Karma without Reincarnation?

[LuisDantas]

Due to pleasure, pain, attachment and whatever degree of wisdom one has. Not sure if that is what you asked about.

 

[no-body]

The ego for me is just a barrier to the Self, something we need to rid ourselves of. .

For myself the ego is the imagined self.

Yes, no-body,

I feel that new age advaita (and also Buddhism) has a bit different understanding of non-dualism compared to Shankara advaita. Shankara advaita and any other indian philosophy cannot throw away the immediate perception -- since that is considered a proof. What matters is the context.

Even after the false notion of ego has been erased, this soul is real in the context of this discussion and this life, since the underlying consciousness is true -- though this truth is relative.

In the immutable alone there is no incarnation. All other names-forms in the relative states of waking and dreaming must undergo dress changes.

I think immediate perception is important as well but this cannot constitute as objective "proof" anecdotal evidence is not verifiable. That is why I see it all as metaphorical; karma, reincarnation etc are provable to myself but I would never imply they are real and will not rule out that it is all a way to make myself feel better psychologically.

 

[atanu]

I think immediate perception is important as well but this cannot constitute as objective "proof" anecdotal evidence is not verifiable. That is why I see it all as metaphorical; karma, reincarnation etc are provable to myself but I would never imply they are real and will not rule out that it is all a way to make myself feel better psychologically.

If anecdotal evidence is not verifiable then why science uses a citation process?

Actually here lies the crucial difference. An established Hindu (probably also a Buddhist), in contrast to an initiate, has certainty that there is no true objective knowledge outside the subject. In other words, no experience is independent of context and thus not objective as it is. Western Hindus (not all of course) take some time to internalise this.

Thus all perception, valid citations, reasoning, and analogy constitute valid proofs for ascertaining the relative truth within the context, in Hindu philosophy. And as all these observations are considered not from ego (since ego has no such power) the observations are taken as such -- true for the context. It is expressed as "Whatever is true in consciousness is true since consciousness is true."

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

I've certainly not understood what you just said very well, Atanu. But it sounds a bit like solipsism, much as if you had said that everyone has his own reality and it is just as legitimate as anyone else's.

 

[atanu]

I've certainly not understood what you just said very well, Atanu. But it sounds a bit like solipsism, much as if you had said that everyone has his own reality and it is just as legitimate as anyone else's.

It certainly would be solipsism, if the knower was objectively known. But that is not true, as far as I can analyse rationally. I truly do not know the Seer and Knower that appears to be me (or to be operating from within me). As far as I know, I have not created the intelligence or the energy that drives this body-mind called atanu. As far as I know, this body may simply be like a transistor radio.

Thus when i say "I", it does not mean "atanu" as seen encased in a body. As per Upanishads there is only single Seer and single knower.

I hope this clarifies.

 

[LuisDantas]

So we are all Avatars of a (perhaps sole, united) Consciousness?

 

[atanu]

So we are all Avatars of a (perhaps sole, united) Consciousness?

Upanishads surely indicate that. The exact scripture is: There is no knower but Him. There is no Seer but Him. From wave-particle duality understanding of physiscs the above does not seem so implausible. Moreover, my personal experience and analysis of deep sleep situation validates that for me.

Edit: This pertains to advaita vedanta and not to all schools of hinduism.

 

[no-body]

If anecdotal evidence is not verifiable then why science uses a citation process?

I just worded that badly. I meant more like personal experience, emotions, etc. I mean you can measure them and stuff but they aren't proof of anything divine even if many people feel and think the same things.

Actually here lies the crucial difference. An established Hindu (probably also a Buddhist), in contrast to an initiate, has certainty that there is no true objective knowledge outside the subject. In other words, no experience is independent of context and thus not objective as it is. Western Hindus (not all of course) take some time to internalise this.

Thus all perception, valid citations, reasoning, and analogy constitute valid proofs for ascertaining the relative truth within the context, in Hindu philosophy. And as all these observations are considered not from ego (since ego has no such power) the observations are taken as such -- true for the context. It is expressed as "Whatever is true in consciousness is true since consciousness is true."

Regards

No problem with this from a spiritual stand point. But when you approach things from a scientific point of view you pick up a different set of rules, that's all I meant.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I'm a bit more into new age so maybe I see non-dualism differently than you. For instance, my metaphorical take on all of it: The personal self is ultimately an illusion so there is nothing to reincarnate. There is only "now" and terms such as karma, advaita, reincarnation, etc are just helpful guide posts for the ego.

I have come more to that conclusion as well, the incarnation of the self is somewhat of an illusion. Instead I think the self is an emergent property of heightened complexity as soon as the universe entered a more chaotic phase from more simplistic order to chaos. The self emerged necessarily out of a process of spontaneous self organization which underpins many complex structures in the universe from snowflakes to galaxies.

 

[thedope]

The self emerged necessarily out of a process of spontaneous self organization which underpins many complex structures in the universe from snowflakes to galaxies.

Magnanimous intent, or gravity.