This is a rework of a crucial question that appeared somewhere else, but valid to some extent whether or not you embrace the Buddhist doctrine of karma.

When I perform an action to what extent or in what way is the action determined by previous conditions and to what extent would it rather serve an act of will to predetermine future events?

A victim's perception of persecution may for instance be ascribed to their present condition, or you may just as well say that a persecutor inflicts because of his own karmic condition, or you may just as well postulate an alleged action, active or passive, as a deliberate cause of a future condition.

Perhaps you have already struggled with similar questions.

Perhaps you have found a way to come to terms with this.

Without intending to prejuduce further disussion a possible way forward is to suppose that a present condition limits the choice. A victim mentality may for example envisage a variety of ways to be persecuted, but a slim chance to see themselves as the author of their own misfortune, or good fortune for that matter.

-- Ron.

When I perform an action to what extent or in what way is the action determined by previous conditions and to what extent would it rather serve an act of will to predetermine future events?
A possible consideration: our present "karmic footprint" has been determined by many more inputs than we ourselves have given. I would venture to say that at conception we have an infanitesimal footprint, and are 99% the result of foreign inputs, and 1% potential (not tabula rasa, but a seed). From that moment on, with every thought and action we assert an equal weight of input from a single and immediate source that makes all other influences pale in comparison: ourselves. All the threads of history and influence is weaved together on the loom of our minds, and we produce the rich tapestry on which we must walk.

It soon becomes a question of which nature you nurture. There may be more options available than what can be empirically deduced from the immediate circumstances. The present condition might limit how much we can imagine the availability of choices, what we expect to be possible. And if we will not think, act, live or love beyond the limits of our expectations and our perceived abilities, we will likewise limit the results we get - a case of "if you do what you've always done, you will get what you've always gotten". An example would be learned helplessness.

But I have not tried to account for the many variables along the way, so this is just a preliminary assessment.

All the threads of history and influence is weaved together on the loom of our minds, and we produce the rich tapestry on which we must walk.


All the threads?

Surely not.

We choose particular threads to suit the intended pattern, and that choice is very much a matter of the karmic condition, the map we construct of choices believed to be available.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....."

In every blink or twitch there is a choice.

--- Ron.

There are two ways to answer this - short term or long term.

In the short term we are conditioned by our previous karmas and in the long term we are making our karmas for the future- I know this sounds like a contradiction but here is an example

If you buy a plane ticket from newyork to paris you cannot change your mind about where you want to go half way through the journey (you are immediately limited by your previous karma - ie buyingthe ticket and jumping in the plane) - from this point you can do many activities that will determine your long term future - you can talk to other people on the plane - you can blow all your money on the in flight merchandise - you can try and hijack the plane etc ..... So according to how you act that will determine whether you have enough money to buy a ticket in paris to where you really want to go or whether you are greeted by the police and taken into custody or so many things.

That is why there is a big emphasis in spiritual life in tolerating the reactions of one's previous karma while working towards a spiritual goal - thoughtlessly reacting to one's previous karma causes further entanglement which reduces the opportunity for options

All the threads?

Surely not.

We choose particular threads to suit the intended pattern, and that choice is very much a matter of the karmic condition, the map we construct of choices believed to be available.

"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....."

In every blink or twitch there is a choice.

--- Ron.
You're right. Not all threads (unless perhaps if we want to start guessing about chaos theory). But at least all the threads that are consciously or unconsciously processed by the loom.

There are two ways to answer this - short term or long term.

In the short term we are conditioned by our previous karmas and in the long term we are making our karmas for the future- I know this sounds like a contradiction but here is an example

If you buy a plane ticket from newyork to paris you cannot change your mind about where you want to go half way through the journey (you are immediately limited by your previous karma - ie buyingthe ticket and jumping in the plane) - from this point you can do many activities that will determine your long term future - you can talk to other people on the plane - you can blow all your money on the in flight merchandise - you can try and hijack the plane etc ..... So according to how you act that will determine whether you have enough money to buy a ticket in paris to where you really want to go or whether you are greeted by the police and taken into custody or so many things.

