Do you believe in karma theory?

[Muffled]

Karma in what I believe in the Buddhistic sense is your karma/actions influence whether you experience benefit or consequence of your actions.

In a Buddhistic sense, the righteous, if you mean pride through riches, does not develop anything benefitial to ones well being. So, its not that the persons righeous that has something to do with karma but whether his Actions is a benefit to his well being or a consequence. The Buddha talks a out no one is exludee from birth and death. No king, no rightous. We are all in the same boat.

I dont understand what "rule the world" means outside of movies, but if that righteous persons actions benefit the well being of self and others, I guess ruling the world is possible. Ut only in a communal sense not dictarorial. I dont know the role of karma outside of The Buddha's Dharma.

Rule the world?

I believe that for of karma is definitely observable and I believe it occurs quite often. It is the consequences that come from God that are more difficult to identify.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I believe that for of karma is definitely observable and I believe it occurs quite often. It is the consequences that come from God that are more difficult to identify.

Hmm. I only know one karma independent of god and religion. Its a simple sanskit word that just means action. No god just cause and affect. Consequences And benefits could be attrabuted to karma but as a word with specific meaning, in Buddhism there is no source just the cause and the affect. Neither are people. Nothing supernatural.

Thats as if saying I pick up a knife and cut someone and the consequences come from god not me. Karma says it comes from the person making the action not an outside source. I can get suttas on this to show you. Hindus probably have different understanding of karma. Neither religion relates it to the abrahamic god.

Justice and blessings would be better words with the abrahamic.

 

[Cassandra]

I believe that for of karma is definitely observable and I believe it occurs quite often. It is the consequences that come from God that are more difficult to identify.

That is Abrahamic belief, not Karma.

I think we should not mix traditions, it only creates misunderstandings. The Abrahamic traditions have totally different world view from Dharmic traditions. You may want to understand that in order to create consequences, you also have to undergo consequences. You are either part of it, or not. That goes for Gods too that intervene.

That is is for instance why Christianity can not be aligned with Karma. The fundamental idea that: Jesus died for other peoples sins, not his own, defies the law of Karma.

Jews reject that idea. But then Jews do the same thing again. You will hear Jews complain about the Holocaust and Pogroms against Jews, but you will never hear them say, that was the result of our own previous actions. No it is the evil of others. This idea is deeply ingrained in Judaism. Why were the Jews turned into slaves in Babylon? Because the gentiles did not believe in their God, not because their vassal King Joshua had omitted twice to pay taxes. Because in Jewish beliefs, as long as they follow their Gods commandments they give no reason to be punished, no matter what harm they do other people. And religious Joshua did that. So it could not have been them that angered their God. They were punished for the sins of the gentiles.

Let Abrahamism be Abrahamism. It is not a Dharmic tradition. It does not seek happiness in avoiding negative consequences, but in the right belief. In Abrahamism right action is based on commandments in books. hurting non-believers is often mandatory in this belief. Look how Moses ordered his people to kill their own loved ones for worshiping the wrong God. Their God is painted in the book as a jealous, wrathful God. His definition of Love is mercy, that is to be absolved from his wrath.

In Dharmic traditions center of focus is about not harming other beings. In Abrahamic tradition it is about doing their Gods will. Sensitive, feeling people in both traditions act very similarly, but their traditions have different definition of what is good (action). Abrahamic traditions have been doing humongous suffering to people to impose their beliefs. But the religious do not feel responsibility for that, as they followed their Gods orders. They do not fear consequences as they believe their faith absolves them and brings them to their Gods heaven.

 

[moon light]

That is Abrahamic belief, not Karma.

I think we should not mix traditions, it only creates misunderstandings. The Abrahamic traditions have totally different world view from Dharmic traditions. You may want to understand that in order to create consequences, you also have to undergo consequences. You are either part of it, or not. That goes for Gods too that intervene.

That is is for instance why Christianity can not be aligned with Karma. The fundamental idea that: Jesus died for other peoples sins, not his own, defies the law of Karma.

Jews reject that idea. But then Jews do the same thing again. You will hear Jews complain about the Holocaust and Pogroms against Jews, but you will never hear them say, that was the result of our own previous actions. No it is the evil of others. This idea is deeply ingrained in Judaism. Why were the Jews turned into slaves in Babylon? Because the gentiles did not believe in their God, not because their vassal King Joshua had omitted twice to pay taxes. Because in Jewish beliefs, as long as they follow their Gods commandments they give no reason to be punished, no matter what harm they do other people. And religious Joshua did that. So it could not have been them that angered their God. They were punished for the sins of the gentiles.

Let Abrahamism be Abrahamism. It is not a Dharmic tradition. It does not seek happiness in avoiding negative consequences, but in the right belief. In Abrahamism right action is based on commandments in books. hurting non-believers is often mandatory in this belief. Look how Moses ordered his people to kill their own loved ones for worshiping the wrong God. Their God is painted in the book as a jealous, wrathful God. His definition of Love is mercy, that is to be absolved from his wrath.

In Dharmic traditions center of focus is about not harming other beings. In Abrahamic tradition it is about doing their Gods will. Sensitive, feeling people in both traditions act very similarly, but their traditions have different definition of what is good (action). Abrahamic traditions have been doing humongous suffering to people to impose their beliefs. But the religious do not feel responsibility for that, as they followed their Gods orders. They do not fear consequences as they believe their faith absolves them and brings them to their Gods heaven.

