa among non-Hindus so it could also be a cultural or climate thing.

I agree, other than the bit about caste. It's not the caste system itself that is deplorable, it's caste based discrimination. All societies have some form of caste present, usually termed class. But otherwise I think we use different wording for the same concepts. Elimination of the ego 'I' is always helpful.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I never said that, although that is information I got from the ex-Baha'i forums. "Way too much focus on proselytizing, and none on real charity."

You asked how one can make a difference. I would see and proved in life, that they make a difference by becoming many. Names should not be an issue.

Is not that Good Karma?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

You asked how one can make a difference. I would see and proved in life l, that they make a difference by becoming many. Names should not be an issue.

Is not that Good Karma?

Regards Tony

Tony, please proofread your words before you hit 'post reply'. Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
"I would see and proved in life I, that they make a difference by becoming many."

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Tony, please proofread your words before you hit 'post reply'. Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.
"I would see and proved in life I, that they make a difference by becoming many."

The power of One is in the inspiration they impart to change many. Difference on a larger scale can then happen.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

The power of One is in the inspiration they impart to change many. Difference on a larger scale can then happen.

Regards Tony

Thank you. Now it makes some sense. But the argument falls apart in a lot of cases, because what that one person is imparting might change people, but is it really for the better? Hitler was a great orator, changed a lot of people. He did make a difference on a large scale too. But was it for the better?

MLK made a difference for the better. So did Gandhi. Lasting impacts for the betterment of humanity. Your guy? Not yet, for sure. In the future? Doubtful.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Obviously I disagree. I (the soul) am responsible for all the actions in all the lifetimes that came before this one, and all into the future. That's karma, and I accept it.

Sometimes bad things come our way through no fault of our own. We may live in a dictatorship who decides to persecute and murder anyone who is a threat to him. Other times we may be an innocent victim of crime. I can't see it helpful to blame ourselves for things we are not responsible for on account of past lives.

Nobody makes much progress without humility. But there is an hidden irony there too. One can be proud of their humility, so to speak.

Of course.

Amongst the Baha'i I've dialogued with on here, there has indeed been a range in the condescending tone felt, some almost unbearably proud, and others far less so.

Baha'is are just as human as anyone else.

The idea of infallibility can't possible be interpreted as humble in any way.

It must be at least reassuring to be in the company of a Bodhisattva or a pure Brahmin who has delayed his Moksha to be of guidance.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Thank you. Now it makes some sense. But the argument falls apart in a lot of cases, because what that one person is imparting might change people, but is it really for the better? Hitler was a great orator, changed a lot of people. He did make a difference on a large scale too. But was it for the better?

MLK made a difference for the better. So did Gandhi. Lasting impacts for the betterment of humanity. Your guy? Not yet, for sure. In the future? Doubtful.

I see that is the choices we get in this life. Not all will turn to the light Isee is within all of us.

I see good Karma, is only seeing the good in all. I see the light can be found in all people, but they need to implement this for themselves.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

Sometimes bad things come our way through no fault of our own.

Obviously I disagree, but then I believe in karma. You don't. And that's the point here. 'Good' things also come.

 

[Vinayaka]

I see good Karma, is only seeing the good in all. I see the light can be found in all people, but they need to implement this for themselves.

I don't see karma as being good, or bad, just karma. But yes, divinity is within all, however hidden.

 

[loverofhumanity]

Processes of action and reaction are certainly much more complex, random and unpredictable in the social realm. An obvious problem is making sense of why good people suffer while a hypocritcal narcisist may prosper. In many places in the world immoral people achieve success through abiding by an entirely different set of principles than those who would endeavour to live a moral life.

Hi Adrian.

My humble contribution. Just some reflections on the topic of why the good seem to suffer. Do they really in reality?

Isn’t true suffering farness from God or truth and true wealth nearness and likeness to God?

I think this depends on how we define a human being and his goals. If the goal of life is to be rich, wealthy and powerful and we are only high end animals living for lust, eating, sleeping and partying then many unworthy appear to be receiving favouritism.