That is why there is a big emphasis in spiritual life in tolerating the reactions of one's previous karma while working towards a spiritual goal - thoughtlessly reacting to one's previous karma causes further entanglement which reduces the opportunity for options
Interesting perspective. Limited to the course, but not limited by the course.

Bit like a map, actually.

If you buy a plane ticket from newyork to paris you cannot change your mind about where you want to go half way through the journey (you are immediately limited by your previous karma - ie buyingthe ticket and jumping in the plane)

Yes you can.

People do that sort of thing all the time, changing their minds when it is already too late to be of any use to do so.

"nostalgia" for instance is one way to react to previous karma.

--- Ron.

You can only change your mind when your karma allows you - like you can change your mind in the ticket office but you can't change your mind at 20000 ft travelling at 800km/hr

You can only change your mind when your karma allows you - like you can change your mind in the ticket office but you can't change your mind at 20000 ft travelling at 800km/hr

You miss my point. You are talking about a change of action. Mind is not action.

It happens all the time, that people intend the impossible, or they regret what was already done, a waste of good mind.

I was trying to move on to how does karma fit with that?

This has engaged my concern recently, the way that thinking changes karma, regardless of anything overtly to be seen as action.

--- Ron.

But the point is that even if you change your mind in certain situations it doesn't help you any - you may say that mind is not gross action but it is definitely subtle action - so just as gross action faces variables so does subtle action

- and the two certainly influence one another - like for instance a person who is habituated to performing routine cruel activity has a diminished subtle capacity for compassion - similarly a person who undergoes rigorous disciplinary training has exceptionally qualities of self control and tolerance

But the point is that even if you change your mind in certain situations it doesn't help you any - you may say that mind is not gross action but it is definitely subtle action - so just as gross action faces variables so does subtle action

Is meditation a change of mind?

They talk about karma in terms of merit.

I wonder who keeps the score, how to assess the merit.

--- Ron.

Is meditation a change of mind?

Depends what you are meditating on ... If you are meditating on the objects of the mind it certainly isn't a change of mind :) [/QUOTE]


They talk about karma in terms of merit.

I wonder who keeps the score, how to assess the merit.

--- Ron.

Even great personalities get muddled in the pursuit of establishing the exact quanitities of their merit, what to speak of us - one thing is for sure though is that the justice of karma is infallible.

In the ultimate sense any merit from karma is a demerit because karma pertains to material existence and material existence innvolves so many contingent sufferings even if you inherit an unrivalled kigdom.

- one thing is for sure though is that the justice of karma is infallible.

How so sure?

This is a belief, not provable.

According to the Buddhist doctrine the precise working of karma is one of the four imponderables (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html)


--- Ron.

How so sure?

This is a belief, not provable.

According to the Buddhist doctrine the precise working of karma is one of the four imponderables (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html)


--- Ron.

basically we mean the same thing - we cannot understand the mechanics of karma (although you can get a general idea about what constitutes sin and piety) but the result of karma is inescapable - in other words if you have some karma headed your way you cannot escape it by material endeavour although there does exist the possibility of avoiding karma through transcendental applications - that is one of the four essential truths of buddhism isn't it? The means to get out of material suffering?

both.

both.
But since when?

Bhagavad Gita says you only have freedom to choose your actions and do not have freedom to choose the results. Mind you, this is said in the context were people believed in previous life. And this some time explains why a newly born baby meet with un-imaginable difficulties when there is no karma done by that baby. Karama can be very much decided by an individual but the result is what is not under control.

Per Patanjali Yoga Sutra events in a persons life is mapped with the count of the breath (from beginning of life, assuming a normal human takes about 21600 breaths in 24 hours) and if you practice Yoga to elongate your breath you will most probably win over the fate. But this also takes away the goods things that were destined for you as well – thus bringing equilibrium of no good and sad things happening to you.

"But since when?"

since karma came into existence.

Since it was determined?

yes

So what determines the karma then?
Is a god required to manage the system?
How does belief and prayer relate to karma?
If you pray for a person do you thus hope to transcend their karma?

