PDA

View Full Version : Questions on Karma



realdemigod
28 January 2013, 10:38 AM
Namaste All,
After a long break here is my post. I have the following questions on Karma.

In karma - the action is important or volition/intention is important? Which one leads to what? Like if my volition is good but action is bad will I accrue bad karma or vice versa?

Karma seems very elusive. Is it the same as Buddha taught - 'as you sow shall you reap'?

Which schools of Indian philosophy refute karma (I forgot..read somewhere)? In such cases how do they explain creation or death and rebirth? (assuming they believe in those things)

This might seem puny for many here but requesting answers from experts :)

Thanks

Viraja
28 January 2013, 06:48 PM
Namaste,

I am not an expert member but thought I will give a reference here:

Reference to karma from a Jyotish group: From http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sohamsa/message/28132 :

"Valmiki Ramayana cleanly laid down the dictum several times in the text
that the events in the native's life are the outcome four factors-
1. Vidhata 2. Prarabdha 3. Daiva -unknown causes ( refer sloka 14 ch 7 and
. sloka 14 of ch 18 of Gita) 4. Kala.
When Shri Lakshman ji was very angry on his father on 14 years of Vanvas,
Shri Rama explained in one full chapter in Valmiki Ramayana , that problems
arising out from Daivya are to be endured only.
This concept explained in very balanced manner in Chapter 18 sloka 14 of Gita.
In Astrology we can ascertain Prarabdha only from birth chart.
Even there are many Rajyoga's where it is clearly said that this
yoga will make person to live in kingly manner if born in kings
family."

From the above, we know that the above mentioned four factors come into play in determining the karma of an individual.

realdemigod
29 January 2013, 12:38 AM
thanks Aspirant01 for your reply.

wundermonk, yajvan ji and devotee ji ..any replies..would be grateful.

devotee
29 January 2013, 01:51 AM
Namaste RDG,


[FONT="Tahoma"]
In karma - the action is important or volition/intention is important? Which one leads to what? Like if my volition is good but action is bad will I accrue bad karma or vice versa?

Bhagwad Gita tells us that "an action may be actually inaction and accordingly an inaction may be actually action". How is that possible ? It depends upon your motive behind the action and attachment to the result of that action or the absence of it. Killing any person or any being accrues sin but it doesn't accrue sin if an army man kills his enemies in war to safeguard his country as his duty. If one kills another person for his own material gains, he accrues sin as a valuable life is terminated for selfish motives. If you desire to rob a person and couldn't do it due to lack of instruments required, you still accrue sins for harboring such thoughts. If gift USD 1000,000 to a person for showing your wealth to others or for getting publicity ... it doesn't get you much merit ... but if you offer even one time food to a hungry person, it accrues great merits. So, Karma is a very complicated issue. That is why we should act as per our Dharma and as advised by Shastras and Guru.


Karma seems very elusive. Is it the same as Buddha taught - 'as you sow shall you reap'?

Yes, it is the same thing. However, Karma is done by physical action, mind and also speech. So, the correct meaning of Buddha's saying has to be understood keeping that in mind.


Which schools of Indian philosophy refute karma (I forgot..read somewhere)? In such cases how do they explain creation or death and rebirth? (assuming they believe in those things)

I am not sure. Perhaps the CharvAks didn't believe in Karma and also rebirths.

OM

realdemigod
30 January 2013, 04:32 AM
Thanks devotee ji

yajvan
30 January 2013, 12:09 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ


In karma - the action is important or volition/intention is important? Which one leads to what? Like if my volition is good but action is bad will I accrue bad karma or vice versa?
Karma seems very elusive.
karma = karman = action, special duty , occupation , obligation; Word, deed, action and reaction. We are told ( in general ) there are 4 kinds╣:

nirvartya - when anything new is produced
vikārya - when change is implied either of the substance and form
prāpya - when any desired object is attained
anīpsita - when an undesired object is abandoned Yet one needs to get comfortable that all actions produce impressions... the actions can be good or not good. Impressions are formed. It is this action-impression-action that impels more actions. Let me explain by an example:
One runs a business and during the week of business has a loss in sales. To him/her this is not good and an impression ( vāsana) is made in the mind. Note this too can be the condition of a great sales week, an abundence of money, this too makes an impression upon the mind, but for this example lets us the 'loss' scenerio.
A deep impression is made; a mark of a loss. This vāsana within the shopkeeper is revisited or comes to the surface as a desire to recoup his losses when favorable conditions occur ( more cutomers, a festival season, or even the next week of busines to 'work harder and longer'). This resurfacing of this vāsana is a desire - a desire to make up, regain, move forward, make whole again any loss incurred. The impression in the mind is the seed of desire ( to regain) which leads to actions.