But if we are primarily spiritual beings and our goal is to attain divine virtues then by being greedy and selfish in this world we will,enter the next world unprepared with a retarded and underdeveloped soul. So for the person who is virtuous in this life although outwardly ‘appearing to be suffering and at a greater disadvantage’ than the person who lies, cheats and so on, the reality is not so as they will receive wonderful powers and blessing in the next life whereas the person who has spent their life in pursuit of selfish and self centred aims will have a diminished life form in the afterlife and be deprived of many wonderful powers and abilities.

The fruits of the tree of this life will appear in the next world.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hi Adrian.

My humble contribution. Just some reflections on the topic of why the good seem to suffer. Do they really in reality?

Isn’t true suffering farness from God or truth and true wealth nearness and likeness to God?

I think this depends on how we define a human being and his goals. If the goal of life is to be rich, wealthy and powerful and we are only high end animals living for lust, eating, sleeping and partying then many unworthy appear to be receiving favouritism.

But if we are primarily spiritual beings and our goal is to attain divine virtues then by being greedy and selfish in this world we will,enter the next world unprepared with a retarded and underdeveloped soul. So for the person who is virtuous in this life although outwardly ‘appearing to be suffering and at a greater disadvantage’ than the person who lies, cheats and so on, the reality is not so as they will receive wonderful powers and blessing in the next life whereas the person who has spent their life in pursuit of selfish and self centred aims will have a diminished life form in the afterlife and be deprived of many wonderful powers and abilities.

The fruits of the tree of this life will appear in the next world.

What does this have to do with the topic of karma? It's just the Abrahamic view of morality leading to heaven or hell. (Not the pure hell, of Christianity, but still.) Not about karma at all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Obviously I disagree, but then I believe in karma. You don't. And that's the point here. 'Good' things also come.

Will you be justifying the caste system? The privileged were born Brahman because of acquired good karma and the Dalits deserve their lowly status. How does that work?

 

[blü 2]

Karma can mean different things to different people. [...]

So what is karma

I associate karma with particular psychological phenomena ─ empathy can (not must) draw reciprocal empathy. It can also cause the giver of empathy to be remembered as more deserving of empathy when needed. Kindness can work in much the same way.

In fact it's true of many outlooks, many dispositions, including negative ones ─ don't folk usually feel it's fair (or at least less unfair) to snark the snarker when the chance comes? So karma is maybe part of the larger notion, What goes around comes around.

It has its limits as well ─ Charm is what you have till you rely on it, is one example.

But I don't see any force more mysterious than the ordinary forces of social intercourse at work here.

Perhaps a similar idea is found in the saying that you make your own luck.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What does this have to do with the topic of karma? It's just the Abrahamic view of morality leading to heaven or hell. (Not the pure hell, of Christianity, but still.) Not about karma at all.

Because it was mentioned why the good suffer needlessly. And my view is that they are receiving good karma for being patient and long suffering.

Why are innocent people oppressed? Have they done something wrong that karma is repaying them for? Not in my view. There is divine wisdom in it. The innocent people who suffer I believe are more than compensated for.

My understanding of karma is payment for good or bad done since being born in this world.

 

[Marcion]

I agree, other than the bit about caste. It's not the caste system itself that is deplorable, it's caste based discrimination. All societies have some form of caste present, usually termed class. But otherwise I think we use different wording for the same concepts. Elimination of the ego 'I' is always helpful.

I don't understand why you feel the need to defend the idea of castes. There is enough of a lack of social mobility outside of Hinduism to promote even less of it. People do generally fall into one out of four categories as to their mentality but this should never be fixed for communities into which children are born, it should be a free choice as much as possible. So castes are a curse in society just like slavery is. In the Middle Ages even outside of Hinduism your profession was largely fixed by the family you were born is, but that is very much less so in modern societies and that is a good thing. People should follow their talents and inclinations in a natural way and not be forced by society in a certain direction or banned from whole sections of society on grounds of the family they were born in.