--- Ron.

karma determines karma.
I do not know of any reason why an outside person is neccessary to manage the system. It could be self sustained.
Belief and prayers are a form of karma.
"If you pray for a person do you thus hope to transcend their karma?"
Yes you could say that.

So what determines the karma then?
the person who acts

Is a god required to manage the system?
yes

How does belief and prayer relate to karma?
faith shapes action, the proper application of prayer nurtures faith

If you pray for a person do you thus hope to transcend their karma?
if your prayer is pure, but generally we are influenced by fruitive desire (ie a desire to benefit the body - which is a gross product of karma - as opposed to benefiting the soul - which has nothing to do with karma)

Whenever I read a book about Buddhist or Hindu philosophy I like to think about the information in a scientific way. I have a different concept of karma than most people. I don’t think it is some kind of good or bad energy within us. I like to think of our planet as life form that exist within a larger life form that we call the universe. I don’t believe in the concept of a human soul. I also don’t believe that there is a difference between inanimate objects (carbon, iron, Ect.) and the biological things that we call life. What we perceive as life is nothing more than chemical reactions. All of the different forms of life that exist in the world could be a representation of all of the different cells that exist within our body. Humans could be a representation of stem cells. (Cells that can become any kind of cell in the human body)

When I think about the six billion people on this planet I see a highly evolved colony of disorganized ants. When we work together we have the power to change the face of the earth. (The climate, atmosphere, ecosystems, Ect.) When I think about humanity I also like to imagine that we are one life form or entity. Every person could be a representation of one cell in your body.

I don’t believe in the concept of good and evil, (good karma, bad karma) but I do believe in the concept logical and illogical behavior. I believe that when we intentionally harm other human beings (physically or mentally) we are committing an illogical act. It is like one cell attacking another cell in your body. So evil or bad karma is like a cancerous cell. When you are kind and helpful to the people in your life it is like playing the role of a white blood cell. Treating people with kindness and compassion increases your probability of having what some people would call good luck or good karma.

I also believe that everyone deserves exactly what they get in life, regardless of whether it is pain or pleasure. I don’t believe in the common concept of reincarnation, (your soul coming back in the body of another person or life form) but I do believe that everything thing that we do in the present will have an influence on the people and other life forms that will exist in the future. I also believe that I am one with the universe, therefore I will exist as another person or life form in the future. People are suffering in the present because of the illogical decisions that people made in the past. And people will suffer in the future because of illogical decisions that people make in the present.

What we perceive as life is nothing more than chemical reactions.

Is perception a chemical reaction?

I mean perception per se, consciousness in action. We know that chemical reactions are involved.

--- Ron.

Is perception a chemical reaction?

I mean perception per se, consciousness in action. We know that chemical reactions are involved.

--- Ron.

The human body is a product of chemical reactions. (DNA, proteins, which are made of different chemicals that we call amino acids) Existence is information and perception. The information is in the form of energy, atoms, and molecules, Ect. We perceive the information through our five senses. Our biological sensors gather the information and then it is sent to our brain where the information is stored and processed. We are basically preprogrammed biological machines. Our bodies are programmed to respond in a specific way when we receive incoming sensory information. The preprogrammed responses occur when our cells are exposed to different chemical in our body.

For example if you are having a painful experience the cells in your pain receptors will react to a specific chemical. The information will then be sent to your brain where more chemicals will be released into your bloodstream. (Possibly adrenaline, stress hormones, and then endorphins to relieve the pain) Your brain will be processing this information while all of these things are happening. (More chemical reactions)

All of these preprogrammed responses are determined by our genes. We take in sensory information and we react to it. Our genes allow us to store the sensory information so we can learn from our mistakes and make logical decisions in the future. This is an evolutionary adaptation that allows our genes to survive.

There are some people that believe there is something going on a quantum level in the human brain that allows us to be conscious and self- aware. It could be true, but our neurons are still made of DNA. I believe that what we call consciousness is an illusion or the sum of our parts working together. If you had a conversation with some people that had brain injuries or someone that used LSD they would probably tell you how different their perception of reality was at the time. It is because the drugs or the injury changed the way the sum of their parts worked. Changing someone’s neurochemistry can create a completely different reality for the person.