Now, we have another wave of actions ( more effort at his shop , more hours to work, etc) - these lead to more impressions and the cycle continues. Note all the impressions that one may take on?

To improve one's business, to get that new house, to grow the family, to move to a more siblime neibhorhood, to enter grad school, to get a green card, to have that big vacation, a new car-bike-girl or boy friend, all the desires that lead to impressions fulfilled or unfulfilled are deposited like seeds in a field .
The cycle continues and 'spills over' into other lives - hurling us forward again and gain to quench that desire. Here is the binding influence of action. In-and-of-itself it has no motive, the motive manifests in our desires.

And what of desires ?
Look to the bhāgavad gītā , chapter 5, the 23rd śloka in this light:

He who is able even here before liberation from the body, to resist
the excitement born of desire and anger is united with the divine.
He is a happy man.

Yet we must not pass up the following, kṛṣṇa informs us in the bhāgavad gītā 3.37 :
It is desire, it is anger, born of rago-guna, all consuming and most evil; know this to be the enemy here on earth.

Here in this śloka both anger and desire stand accused by the Lord. This śloka becomes a reference point throughout the ages that 'desires are bad' . This needs to be discussed - the difference is in seeing (darśana) and not seeing (adarśana).
This śloka applies to the person that remains in ignorance. 'Seeing' one knows the truth that all actions are a function of the 3 guna-s (bhāgavad gītā 3.27); 'Not seeing' deposits us to the bhāgavad gītā 3.37. The Lord is kind enough to take apart how this whole structure works
in very comprehensive terms.
What we need to be aware of is desires keeps us floating in the cycle of cause-and-effect and overshadows the purity of the Self (ātma). Kṛṣṇa says it this way in the next śloka: This is covered by that.

This ( pure awareness, pure Self, ātma) is covered by 'that'; 'that' being desires and the field of relative existence. He helps us by giving other examples 'like a mirror covered by dust' or 'an embryo covered by amnion'
or 'smoke covered by fire' .

So what does one do with these desires? One way is to replace smaller desires with a magnanimous noble desire. My teacher would say its like removing a thorn in one's finger with another thorn.
What would be that other desire? Removing ignorance that blocks the full rays of the Self.


iti śivaṁ

words
4 kinds - yet there are other ways of looking at this also. Actions done in the past, the present , and those yet to come i.e. karma-pāka those actions that are ripening & growing.

realdemigod
31 January 2013, 06:46 AM
Thanks yajvan ji.

shiv.somashekhar
31 January 2013, 08:04 AM
Namaste RDG,
I am not sure. Perhaps the CharvAks didn't believe in Karma and also rebirths.

OM

That is correct. The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

And without a soul, there can be neither Karma nor reincarnation.

wundermonk
31 January 2013, 09:59 AM
That is correct. The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

As was standard in Indian Philosophical circles, a variety of rational objections can be (and were) raised against the above view.

Firstly, the charvaka has to define what exactly he is denying. If soul does not exist (as the charvaka believed) what exactly is he negating? What is the negation of "sdfasdpuqer"? How is "sdfasdpuqer" different from invisible pink unicorn and how are "sdfasdpuqer" and invisible pink unicorn different from this "soul"? How is the non-existence of a "soul" different from the non-existence of "sdfasdpuqer"?

Next, what evidence does the Charvaka put forth to believe that the afterlife does not exist?

Next, why does the Charvaka eat food to satiate his hunger? If it is based on induction, the Charvaka position is itself undermined as he unwittingly believe in induction. This leads to belief-behaviour conflict and the Charvaka can be rightly accused of hypocrisy - preach one thing but practise another, a.k.a. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

If it is based on perception the Charvaka should clarify how he has reached the conclusion that food satisfies hunger.

philosoraptor
31 January 2013, 12:22 PM
That is correct. The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

And without a soul, there can be neither Karma nor reincarnation.