AT God deals with people is not one in the Abrahamic religions
For example, in Islam there is a consensus with the concept of karma
The concept of karma already exists and works but as part of the way God deals with people and not the only way
So it is a deficient concept

In Islam God deals with people in two stages
- First the guidance where he tells us about good and evil
It is the stage of karma
do good, find good, or do evil find evil

- Second the test STAGE is a stage that transcends the boundaries of Karma
What will you do if you have a good or evil?
It is through this concept that things can be explained that the karma can not explain
Lack of equality of people in health, disease, wealth, poverty, success and failure, regardless of their goodness or corruption

Access to this concept was the purpose of the topic
Thanks to everyone

 

[Cassandra]

AT God deals with people is not one in the Abrahamic religions
For example, in Islam there is a consensus with the concept of karma
The concept of karma already exists and works but as part of the way God deals with people and not the only way
So it is a deficient concept

In Islam God deals with people in two stages
- First the guidance where he tells us about good and evil
It is the stage of karma
do good, find good, or do evil find evil

- Second the test STAGE is a stage that transcends the boundaries of Karma
What will you do if you have a good or evil?
It is through this concept that things can be explained that the karma can not explain
Lack of equality of people in health, disease, wealth, poverty, success and failure, regardless of their goodness or corruption

Access to this concept was the purpose of the topic
Thanks to everyone

Law of Karma is not about good and evil.
What is good and evil is a different subject
How to deal with good and evil is again a different subject

When you change the definition or use a different definition, it is no longer the same concept and discussion becomes irrelevant and can only lead to misunderstanding.

I think you would have done better to introduce the Islamic concept in the beginning and explain that. You can make comparisons with Karma and explain the difference.

 

[moon light]

Law of Karma is not about good and evil.
What is good and evil is a different subject
How to deal with good and evil is again a different subject

When you change the definition or use a different definition, it is no longer the same concept and discussion becomes irrelevant and can only lead to misunderstanding.

I think you would have done better to introduce the Islamic concept in the beginning and explain that. You can make comparisons with Karma and explain the difference.

This is what I did, the Islamic concept and its comparison with Karma
If you have a different definition and a different comparison

 

[Naama]

Do you believe in karma theory?

If you believe , why the righteous do not rule the world?

I don’t believe it’s a theory dear....

 

[moon light]

I don’t believe it’s a theory dear....

explain your opinion

 

[Naama]

explain your opinion

Well theory is a science term, it doesn't really apply to religion.

 

[Rajat Kumar]

Well, I believe in Karma, I was going through an article on the internet: Law of Karma | Karma and Reincarnation | Karma Meaning | Dharma Karma | Guru Kripa. I am not sure, how can my previous life have an impact on my current life. Please suggest.

 

[Muffled]

Hmm. I only know one karma independent of god and religion. Its a simple sanskit word that just means action. No god just cause and affect. Consequences And benefits could be attrabuted to karma but as a word with specific meaning, in Buddhism there is no source just the cause and the affect. Neither are people. Nothing supernatural.

Thats as if saying I pick up a knife and cut someone and the consequences come from god not me. Karma says it comes from the person making the action not an outside source. I can get suttas on this to show you. Hindus probably have different understanding of karma. Neither religion relates it to the abrahamic god.

Justice and blessings would be better words with the abrahamic.

I believe those two statements contradict each other.

I believe that is an insufficiency.

I believe the consequences can automatically take place within the person , then there may be consequences from the person cut, consequences from legal authorities and finally consequences from God's judgment in this life or the next.

 

[Muffled]

That is Abrahamic belief, not Karma.

I think we should not mix traditions, it only creates misunderstandings. The Abrahamic traditions have totally different world view from Dharmic traditions. You may want to understand that in order to create consequences, you also have to undergo consequences. You are either part of it, or not. That goes for Gods too that intervene.

That is is for instance why Christianity can not be aligned with Karma. The fundamental idea that: Jesus died for other peoples sins, not his own, defies the law of Karma.

Jews reject that idea. But then Jews do the same thing again. You will hear Jews complain about the Holocaust and Pogroms against Jews, but you will never hear them say, that was the result of our own previous actions. No it is the evil of others. This idea is deeply ingrained in Judaism. Why were the Jews turned into slaves in Babylon? Because the gentiles did not believe in their God, not because their vassal King Joshua had omitted twice to pay taxes. Because in Jewish beliefs, as long as they follow their Gods commandments they give no reason to be punished, no matter what harm they do other people. And religious Joshua did that. So it could not have been them that angered their God. They were punished for the sins of the gentiles.

Let Abrahamism be Abrahamism. It is not a Dharmic tradition. It does not seek happiness in avoiding negative consequences, but in the right belief. In Abrahamism right action is based on commandments in books. hurting non-believers is often mandatory in this belief. Look how Moses ordered his people to kill their own loved ones for worshiping the wrong God. Their God is painted in the book as a jealous, wrathful God. His definition of Love is mercy, that is to be absolved from his wrath.

In Dharmic traditions center of focus is about not harming other beings. In Abrahamic tradition it is about doing their Gods will. Sensitive, feeling people in both traditions act very similarly, but their traditions have different definition of what is good (action). Abrahamic traditions have been doing humongous suffering to people to impose their beliefs. But the religious do not feel responsibility for that, as they followed their Gods orders. They do not fear consequences as they believe their faith absolves them and brings them to their Gods heaven.

I do not believe that is so but since you know about Dharmic tradition, perhaps you can explain it to me.

 

[Muffled]

I don’t believe it’s a theory dear....

I believe I agree. It would be like saying the sun is a theory.