From personal experience (LSD etc.) "changed consciousness" is a misnomer. Perception is certainly altered but with no inkling for me of a difference to underlying consciousness.

With regard to karma, I have come to the conclusion that the karma of perception, our creative control of perception exerts by far the largest effect upon our eventual condition, our general state of mind and emotion, hence in turn karma as overt action. A fearfully psychotic outlook will for instance tend to perpetuate itself or spiral downwards as a sort of self fullfilling prophecy. What goes on within the mind is never overhelmed by external influences except to the extent that it wants to be, which is where the conditioning comes into it, perhaps in terms of immunity or vulnerablity.

The question thus arises of to what extent the chemistry of perception is the karma. Already for instance changes in the way the brain works have been observed to result from meditation, "in the mind" as a practical reality.

--- Ron.

"as opposed to benefiting the soul - which has nothing to do with karma"

why? benefiting means doing whitch is karma.

According to the Buddha each new moment is an entirely new existence or reality determined by its previous cause. Therefore it is impossible to escape your karma. Even the act of trying to escape your karma is an effect of a previous cause (karma).You have no free will, all of your thoughts are effects of a previous cause, there's nothing free about will.

Then why is one of the 4 essential truths of buddhism that one can escape the state of misery, ie escape karma - if karma was an eternal phenomena where would be th e possibility of getting free from it?

In otherwords karma is loosened by transendental activities

The Buddha exclusively states over and over again that you can't escape your karma. For instance Maha Mogallana (one of The Buddha's disciples) once tried to escape his karma by the use of supernatural powers but failed to do so. In the end Maha Mogallana allowed himself to be killed by people who throw a stone on him, because he knew it was his karma. The Buddha had told him he couldn't escape his karma (the law of cause and effect). Whatever is happening is the result of a previous cause, so you can't escape it.

But you can escape suffering, which is why Buddha says to maintain non-attachment, and to give up cravings (not desire) which causes suffering. When you escape suffering, you're not escaping karma, things will still happen, you just won't suffer.

So the conclusion is that you escape karma by cultivating detachment as opposed to mystic power .... but even this is slightly flawed because its consititutionally impossible for us to be unattached to something ....

The Buddha exclusively states over and over again that you can't escape your karma....

Over and over agian?

Do you happen to have a particular quote or a reference to such a statement to cite?

When I peruse the Dhammapada and sundry Sutras to check up on the authenticity of some of the modern representations of Buddhism, references to karma and ego turn out to be surpirisingly difficult to detect.

So the conclusion is that you escape karma by cultivating detachment as opposed to mystic power .... but even this is slightly flawed because its consititutionally impossible for us to be unattached to something ....

And by the same token, where please do you get this idea from, that the Buddhist way "loosens" or "escapes" karma?

--- Ron.

Perplexity,
I prefer to think of Karma as akin to game of Pool.
Every shot you take is greatly influenced and limited by all the shots you and all the other players have made prior to this one, your skill and state of mind and body at the moment, your goals and intentions, all other distractions outside the game and of course the dynamics of the physics of the game itself.
However, every shot is an action of free will within those influencing (though not strictly determining) limitations.
Every shot has varied effects - intended and unintended - and all these effects then become the influences and limitations of the proceeding shots in the game.


According to the Buddha each new moment is an entirely new existence or reality determined by its previous cause. Therefore it is impossible to escape your karma. Even the act of trying to escape your karma is an effect of a previous cause (karma).You have no free will, all of your thoughts are effects of a previous cause, there's nothing free about will.

But you can escape suffering, which is why Buddha says to maintain non-attachment, and to give up cravings (not desire) which causes suffering. When you escape suffering, you're not escaping karma, things will still happen, you just won't suffer.

Do you not realize that these two statements contradict each other?
Yes, Buddha did believe that there was no escaping Karma, but he never did say that man has no free will.
If man had no free will the Dhamma would be pointless.
Your decisions have been made for you and following the eight-fold path would be either an impossibility, or a inevitability - independent of the individual's will - which then renders Kerma pointless and effectively non-existent.

I like the pool analogy, the sense of concentration it invokes.

