Karma without Reincarnation?

[Gharib]

if by karma you mean doing bad and then that bad comming back to bite you some day or someone in your family then muslims believe that. also for every bad that we do we either pay for it in this life or in the hearafter.

i hope thats the kind of answer you are looking for.

 

[atanu]

--- What exactly would an atheist believe karma to be and how could it operate without reincarnation?

For Hinduism, Karma and re-incarnation are definitely interlinked -- a simple reading of Gita will be sufficient to ascertain this.

Even for Buddhists, though not explicitly stated, the karma cannot be of single life, since a) the goal is again nirvana-- the highest happiness and there is no highest happiness in death; b) otherwise the bad and good births remain unexplained and c) there is no reason why karmic directives should be followed -- just enjoy, exploit and fade away.

 

[LuisDantas]

For Hinduism, Karma and re-incarnation are definitely interlinked -- a simple reading of Gita will be sufficient to ascertain this.

Even for Buddhists, though not explicitly stated, the karma cannot be of single life, since a) the goal is again nirvana-- the highest happiness and there is no highest happiness in death; b) otherwise the bad and good births remain unexplained and c) there is no reason why karmic directives should be followed -- just enjoy, exploit and fade away.

I beg to differ. By my understanding, at least, such an analysis is misleading because it relies on several assumptions that I don't think hold true in the Buddhadharma. I may be very mistaken, but I don't believe Buddhism quite fits such a literal reading of "many lifes".

Seems to me that it is far more accurate to say that karma cannot be of a single life because the separation among lifes is ultimately illusory. Worrying so much about issues of literal death and birth is not IMO very useful or very healthy.

Also, if I understood your "c)" above, there is a very good reason why karma should be watched for. But it is hardly centered on such a mundane thing as literal deaths and births! We should all strive to follow the eightfold path because, quite simply, the alternative is to generate bad karma. Trivial, but somehow often misunderstood to the point that people demand links to supposed other lifes, previous or future. I often wonder why. Maybe it has to do with belief in God.

 

[St Giordano Bruno]

I don't believe in Karma at all but I do believe in a form of "reincarnation" without the preservation of memories of previous lives. I believe the self is a necessary outcome of heightened complexity as part of an emergent pattern as soon as our universe acquired a critical level of complexity through the evolution of complex matter. So I believe there only needs to be the one self eternally locked in a spacio-temporal district of the universe approximately 13.7 billion years after the big bang and the self personally experience the life of every conscious entity by subjectively weaving back and switching back through space and time. I think the process of subjectivity is completely random and what deeds we did in this life on a moral level are of absolutely no consequence and makes no deference if you were Ghandi or Hitler.

 

[atanu]

I beg to differ. By my understanding, at least, such an analysis is misleading because it relies on several assumptions that I don't think hold true in the Buddhadharma. I may be very mistaken, but I don't believe Buddhism quite fits such a literal reading of "many lifes".

Seems to me that it is far more accurate to say that karma cannot be of a single life because the separation among lifes is ultimately illusory. Worrying so much about issues of literal death and birth is not IMO very useful or very healthy.

But I do not disagree. From the premise that separation among lifes is ultimately illusory, I deduce that at certain levels of experience, karma is linked with the illusion of repeated death-birth (the concept of samsara) in the sense that it is an antidote to the illusion. This was already said.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2414413-post15.html

Also, if I understood your "c)" above, there is a very good reason why karma should be watched for. But it is hardly centered on such a mundane thing as literal deaths and births! We should all strive to follow the eightfold path because, quite simply, the alternative is to generate bad karma. Trivial, but somehow often misunderstood to the point that people demand links to supposed other lifes, previous or future. I often wonder why. Maybe it has to do with belief in God.

Here, I differ. The fear of death is the ultimate fear. The whole exercise, IMO, is meant to eventually reveal that.

 

[LuisDantas]

Here, I differ. The fear of death is the ultimate fear. The whole exercise, IMO, is meant to eventually reveal that.

Uh? Ultimate fear? Yes, it seems that we disagree about that. Fear of death is hardly ultimate, far as I can tell.

 

[atanu]

Uh? Ultimate fear? Yes, it seems that we disagree about that. Fear of death is hardly ultimate, far as I can tell.

In that case you have crossed over to the other side. I believe that it is true and so I pay my highest regards to you.

But I have not crossed over and I have seen a man dying on my arms -- not a sudden death but a slow removal of breath while all organs were demanding oxygen. Further, upanishads endorse my view.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is just that there are lots of things more fearsome than death, Atanu.

 

[no-body]

Watered down "Instant Karma" (as for instance portrayed in my name in earl) really bugs me. It takes away from the beautiful spiritual complexities of "real" karma and implies some sort of cosmic justice which does not exists. But it is slightly amusing seeing Christians and Muslims incorporate eastern and new age beliefs because "it feels right"

Reincarnation can be interpreted as metaphorical so I don't necessarily see the need for it in karma (cause and effect)

 

[Vinayaka]

Reincarnation can be interpreted as metaphorical

How so? For me its as real as switching shirts.

 

[no-body]

How so? For me its as real as switching shirts.

You could interpret the same soul being born over and over into different bodies as non literal, especially if you subscribe to something like non-dualism.

 

[Vinayaka]

You could interpret the same soul being born over and over into different bodies as non literal, especially if you subscribe to something like non-dualism.

I do subscribe to non-dualism and I see the statement quite literally. This soul inhabiting this body this lifetime will drop this body, hunt around between births for another one, and put it on. I still don't get the metaphor. I knew my kids last lifetime, if that helps. They were real (relatively, not absolutely) that lifetime too.

Maybe if you add a non-linear time component.

 

[no-body]

I do subscribe to non-dualism and I see the statement quite literally. This soul inhabiting this body this lifetime will drop this body, hunt around between births for another one, and put it on. I still don't get the metaphor. I knew my kids last lifetime, if that helps. They were real (relatively, not absolutely) that lifetime too.

Maybe if you add a non-linear time component.

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.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

That's fair enough. The ego for me is just a barrier to the Self, something we need to rid ourselves of. The 'now' bit I agree with but only on an advaitic level. an advaitic master or realised sage is in the 'now', but I'm certainly not. At this point in evolution, it's just words, not reality.

 

[atanu]

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.

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.

 

[atanu]

It is just that there are lots of things more fearsome than death, Atanu.

Like?

 

[LuisDantas]

Essentially, living under very disfavorable circunstances.

 

[atanu]

Essentially, living under very disfavorable circunstances.

I agree. What is the root of the dualism 'favouarble-disfavourable'?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure it is a dualism, myself.

 

[atanu]

I'm not sure it is a dualism, myself.

Then what is disfavourable as opposed to favouarble and how these two conditions may arise?