In that case, how do the lokayatas account for the phenomenon of consciousness?

shiv.somashekhar
31 January 2013, 12:34 PM
As was standard in Indian Philosophical circles, a variety of rational objections can be (and were) raised against the above view.
Firstly, the charvaka has to define what exactly he is denying. If soul does not exist (as the charvaka believed) what exactly is he negating?

It is about "not accepting". Not accepting a trasmigrating soul that spans multiple bodies or exists an individual entity after the death of the body - due to lack of evidence.


Next, what evidence does the Charvaka put forth to believe that the afterlife does not exist?

Lokayata does not have to prove anything here. The burden of proof is on the party who posited the existence of afterlife.


Next, why does the Charvaka eat food to satiate his hunger? If it is based on induction, the Charvaka position is itself undermined as he unwittingly believe in induction. This leads to belief-behaviour conflict and the Charvaka can be rightly accused of hypocrisy - preach one thing but practise another, a.k.a. "Do as I say, not as I do!"

If it is based on perception the Charvaka should clarify how he has reached the conclusion that food satisfies hunger.

How do you prove perception? Btw, no system of philosophy has a problem with perception...so I am not clear if you are questioning the value of perception.

shiv.somashekhar
31 January 2013, 12:36 PM
In that case, how do the lokayatas account for the phenomenon of consciousness?

Svabhava. Consciousness can be known by perception and therefore is not a problem.

wundermonk
31 January 2013, 12:51 PM
It is about "not accepting". Not accepting a trasmigrating soul that spans multiple bodies or exists an individual entity after the death of the body - due to lack of evidence.

Evidence could be of multiple forms. Perception while accepted by all Darshanas is but one means of evidence. That a self exists that is capable of feeling pain/pleasure, etc. and that karma guides this self in its varied experiences is a strong theistic argument for the existence of a self that simultaneously rescues the God from partiality and cruelty in having created this world. So, the theist is quite rational in holding that a self/karma exist. The Charvaka can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that a "soul does not exist" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face. More on this below.


Lokayata does not have to prove anything here. The burden of proof is on the party who posited the existence of afterlife.

The Burden of Proof is one who makes a claim. If the charvaka claims that a "soul does not exist" he shoulders the burden of proof. As I said before, no one cares what the charvaka thinks in the confines of his home privately. But the moment he comes out in public and shouts "There is no soul" or if he posts similarly on HDF, the burden of proof stares at him straight between his eyes. No amount of jostling to shift the burden of proof can work here. The "weak atheist" has no burden of proof as he is an agnostic atheist. The "strong atheist" who claims that "God does NOT exist" is the gnostic atheist and should provide proof. Also, non-existence CAN be proven. For e.g. I can prove that a highest prime does not exist. I can also prove that the moon is not made of cheese. So, one CAN prove a negative. The charvaka is yet to do so.



How do you prove perception? Btw, no system of philosophy has a problem with perception...so I am not clear if you are questioning the value of perception.

No one has thus far in this thread stated that perception needs proof. Please reread my argument above again. To distill its essence further, on what basis does the charvaka eat food to satisfy hunger? If it is past experience, then the charvaka indirectly admits memory as a valid source of knowledge refuting his stated position that perception is the only means of knowledge. There is further no reason to believe that the future will behave like the past unless one believes in induction. But any belief about the future can only be inferred but the charvaka, much to his distress, does NOT admit inference to be a valid source of knowledge.

yajvan
31 January 2013, 08:08 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ




karma = karman = action, special duty , occupation , obligation; Word, deed, action and reaction. We are told ( in general ) there are 4 kinds╣:

nirvartya - when anything new is produced
vikārya - when change is implied either of the substance and form
prāpya - when any desired object is attained
anīpsita - when an undesired object is abandoned Let's look at another's view:

śeṣa pata˝jali ( the author of the yoga-sūtras) informs us in the 3rd chapter (vibhūti pāda ) 22nd sūtra:

sopakramaṁ nirupakramaṁ ca karma tatsaṁyamādaparāntaj˝ānamariṣṭebhyo vā ||22

karma is of two kinds - sopakramaṁ and (ca) nirupakramaṁ ... ( he informs us of some other things in this sūtra, but I am only calling out the idea of karman).