I have seen endless arguments elsewhere about free will and the nature of karma but they never get much further from where they started.

It is the day to day application that engages me, whatever people make if it literally, and the confusions of understanding that arise.

Is it a good idea to be aware of karma at all, or is it better to just mind the method, the way?

--- Ron.

I like the pool analogy, the sense of concentration it invokes.
Thanks.
I took the idea from a book I am working on.
The chapter is far from finished - just a shell, really.

I have seen endless arguments elsewhere about free will and the nature of karma but they never get much further from where they started.
I agree.
And it is usually due to people arguing over the "proof" of the existence of "free will", which, in my opinion, is fruitless at best.

It is the day to day application that engages me, whatever people make if it literally, and the confusions of understanding that arise.
We are of one mind on this.
I am more interested in what people think of Karma and how they apply those beliefs to their lives and decision making process than I am in the mechanics of it.

Is it a good idea to be aware of karma at all, or is it better to just mind the method, the way?
Can you truly mind the way wiothout an awareness of Karma?
If you do, aren't you living a farce, to some extent?
--- Why are you living the way you are?
--- What are your intentions?
Without minding cause and effect relationships, how can anyone work towards achieving your goals and living in alignment with your ideals?

To accomplish anything, you need two things - a goal and a way to achieve that goal.

Pragmatism is a root of Karma, and without pragmatic foresight, you have no means to accomplish your goals.

On the other hand, no one, short of a God, can see all the effects of any cause, nevermind trace those to their inevitable effects.
Unintended, unforseen reactions are at least as powerful as intended ones, so is being mindful of Karma really profitable, if even truly possible?

Can you truly mind the way without an awareness of Karma?

The question arises of what exactly one is to be aware of. My awareness likes things, stuff to perceive in real terms.


If you do, aren't you living a farce, to some extent?
--- Why are you living the way you are?
--- What are your intentions?

These are the sort of questions that look easy at first but when you get down to it the subsidiary questions proliferate ad infinitum.

I find it works better to think in terms of reaction; mind reacts to life according to taste or predisposition, i.e. karma, and in terms of probablity, probable result, rather than "intention".


Without minding cause and effect relationships, how can anyone work towards achieving your goals and living in alignment with your ideals?

To accomplish anything, you need two things - a goal and a way to achieve that goal.

Pragmatism is a root of Karma, and without pragmatic foresight, you have no means to accomplish your goals.


So according to what then do we need to accomplish?

To entertain the ego?

I like to be appreciated but specific goals turn out to be too much of a tease, cat and mouse on a bad day and "is that all there is" on a good day.

First I want to know about the predictability of the outcome, life as education, but each to his own I suppose.

Direction perhaps, that I am willing to consider responsibly.


On the other hand, no one, short of a God, can see all the effects of any cause, nevermind trace those to their inevitable effects.
Unintended, unforseen reactions are at least as powerful as intended ones, so is being mindful of Karma really profitable, if even truly possible?

It is complex. There are different ways that it works, psychologically, socially, emotionally and sensory.

I find it possible to develop a sense of karma, reflectively, cognitively, the way that a lifetime ripens according to the conditions established, and it helps then, hopefully, to develop a sense of the best moment, when to sow and when to reap, like a farmer with his eye on the weather.

I believe it is also possible though to be infected superstitiously. When we think we have done wrong and deserve to punished the outlook tends to fullfil itself, but then again that itself would be a karmic process, the effect of delusion.

--- Ron.

Well here in the Dhammapada (127) it says:
"Not in the air, not in the middle of the ocean, not entering the hole in the mountains. There is no place in the world, where one being would be released from the [consequences of] evil deeds."

Also the stories of Maha Mogallana, King Suppabuddha and other Dhammapada stories clearly show the Buddha saying that karma is inescapable, as he says the effects of karma are inevitable.

Also the statement about free will I made was statement of my own, not a Buddhist statement.

Again, don't you see that saying that there is even such thing as Karma and that one should heed it is inconsistent with the concept of strict determinism?