sopakramaṁ = sopakrama = set about , undertaken
We note that sopakrama = sa + upakrama
sa in this use is 'bestowing'
nirupakramaṁ = nirupakrama = having no commencement

We note that nirupakrama = nir + upakrama
nir = nis = away from,
What do you think these two types of karman are ?


iti śivaṁ

words

4 kinds - yet there are other ways of looking at this also. Actions done in the past, the present , and those yet to come i.e. karma-pāka those actions that are ripening & growing

shiv.somashekhar
31 January 2013, 08:25 PM
The Charvaka can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that a "soul does not exist" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face. More on this below.

With all due respect, this does not meet the basic test of logic 101. This statement is as ridiculous as -

"Wundermonk can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that "Santa Claus is not real" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face".


The Burden of Proof is one who makes a claim

And yet, you missed the fundamentals and contradicted yourself. The theist made the claim and the Carvaka rejects it for lack of evidence. The Carvaka has *nothing* to prove here - not unless you agree with your own absurd Santa Claus logic above.

Please take the time to read about "argumentum ad ignorantiam", Philosophic burden of proof and Russell's celestial teapot.

To be more clear, my exact statement was - The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

Lokayata makes no claims; they only reject claims that cannot be proven - a point that you clearly missed. Feel free to prove otherwise.

philosoraptor
31 January 2013, 08:26 PM
Svabhava. Consciousness can be known by perception and therefore is not a problem.

What I meant is, what do they consider to be the source of consciousness? What is the difference to them between a living body and a dead body? Consciousness, obviously. But what gives rise to consciousness, according to them?

shiv.somashekhar
02 February 2013, 12:27 PM
What I meant is, what do they consider to be the source of consciousness? What is the difference to them between a living body and a dead body? Consciousness, obviously. But what gives rise to consciousness, according to them?

I don't understand the question. Why should something give rise to consciousness?

yajvan
02 February 2013, 04:30 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ

It seems to me the string is veering-off topic...That of karman, yet we find ourselves on to other subject matter.

iti śivaṁ

shiv.somashekhar
03 February 2013, 07:27 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namastÚ

It seems to me the string is veering-off topic...That of karman, yet we find ourselves on to other subject matter.

iti śivaṁ

Apologies.

philosoraptor
05 February 2013, 09:42 AM
I don't understand the question. Why should something give rise to consciousness?

Because consciousness is an irrefutable fact of life, as is the fact that it represents the difference between a living body and a dead body. Both are chemically the same, yet one has consciousness and the other does not. It is a poorly-thought-out philosophy that cannot accept at least the principle that something accounts for this property when seen in living things that is not present in dead things, if even only to acknowledge its existence without saying anything more about it.

wundermonk
05 February 2013, 12:51 PM
With all due respect, this does not meet the basic test of logic 101. This statement is as ridiculous as -

"Wundermonk can hold any belief he likes within the confines of his home but the moment he opens his mouth in public to claim that "Santa Claus is not real" the burden of proof faces him straight in the face".



And yet, you missed the fundamentals and contradicted yourself. The theist made the claim and the Carvaka rejects it for lack of evidence. The Carvaka has *nothing* to prove here - not unless you agree with your own absurd Santa Claus logic above.

Please take the time to read about "argumentum ad ignorantiam", Philosophic burden of proof and Russell's celestial teapot.

To be more clear, my exact statement was - The Lokayata position is to not accept anything without evidence and therefore they rejected the concept of a soul, which was entirely based on faith.

Lokayata makes no claims; they only reject claims that cannot be proven - a point that you clearly missed. Feel free to prove otherwise.

With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to making claims, logic and ensuing burdens of proof.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNxbXQecm2I) is a snippet of video that you may learn from.

SuryaVedanta754
09 January 2014, 02:10 AM
re original post...

Karma involves the overt and hidden laws of the cosmos...of how it functions. In that sense there is a science to it.

Karma, ultimately, is in the hands of God, who is a fully conscious being, omniscient and omnipotent.

In other words, we can not manipulate God, He knows all, sees all and responds to all.

Karma absolutely involves both action and intention.

If we intend to do good, but wind up failing and making things worse for others and ourselves, God certainly knows that we tried to do the opposite.