The question arises of what exactly one is to be aware of. My awareness likes things, stuff to perceive in real terms.
I’m not sure I follow.
You mean that you tend to concern yourself with the effects of your actions that you have tangible, verifiable evidence of?

I find it works better to think in terms of reaction; mind reacts to life according to taste or predisposition, i.e. karma, and in terms of probablity, probable result, rather than "intention".
What’s the difference, really?
If you concern yourself with probable result, then you ARE concerning yourself with intention, because if the probable result does not align with your desired result, then you will ideally act in a different way.
In other words, if the probable results and your intentions do not match, the action is not the right one.

So according to what then do we need to accomplish?

To entertain the ego?

I like to be appreciated but specific goals turn out to be too much of a tease, cat and mouse on a bad day and "is that all there is" on a good day.
Although I understand, and do agree to some extent, I think we are just looking at it from different angles or scales.
Your “Goal” could be to end world hunger…
But your “Goal” could simply be to live a more virtuous life, to quit smoking or to be nicer to people.
Striving to discern what you believe spiritually is a goal.
Even simply having the desire to learn more is a goal.
You can not live without goals.
Though, I agree, that more often than not, long-term, specific goals are more of a detriment to life.
Without goal(s), you have no direction.
Direction implies progress, which necessarily implies a destination.

First I want to know about the predictability of the outcome, life as education, but each to his own I suppose.

Direction perhaps, that I am willing to consider responsibly.
So, that is a goal of yours, no?

It is complex. There are different ways that it works, psychologically, socially, emotionally and sensory.
Exactly.

I find it possible to develop a sense of karma, reflectively, cognitively, the way that a lifetime ripens according to the conditions established, and it helps then, hopefully, to develop a sense of the best moment, when to sow and when to reap, like a farmer with his eye on the weather.
Doesn’t that, then, answer these questions:
Is it a good idea to be aware of karma at all, or is it better to just mind the method, the way?
Can you truly mind the way wiothout an awareness of Karma?
You are minding the effects and dynamics of Karma in your actions and choices.

I believe it is also possible though to be infected superstitiously. When we think we have done wrong and deserve to punished the outlook tends to fullfil itself, but then again that itself would be a karmic process, the effect of delusion.
Excellent point.
From which is borne of the concept of Hell.

Excellent point.
From which is borne of the concept of Hell.
Hell is a combination of the concepts justice and consequence (suffering). Trying to avoid the consequences of evil deeds (see Dhammapada 127 above) is the equivalent of trying to avoid hell.

Or does not thinking you did something wrong protect you from the consequences?

You mean that you tend to concern yourself with the effects of your actions that you have tangible, verifiable evidence of?
In order to find karma, to see the supposed system, you need to have some idea of what it looks like, which is not so easy, if only because of the karmic effect of looking for it, the chasing of the karmic tail.


I find it works better to think in terms of reaction; mind reacts to life according to taste or predisposition, i.e. karma, and in terms of probablity, probable result, rather than "intention".
What’s the difference, really?
If you concern yourself with probable result, then you ARE concerning yourself with intention......


In a word: hypocrisy, the difference between what we like to think that we think and what we actually do, intentions pretended and intentions surmised from observation. The most impotant decisions in life tend to be the most intuitive, with no definite advice available, congenial to full analysis at a later date perhaps, but not before.
In practice it has much to do with breaking habits, or the impossibility of breaking them.


Direction implies progress, which necessarily implies a destination.
So, that is a goal of yours, no?


Personally I am driven by curiousity, and always was and to an absurd extent, wiling to suffer all sorts of risks for the sake of it, and with scarcely an action to be detected that is free from the motivation. It gets me into all sorts of trouble, pushing things too far just to see what happens.

Other people, I do appreciate, may be relatively free from the urge to experiment but their complacency in this repect bewilders me.


You are minding the effects and dynamics of Karma in your actions and choices.


I believe it is also possible though to be infected superstitiously. When we think we have done wrong and deserve to punished the outlook tends to fullfil itself, but then again that itself would be a karmic process, the effect of delusion.

Excellent point.
From which is borne of the concept of Hell.

Indeed, and a point which has earnestly engaged me recently while reviewing an intense correspondence that continued over the past few months and with much talk of karma and sundry moral issues involved. With the facility to search text filed online it is wonderfully possible to reconsider intentions and events precisely, in extact detail, with little else involved apart from the actual online text.

What has struck me then, you could even say "shocked", is the extent to which words written lived themselves out, that what was wished for intentionally or unintentionally but in so many words actually came to be, optimism or pessimism in action as a self fullfilling prophecy.

Never mind karma, beware of what you wish for.

--- Ron.

Or does not thinking you did something wrong protect you from the consequences?
In a sense, yes.
Guilt over doing wrong is what causes suffering, in the mental/emotional sense.
If you do not believe what you did was wrong, you do not suffer from it.
For example, I feel no guilt from smoking marijuana, even though many others, including the law, says it is "wrong".

Of course, there is the physical practical aspects of negative results from "wrong" actions, but those effects are physical, tangible results on earth, such as social disorder, but those results, in my opinion, have nothing to do with "Hell", unless you personally, emotionally suffer from guilt for your actions.

Guilt over doing wrong is what causes suffering, in the mental/emotional sense.


That is a very sweeping statement.

Is this why babies cry, because of the guilt they are born with?

I grant that "if only....." is the big emotional killer, but I don't know that this equates to guilt.

Regret perhaps.

--- Ron.

In order to find karma, to see the supposed system, you need to have some idea of what it looks like, which is not so easy, if only because of the karmic effect of looking for it, the chasing of the karmic tail.
I don’t think it is difficult to see the simple concept of Karma in action, in its many levels. It is simple cause and effect.
Then again, most people I see around me seem to be disabled with respect to the concept of having consequences for your actions, or at least do not put it into practice.

In a word: hypocrisy, the difference between what we like to think that we think and what we actually do, intentions pretended and intentions surmised from observation. The most impotant decisions in life tend to be the most intuitive, with no definite advice available, congenial to full analysis at a later date perhaps, but not before.
If you are willing to be honest with yourself, no distinction needs to be made.
Blatant, dishonest justification is a far cry from honest reasoning.

In practice it has much to do with breaking habits, or the impossibility of breaking them.
Everyone I have met is a hypocrite to one degree or another.
What is important is to constantly check yourself and honestly attempt to determine if your idealistic intentions match the pragmatic results of your actions.
Sometimes that can get confusing, and sometimes it is a difficult decision to make, but it is not difficult to see if you are honest with yourself and refrain from blatant, dishonest justification.
J Krishnamurti has had some wonderfully insightful things to say about identifying yourself with a group or ideal leading to what is essentially apologetic justification.
It is very simple to see, but some people simply do not want to see it.

Personally I am driven by curiousity, and always was and to an absurd extent, wiling to suffer all sorts of risks for the sake of it, and with scarcely an action to be detected that is free from the motivation. It gets me into all sorts of trouble, pushing things too far just to see what happens.
Thus your goal is to learn, expand and grow, yes?

Other people, I do appreciate, may be relatively free from the urge to experiment but their complacency in this repect bewilders me.
Me too.
On the other hand, I can certainly understand people’s reticence to allow unchecked scientific and technological “progress” without clear, intended goals.

Indeed, and a point which has earnestly engaged me recently while reviewing an intense correspondence that continued over the past few months and with much talk of karma and sundry moral issues involved. With the facility to search text filed online it is wonderfully possible to reconsider intentions and events precisely, in extact detail, with little else involved apart from the actual online text.

What has struck me then, you could even say "shocked", is the extent to which words written lived themselves out, that what was wished for intentionally or unintentionally but in so many words actually came to be, optimism or pessimism in action as a self fullfilling prophecy.
Care to share what correspondence you are referring to?
Or at least some details of what transpired?

Never mind karma, beware of what you wish for.
Absolutely.

That is a very sweeping statement.

Is this why babies cry, because of the guilt they are born with?

You misunderstand.
I didn’t say guilt is responsible for ALL emotional/mental stress.
I am referring to the specific case of self-induced states/concepts of Hell.