Karma will accrue if our actions cause harm to others. That is so even if the intent is good. However, that Karma is mitigated by the good intent.

Life is action. We are, no matter what, going to stumble and engage in actions which do result in harming others. However, our meditation, prayer, charity, volunteer work and all aspects of the spiritual life purify bad karma.

So, if we have done something that has resulted in harm to others, we should pray for forgiveness, pray for those that have been harmed, try to redress the situation if we can...and then move on and continue to try to do good.

It is very important in the spiritual life to consciously engage actions which directly, overtly, help others. We should directly give to the poor, engage in all manner of kindness, courtesy, caring, and giving. Because of the situations we find ourselves in, in life...if we don't consciously do a tremendous amount of good, we will be dragged down by poor karma.

If our employment engages us in negative situations...whether it is selling insurance to widows who can't afford it...or whatever other ignorance that exists in the world...by all means run away from these actions with all speed. If you can't and are entangled, do the best you can. By, yes, absolutely try to purify and spiritualize all your activities, to maximize your karma.

We have a soul. We must serve that. Balance is good, but the general entangled mess most folks engage is a huge karmic impediment.

(here is the gist of a story, details are a little foggy in my memory, but this is the gist) ---

Upon hearing that an aspirant was a lawyer, Sri Ramakrishna basically moaned in agony.

Funny as a joke, I guess...but the immoral behavior involved in many jobs is not a joke, by any means.









Namaste All,
After a long break here is my post. I have the following questions on Karma.

In karma - the action is important or volition/intention is important? Which one leads to what? Like if my volition is good but action is bad will I accrue bad karma or vice versa?

Karma seems very elusive. Is it the same as Buddha taught - 'as you sow shall you reap'?

Which schools of Indian philosophy refute karma (I forgot..read somewhere)? In such cases how do they explain creation or death and rebirth? (assuming they believe in those things)

This might seem puny for many here but requesting answers from experts :)

Thanks

__________________

devotee
12 January 2014, 10:40 PM
Namaste Surya,



In karma - the action is important or volition/intention is important? Which one leads to what? Like if my volition is good but action is bad will I accrue bad karma or vice versa?
Karma seems very elusive. Is it the same as Buddha taught - 'as you sow shall you reap'?

It is your thoughts/intention which are solely responsible for a Karma to be bad or good, even though Karma is performed by Mind (thoughts), physical action and verbal expression.

Bhagwad Gita teaches us the essence of Karma and how it functions. Actually, the highest Truth is that there is no Karma because all actions are done by Prakriti and its three bgunas (Ref : Bhafgwad Gita). So, if a Jeeva's 'i' dissolves into one-ness with Brahman (in SamAdhi) and all differentiation is dropped i.e. ahamkaar is dropped, all Karmas are burnt. That is why Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita :

0. (In fact) All actions in all forms are performed by gunas of Nature (Prakriti) alone the deluded being due to its Ahamkaar (feeling of having a separate existence as a being) thinks that he is the doer (and thus takes the Karma on itself) (BG 3.27)

1. He who sees inaction (akarma) in action (karma) and action in inaction, is wise among the men and he is Yogi and he is the doer of all actions. (BG 4.18)

2. He who indulges in karma without desires and attachment to results and whose all Karma are burnt in fire of JnAna (Knowledge of the Truth or Self-realisation) ... is called the "Pandita" (the knower) by even the wise people. (BG 4.19)

3. He who indulges in action without any attachment to action or its results actually doesn't indulges in any action even though performing the action fully involved. (BG 4.20)

4. The way fire burns down the fire-wood and turns it into ashes, in the same way JnAna (Self-realisation) burns down all Karma without leaving a trace. (BG 4.37)

5. There is nothing in this world as purifying as the JnAna (Self-realisation) (BG 4.38)


Which schools of Indian philosophy refute karma (I forgot..read somewhere)? In such cases how do they explain creation or death and rebirth? (assuming they believe in those things)


The ChArvAks don't believe in re-births and therefore, there is no concept of Karma in that philosophy. All births and deaths are simply due to laws of nature in action. The one who is born doesn't take birth again. Whatever happens to the person in his life is just based on chances and there is no karma or karmaphala and there is no God either.

OM