If you are willing to be honest with yourself, no distinction needs to be made.
Blatant, dishonest justification is a far cry from honest reasoning.
Everyone I have met is a hypocrite to one degree or another.
What is important is to constantly check yourself and honestly attempt to determine if your idealistic intentions match the pragmatic results of your actions.
Sometimes that can get confusing, and sometimes it is a difficult decision to make, but it is not difficult to see if you are honest with yourself and refrain from blatant, dishonest justification.


But it is difficult, a precariously tricky affair at times and precisely because, as you say, the hypocrisy is everywhere.

It is an excellent habit, before accusing anybody else, to wonder "does this apply to me", but the effect of that depends upon the cognisance, the knowing of the self in practical terms. It took me a good 40 years before I really began to to get the hang of it, to see my own conditioning objectively, especially to the extent that we think we please ourselves while actually enslaved to the expectations of other people. The liberation from the want of approval was a hard fought psychological struggle, and that is where it all goes horribly wrong, with the urge to say what we think they want to hear, and the moral confusion that arises from that.

Society demands that we lie.


..... Sometimes that can get confusing, and sometimes it is a difficult decision to make, but it is not difficult to see if you are honest with yourself and refrain from blatant, dishonest justification.

Thus your goal is to learn, expand and grow, yes?


It was, long ago.

Nowadays it would rather be to keep a completely clear mind, with no thought before the very need for it.

Do you feel this, the impossibility of preparing to express honestly?

It plagues me when posting here.

Absolute spontaneity is the only expression to trust absolutely.


Care to share what correspondence you are referring to?
Or at least some details of what transpired?


For my own part yes, but the Moderator has expressly forbidden it


Moreover, most other posters will not be interested in your private affairs. I suggest you think about what matters are best kept private and what matters are suitable for posting on public forums.

and I lack the time now anyway.

Maybe one day I write the book.

--- Ron.

You misunderstand.
I didn’t say guilt is responsible for ALL emotional/mental stress.
I am referring to the specific case of self-induced states/concepts of Hell.

I have noticed this with grief, that the worst of it is the sense of unfinished business, things that we never got around to doing or saying.

If somebody dies and I have said all that I wanted to say to them, then I am at ease with it, unaffected.

---- Ron.

In a sense, yes.
Guilt over doing wrong is what causes suffering, in the mental/emotional sense.
If you do not believe what you did was wrong, you do not suffer from it.
For example, I feel no guilt from smoking marijuana, even though many others, including the law, says it is "wrong".
But that's where laws come in, isn't it? They serve to point out when something is wrong in a particular context. People obviously follow their internal law before any external ones (as expressed by some recognized authority). But many feel no guilt for theft, murder or rape, even though many others, including the law, say it is "wrong". Where do you draw the line, in respect to karma?

Of course, there is the physical practical aspects of negative results from "wrong" actions, but those effects are physical, tangible results on earth, such as social disorder, but those results, in my opinion, have nothing to do with "Hell", unless you personally, emotionally suffer from guilt for your actions.
Hell as conceived by the Greeks and Romans might have been a strictly metaphysical place, but the Judeo-Christian concept really did have to do with tangible results on earth: physical death was one (expressed as "sheol", the grave), "Gehenna" was another (a valley where child sacrifice used to take place, and fires burned continually to destroy the city's refuse). People who lived under these conditions were very literally in hell, and if the next world promised to be no better - with no end in sight, with no God, justice, or forgiveness, to present an alternative (after)life - you got Hell with a capital H.

Our thinking inevitably lives itself out. Our words and thoughts might as well be prophesies if we never change the paradigms according to which we act.

It's not our fault that we have karma. What causes karma in the first place? Karma itself can't be blamed on karma.

Did somebody say that karma is a fault?

People say that it's our fault if we are not happy, because it's our karma. But the karma is not our fault, so it's not really our "fault".
:bugeye:

When I perform an action to what extent or in what way is the action determined by previous conditions and to what extent would it rather serve an act of will to predetermine future events?

I cannot discuss the "Buddhist concept" of karma, because Buddhists are misguided, but I can discuss the Hindu one.

We are limited by our design. Thus deeds fit into that paradigm, both done by us and to us.

:m: