Reading Philosophy

Karma is a sanskrit term that signifies action or deed. Any physical or mental action is karma. Thinking is mental karma. Karma is the sum total of our acts, both in the present life and in the preceding births.

Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action. The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action and cannot be divided from it. The law of karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced.

To sum up : if we do bad, we get bad and vice versa.

Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person.

The reason i say this is because you are doing good because you want good, you know you'll get good from the effect of karma.

Why not do good and not expect anything from it? Would'nt that be better to follow?

NI

Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person.

No because if you do good things than other people will recieve the product of your goodness. And vice versa. Its not selfish. Its the golden rule. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you.

Why not do good and not expect anything from it? Would'nt that be better to follow?

This works once in a while but humans want to be rewarded. We need to be rewarded so that we will keep on doing good things, everybody needs a pat on the back once in a while. Its healthy and nobody realistically can expect anybody to do something for nothing over and over again and never expect something in return.

Would you just keep on doing things when you know you'll never get anything in return for it? I wouldn't. But if there is that chance that you will get something in return for it than that makes all the difference in the world.

I was still confused as to the exact definition of karma so I did a little more reading on it and this is what I came up with.

Karma it seems has three types :

1. Satvik karma which are selfless acts of giving with the aim of helping others.

2. Rajasik karma which are basically selfish acts for the purpose of self gain.

3. Tamasik karma where the selfish act is inflicted for the sole purpose of hurting.

From these definitions I would say that most humans practice the second kind; rajasik karma.

I guess I could then be partially right in saying that karma is selfish.

NI

Sorry, but the Golden Rule is also selfish. Think of what you just wrote: Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. How is that NOT serfish? By virtue of it being the "Golden Rule", somehow that makes it automatically un-selfish? More to the point, this "Rule" (Karma is also considered a "rule") gives us the WHY we should do our best for others...because it will IMPACT us directly. I don't want to get slapped in the face. It hurts. It stings. I don't like pain. I won't hit that person. I will be nice to that other person. I don't like rejection, it makes me feel squishy inside. It just doesn't get more selfish than that.

But this is only half of the discussion. The just-as-major question to me is: Is it preferable to be selfish or non-selfish? I'm thinking it's actually preferable to be selfish. Having children is pretty GD selfish, but it's also necessary for the survival of our bloodline, and the human race in general.

And I'll even postulate the following, in reference to: " But if there is that chance that you will get something in return for it than that makes all the difference in the world." (You started out saying that you'd not keep doing a thankless task, but then said I might after all. I'm paraphrasing, I know; but that's essentially where your viewpoint ended.) The postulate: being a smart person, you know very well that you won't do a thankless job indefinitely. Karma, or not, there needs to be a pay-off. That is simple human nature. Those who don't get that, I submit, are broken people who hold very little hope. And I'll tell you what, I have no problems doing things in my life that are going to give me some kinda reward

Sure, Karma is selfish, but by virtue of mind, it's inescapable. The point of the Teachings of Karma are to simply remind us to step lightly, and don't hold our riches here on earth. The bible also teaches the same thing in its parables.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Sorry, but the Golden Rule is also selfish. Think of what you just wrote: Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. How is that NOT serfish? By virtue of it being the "Golden Rule", somehow that makes it automatically un-selfish?

Selfish in the sense that I would not do anything to anybody that I would not want done to me. Sure its selfish but it keeps you honest. Surely we can never abide by it 100% of the time but its a damn good rule to live by. Sometimes selfish is not so bad of a thing.

I happen to like being appreciated. So in return I can try my best to show others that I appreciate them, its good business. Just as I want to be appreciated for the things I do, I show appreciation for the people in my life. I did not do this before two months ago. I just started living by this rule and now is never too late to start doing good things. Sure it may be selfish in my own respect because I want appreciation in return. I won't always get it, sometimes I will but its a good trade off. You convey to others that you are a caring and conisderate person and in return you will be appreciated at some point. Its a game of chance. Sometimes you'll win and sometimes you'll loose. Its a game worth playing.

But call it Karma or Golden Rule it really doesn't matter. I'm more interested in gaining some type of acceptance into greater society. Instead of being a head in the crowd I'm trying to become a good person, show people that I'm generally a good person who does good things and start living with a purpose instead of stealing oxygen.

But as you were saying about selfishness. Its a needed characteristic of being alive. My body needs food to survive so am I selfish for eating. Yes.

I need love. Am I selfish for giving love and expecting love in return? Yes. However, depression seems like a dark solemn road to travel. I'd rather be selfish.

We all have needs and we all do different things to fulfill those needs. Some needs are more selfish than others but nonetheless need to be filled in some manner or other. My point being selfishness mixed with a nice balance of giving will do us all good in the long run.

My friend, if I may, you've contradicted yourself over the past two posts. First Karma wasn't selfish, but, like the Golden Rule, simply a way to live. Then, the following post it became selfish. I think that when people think about it, they inevitably come to the conclusion that karma is selfish. So what?

Again, I refer to the context of my point. You not doing something because you don't want something bad to happen TO YOU is selfish. Period. So what? The intent I think is to say "oh, that has to be bad because it's labled 'selfish.'" How is that a BAD thing? It's like poeople don't want to simply say "It's selfish." They have to give an explanation or justification as to WHY. (And no offense to what you're saying; this was a general statement.)

This whole issue is actually a mental trap. I have to go with what I said in the original post, as the only release there from. If one stops thinking about what it is, and why, then the argument becomes moot, and one is on his/her way to enlightenment. And THAT is the purpose of the teachings of Karma--ultimately enlightenment.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. How is that NOT serfish?

The idea is to remind yourself that everything you do to somebody is going to evince some kind of emotion, and as long as you remind yourself of how bad you feel when you're hurt by somebody, you'll realize how you make other people feel when you hurt them. It's not selfishness, it's decency.

Thbbbbt

Not doing something for yourself is selfish, doing something for yourself at the expense of something else is.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

Not doing something for yourself is selfish

I guess you meant :
Doing something for yourself is not selfish.

To clear things out i've got some examples to put down how the above three mentioned karma's would affect a person.

One thing we know, is that according to the principle of karma, destiny is unavoidable (according to the Oxford English Dictionary one definition of karma is destiny).

But the method of facing, accepting, suffering or enjoying the destiny/karma is different with different kinds of people.

For example, Mr. A did one sinful action as a result of which it is destined that he shall have to starve and go without meals for one day.

(1 ) Now, if he is a SATVIK man (of pious mentality and motives), he will voluntarily observe a holy fast or something; prayers maybe and keep his mind engaged in pious thoughts and prayers for the whole day. In this way he will willingly accept his destiny of going without meals for one day and thereby he will neutralise his previous sin. Not only that but while thus mitigating and exhausting his destiny he will also earn the fruits of new pious actions of voluntarily observing fast and chanting the name of God. Such pious deeds will again ripen as a new good destiny for him to enjoy subsequently.

(2) However supposing he is a RAJSIK man (of pragmatic but selfish mentality or motives), one day for some very urgent and important work, he was compelled by his boss to labour for the whole day in his factory and the poor fellow could not find any time even to take his lunch and dinner and had to go without meals and starve on that day. Thus he had to face, accept, mitigate and exhaust the destiny of his previous sinful action.

(3) And, supposing he is a TAMSIK man (of crooked temperament or mentality and motives), one day he quarrelled with his wife merely for the sake of satisfying his crooked motives. Overcome by his furious anger he rashly skipped his meals during the whole day and in this way he suffered the destiny of his previous sinful actions. In the process, he also earned and accumulated one new sinful action which would again ripen as a new bad luck in due course of time, thus bringing more suffering in future.

Taking another converse example of Mr. B, supposing he did one pious deed as a result of which it is destined that he will get 100 dollars some day when that action is matured.

(1) Mr. B is a Custom Officer at an international airport. One day while checking the baggage of a smuggler, he found items of questionable legality. But when the smuggler gave him a bribe of 100 dollars, he allowed the baggage to go without checking. Thus he enjoyed the destiny of his previous pious action by getting 100 dollars. But being a TAMSIK man, he earned it by crooked means and thereby he created a new sinful action which would again mature and ripen as a new bad luck which he will have to face in future-say by giving 200 dollars to a doctor for the treatment of his leg injured in an accident.

(2) However, if he is not a Tamsik man but a RAJSIK man, he would refuse to accept the bribery of 100 dollars and take legal action against the smuggler. In that case
his destiny of getting 100 dollars is postponed for some later time, but it will not be lost. This destiny will not rest till he has anyhow reaped the benefit of 100 dollars.
One day, he unexpectedly purchased a T.V. Set on payment of only 400 dollars even though its reasonable market price was 500 dollars, as the dealer charged him 100 dollars less only because he happened to be a customs officer. Thus he got the benefit of 100 dollars due to his previous good deed.

(3) If he is a man of SATWIK temperament, he would refuse to take indirect advantage of his post by paying 100 dollars less. In that case, his destiny of getting the benefit of 100 dollars would be postponed for a while, but again it will not rest until he actually gets 100 dollars in his pocket by some other means.
A few days later, one passenger in a great hurry forgot on his table a purse containing 1000 dollars. From the identity card found in the purse, he immediately ran down to the house of the passenger and gave him his purse. The passenger was delighted and raptured with joy. Being overwhelmed with gratitude he most humbly, gratefully and with great satisfaction gave him a reward of 100 dollars for his nobility. Thus while enjoying his destiny of getting 100 dollars, he also earned one new pious action which would in turn ripen as a new destiny bringing him further joy and happiness.

Thus the Satvik man enjoys his good luck with pious mentality by satisfying others, the Rajsik man with selfish mentality gets his good luck in bargaining with others and
the Tamasik man by torturing others. In any case destiny destiny does not rest until the person has suffered or enjoyed and exhausted it.

I hope this clears things out.

NI

Karma also dies in closely with Dharma; as in, according to the Hindu religion, if you had bad karma in a apst life, it is reflected by a lower caste or bad luck in your current life. People who expirience this be the best they can be, follow their dharma exceptionally, to make up for their past life/lives which gave them such bad karma.

So it's not just doing good deeds that creates good karma, its following your dharma, your life's path, being the best you can not only to others but to yourself.

Karma is not a selfish thought, it's basicly a way to be a good person, to reach maksha (Maksha, for those of you who don't know, is the breaking out of rebirth, your soul has been so elightened that it needs not be reborn, so it become immortal, a part of the universe), and to be able to live the best life you can live.

I totally understand, however, the way you see it; it does look like the only reason you do good is to get good karma, and therefore helping yourself. But it's a much better way to help yourself, then to get everything you want through violence and force, isn't it now?

I'm very handy with a meat-cleaver, ~Arei Drea

Speaking of dharma -The Law Of Duty,it says that at various stages of your life you have to perform certain duties.

Thus a child is to be a child, seeking pleasure and sensory gratification, above all else--experiencing the world around it. The young adult is challenged to search for the meaning of his/her karma and corresponding dharma. The married adult choose to fulfill a householders role and will adopt the appropriate dharma for that.

Among indian families it is a general custom to take care of the parents when you grow up and start earning. It is supposed to be another dharma.

However, I would not want my children to grow up and take care of me and my wife. Now would that qualify as bad dharma for them. I would say not.

Hence i think it would be appropriate to say that Dharma is the code of conduct that is appropriate to each individual's set of circumstances.

NI

Like I said, kama is taught differently in different cultures. The Buddha broke apart from the standard orthodoxies (i.e. Hindu) teachings not just because he was enlightened. But because he saw that (like those anti-Church) he saw that organized religions have a way of rotting the individual's spirit, and society by extension.

Dharma also means "path, or way." Buddha taught a much different version of dharma. Essentially, he changed his dharma to become enlightened. But then look at what's become of it. What, actually, was his dharma? To be his father's son, or the saviour of a continent?

And more to the point, the Original Mind (i.e. God, or the Ultimate Reality, or Buddha Mind) uses the principle of kharma, dharma and reincarnation to get us to the point of returning Home. So essentially, we could look at dharma as a way of serving God, but then through successive lives of karma we can return "to the light," according to the Vedas, and Gitas. But The Buddha would maintain that anyone can become enlightened IN THIS VERY LIFE--essentially jumping ahead of many lifetimes of (perhaps) bad kama (karma).

Oh, BTW Karma means action, true. So what, then, is the karma Sutra?

Think of it.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Oh, BTW Karma means action, true. So what, then, is the karma Sutra?

What you're calling karma sutra is actually kama sutra.

Kama is desire or sex practised in holy honour.

Sutra meaning short story or aphorism.

The complete title does make more sense, Kama Sutra-A Tale of Love.

NI

Especially after they've been translated from another culture.
Actually, there's only a shade of difference between karma and kama. Where "kama" means "through the action of its own desire" (according to Guenon*), and "karma" means "Volition, volitional or intentional activity" (according to Ch'an Master Ta-Chu Hui-Hai**). "Sutra" is literally "thread; that which, like a thread runs through or connects everything; in the Buddhist context it refers to the Buddha's discourses" (Hui-Hai).

In Buddhist texts Kama and Karma are interchanged. Often, Kama is used for a specific reason (which I won't get into). The TECHNICAL definitions have them with a nieuances of difference. However, practically they're the same. Or I should say, from the Buddhist perspective they're both the same. Desire is the root of all suffering.

And I ask again, What IS the Kama-Sutra?

(*"Man and his Becoming According to the Vedanta," Rene Guenon, 1958, Noonday Press.

** ""Entering the Tao of Sudden Enlightenment," By Ch'an Master Ta-chu Hai-Hui, 1995, Sutra Translation Committee of the United States and Canada.)

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

The Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana is a religious text which describes the art of making love. ( To put it in short words)

Being an objectivist in some ways I was reminded of Francisco d' Anconia's words to Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He says this :

"No matter what corruption he's (man) is taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! "

Not possible to do it for charity, isn't it.

So now isn't the kama sutra dealing with a selfish subject. That is my interpretation

NI

The Kama Sutra by Vatsyayana is a religious text which describes the art of making love. ( To put it in short words)

True. I'll even grant that "sutra" can mean story or collection of stories. But as such, that logically contradicts the premise of the teaching "religious" text. Essentially it minimises the spiritual nature of the text; it cheapens it. This is the problem with Western thinking imposed upon texts like the Kama Sutra, or other Sutras (Vedas included). Likewise, by simply "describing" the act itself, that act is removed FROM the religious/spiritual nature that is inherent in it, according to the texts. As such, it doesn't describe the act. It identifies the spirituality inherent in love-making as a way to achieve contact with God.

Being an objectivist in some ways I was reminded of Francisco d' Anconia's words to Hank Rearden in Atlas Shrugged. He says this :
"No matter what corruption he's (man) is taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment - just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity! "
Not possible to do it for charity, is it? <edited>
So now isn't the kama sutra dealing with a selfish subject? <edited>That is my interpretation
NI

Nice quote. Very nice. Zen likes. I'd disagree though.
Your [presumed] questions are valid, and difficult. The act of making love may be one of the most selfish things that we can do. But that doesn't mean there isn't a religious or spiritual signifigance to it. In fact, I'd maintain that the object of the Kama Sutra is grand in that it tries to teach its adherents that there is a God-consciousness attached to the act of sex itself. And doing it simply for ones own pleasure without considering the pleasure of the other FIRST, is selfish and should be avoided.

But we're also told in practice like Krija and other yogas, that practice of certain forms is preferable. It's the perfect execution of these forms that lead us to a certain level of consciousness, or nearing-to-god. Likewise, following the forms presented in the Kama Sutra or direction in the Ananga Ranga, leads both individuals to a higher consciousness.

So therefore, in perfect service to self, and the "other self" (i.e. your mate), you achieve service the the Greater Self, a.k.a. God.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

And doing it simply for ones own pleasure without considering the pleasure of the other FIRST, is selfish and should be avoided.

Now, if you were to derive pleasure from the fact that you were able to give pleasure to someone else is also selfish. ( Giving pleasure to get pleasure).

Heh. We could go round and round with this.

I totally agree with the fact that the art has been made to look rather cheap by, I would say, 'certain' thinkings and a more 'spiritualistic' approach might make people look at it in a different way

NI

Now, if you were to derive pleasure from the fact that you were able to give pleasure to someone else is also selfish. ( Giving pleasure to get pleasure).

You're absolutely right. Yet something else in the arena of "religion" or "philosophy" that's a a double-edged sword. I've said from the beginning tha karma is selfish. The act of love is selfish. So we'd go around and round, but not for very long. :) More to the point, there's nothing, NOTHING truly unselfish on this planet.

Bagwan Shree Rashneesh says that today the act of making love is like a sneeze, and that's why there's so many unhappy people in the world. I can probably agree with that.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Karma...signifies action or deed. Any physical or mental action is karma. Thinking is mental karma. Karma is the sum total of our acts, both in the present life and in the preceding births.
Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action.

The problem is that not all karmas are "created equal." The subtext of karma is the re-incarnation aspect. It is, true, it is the reward/punishment that people receive after their life, and for many lives hence. With different cultures, Karma is taught as different things. Buddhist differs from Hindu, et al.
In the Buddhist (Mayahana) tradition, the siddhu (students) are taught that thinking and Not-thinking are all forms. They lead to the 5 skanda which are (if memory servs correctly): Feelings, thoughts, perceptions, desires and body--4 mind, one body. One can not escape these skandas while in the flesh, unless becoming enlightened.

The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action and cannot be divided from it. The law of karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced.

Think about something. There is nothing on this planet that isn't selfish. Nothing. Karma, if it exists, is part of that. I would agree that Karma is, essentially a selfish thing. Regardless of which comes first, the action or the intention. It is at the level of intention and desire that karma works. Saying action/consequence is putting the cart first, according to Buddhist teachings. So in the knowledge and awareness of our intentions, we weed out thoughts, perceptions, desires, feelings and body (another form of feeling) to get to our true Buddha Nature.
At that level, we're told, such things as selfishness and hurt, pain, ego, and the like no longer exist. Therefore, obviously, there is no more selfishness, as there is no more Ego.

To sum up : if we do bad, we get bad and vice versa.

So, if I may summarize, nothing in this world is NOT selfish because of our thoughts, perceptions, feelings and ego attached to them. When we THINKabout karma, or Not-Think about it the same, is is automatically selfish. However, the struggle is to "right-thinking" (a name for the crude purpose of identification), which is actually dissipating thinking. At that point, our True Nature, the Mind of the Buddha emerges, we're enlightened, and nothing, and not-nothing, becomes selfish anymore. Time, place, feelings, thinking cease, and all there is is the Divine connection with The All, or the Greater Buddha-Mind.

Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person.

Yes. Agreed. But what is the intent of PUTTING karma into mind? Simply by that act, as shown above, one would be Intending to be selfish.

The reason i say this is because you are doing good because you want good, you know you'll get good from the effect of karma.

Want is desire; one of the 5 Skandas. Desire leads to the karmic wheel. Essentially, don't desire, and it won't matter what Karma has in store for you.

Why not do good and not expect anything from it? Would'nt that be better to follow?

We're told that "good" and "bad" are sides of the same coin. Basically, more Thinking. We look for good, or bad, because it's how we condition ourselves to adapt.
Un-adapt, and then ask that question if it even matters then.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Ok, the problem here, as i see it, is that we all seem to have this pre-conception that being selfish is bad. Wrong.

This is one of those things we cannot define, not that we haven't tried multiple times. This debate is entirely subjective. We're all sitting here arguing our own little theories, which nobody else can argue back to!

In my opinion, karma is selfish, but i still think it's a good principle. What i see to be "good" is present is this form of selfishness.

Instead of thinking of selfishness as juust a point of "badness" think of selfishness as a sliding scale. You put this form whereever you want to place it. And i'll put it where i want to.

I really do not see how one can argue that karma is not selfish. You are thinking of the self. I dont think that is debatable at all, and after reading the given arguments against it, i still stick to my belief. They seem confused, befudled by this concept of good vs. Bad. The arguments i've read have made little sense to me. They just seem to reinforce the fact that karma is indeed selfish. But that it is also good.

I f we can get our heads around the concept that being selfish is not auto matically bad or wrong we can come to some from of conclusion.

-Mel

Look at me! I'm a prostitute robot from the future!

Satori!

Ok, the problem here, as i see it, is that we all seem to have this pre-conception that being selfish is bad. Wrong.

Speak for yourself. Read what I wrote above. This is, essentially what I've said from the beginning.

More to the point, in Hindu culture we find that Brahma is impassionate and principled. In fact, Brahm isn't a "personal" god, but the essence of principle itself. It is Brahm, the Divine Principle which is said to control Karma, yet another principle. A principle can be neither good nor bad if it is to be just.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Let's say you're right--karma is selfish. What significant implications can we draw from this conclusion? i'm just asking because i still don't see the significance of this debate and i don't want to think that this whole thread was a waste of time for those who participated.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

This post was edited by childeoftheblood on Nov 29, 2003.

My basic aim in asking this question was to question the ways of the old sages.

Religions thrive on preaching selflessness as a virtue and when they preach karma as a virtue too, I feel, they are contradicting themselves as we have a majority of people seeing karma as a selfish act.

Simple and sweet.

NI

Thanks for answering, acid reign. One more question: The sages don't really see karma as a "virtue," do they? I mean, karma just is. So maybe selflessness is a virtue, they may argue, according to the rules governing the universe which they call karma. It's not necessarily a virtue based on absolute good because karma is neither good nor evil. It could be a matter of pragmatism, of what makes practical sense. In the first place, is goodness (at least our idea of "goodness" as caring for your fellow human being) a fundamental virtue in the thought system of these sages. Different religious or philosophical systems have different cornerstones--love for christianity, purity for another religion, enlightenment for another, etc. So the same people who do believe in karma may find the issue of selfishness irrelevant because they don't see selflessness as the main "good" thing in the universe.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

Karma is like a guidepost, or a roadsign. It's just there to give guidance. The Psalms and proverbs, and Analects, and Sutras of our world religions ALL do the same thing. So on the one hand no, it's not a virtue. But not thinking and not focusing on karma is. I'll not insult your intellegence by saying I hope this makes sense.

I have a friend that calls most religions "morality based systems." I've told him that there is no such thing as religion without the moral base. I think that all huimans, even the so-called Enlightened Ones need little reminders, i.e. the Doctrine of Karma, of our "true nature" as human animals.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

Let's say you're right--karma is selfish. What significant implications can we draw from this conclusion? i'm just asking because i still don't see the significance of this debate and i don't want to think that this whole thread was a waste of time for those who participated.

Wow, that's narrow, especially coming from a writer, penniless or otherwise. A discussion is a civil exchange between two differing viewpoints, yes or no? Were you perhaps thinking that since the original presumption was soundly reasoned, others would just automatically agree with it?

It seems to me that any discussion that remains civil, and displays thought is a VERY GOOD discussion. However, If you think that's a waste of time, then it is, right?

However
Let's say I'm right: Attention of the mind to any subject of the physical or mental realm is selfish (karma would be included therein.) The signifigant implication is that we should stop using so much energy on destructive thinking. How is understanding that a wast of time?

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This post was edited by zen on Nov 30, 2003.

Narrow is relative. But i have to disagree if you are preaching philosophy for philosophy's sake. I'm up to the neck with pretentious academics from the university whose measure of a very good discussion is how long they can keep it going and how loud their voices can get. These kind of people just keep talking on talking so they can sound smart and not so they can truly pursue matters of intellectual importance. It is actually because i assumed that most of nao people are not like that that i asked my question--i didn't want people getting sidetracked by superficialities. The issue of whether or not karma is selfish, to me, remains superficial unless we talked of it's implications in matters of living. Philosophizing within ivory towers is not my idea of a "very good" discussion.

At any rate, you answered my question. Was that too hard? No need to call me names. Now if we can get back to being civil: Why do you say attention to any subject is selfish? I don't understand. And what actully constitutes "destructive" thinking.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

Clever man. Re-reading my post, any name-calling eludes me. Perhaps I was just being too pointed. I was responding to the perceived barb in your post. No harm done, I hope.

I don't know about philosophy. Never studied it. Doesn't interest me.

I don't know about "NAO people". I'm finding some individuals here well-informed, and others to be boorish. I'm probably boorish to others. Most of those I've talked with seem to have a fancy for computers and technical stuff.

For all the thousands you/r parents spend/t on a "higher education" that's a very insightful description of what you've gotten in return.

Re: karma
Again, I'll refer you to an earlier post. Basically, I'm taking the Buddhist perspective, as opposed to the Hindi one, when talking about karma. I'm not going to rehash this again, but thinking is selfish. All thinking is selfish. This is the teaching. In part this has to do with the WAY we think, and that all of life is subjective, even so-called objective things.

What can you talk about with another that doesn't have some type of experiential base in common between you two? Nothing. But yet, your experiences are yours. They're subjective. This is where the parable of the 4 blind men and the elephant comes into play. Each one of them identifies a different part of the animal, and insist they all experienced a different animal. This is the way mind works. Every thought that we have is subjective. Therefore, it is selfish. There is NOTHING more selfish than one's thoughts. And so what if it's selfish? That's Thought's nature. Buddhist teaching tells one to understand a person's/thing's/thought's/action's/re-action's nature, and identify it as exactly that, its nature.

The destructive part is this: focusing mind on unimportant things, e.g. so-called philosophical discussions (substitute this long-ass discussion on karma) is destructive. And judging from what you said, you've answered your own question.

But put another way, thinking, we're told, is just plain destructive. Most people don't discipline their mind, or feelings/ Most people let their thoughts just take them to where the thoughts want to go, whether or not its beneficial or healthy to the person. You own your thoughts, you should control them, right? If you don't believe that thinking is destructive, do this experiment. For ONE MINUTE, think of nothing but your breathing. Focus on just your breathing. Don't think of how much time has passed, or anything else, for ONE MINUTE. One minute is easy, right? Tell me if you can do it.

(I'll just say this, it's a good thing that we never NEED to think about breathing...)

In Buddhist living, undisciplined, run-away thinking is just as dangerous as a run-away car.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

For ONE MINUTE, think of nothing but your breathing. Focus on just your breathing. Don't think of how much time has passed, or anything else, for ONE MINUTE. One minute is easy, right?

No it is not. Tried it many times but to take it to one minute is by far one of the toughest things I have ever done.

I could use an excuse and say, " Oh there was so much noise around me", but that doesn't qualify as a valid excuse.

Anyway, to blank one's mind out would mean what?

Is it possible for the mind to have no thought in it's head?

In fact, I was told to chant 'Om' or 'Aum' while performing this exercise but wouldn't that be a thought too? (although a pure one)

What is the function of the mind? Could I say one of its functions is to think?

If you take out this function then what purpose would the mind serve?

NI

THE ORIGINAL POST:

Karma is a sanskrit term that signifies action or deed. Any physical or mental action is karma. Thinking is mental karma. Karma is the sum total of our acts, both in the present life and in the preceding births.

Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action. The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action and cannot be divided from it. The law of karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced.

To sum up : if we do bad, we get bad and vice versa.
Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person?

The reason i say this is because you are doing good because you want good, you know you'll get good from the effect of karma.

Why not do good and not expect anything from it? Would'nt that be better to follow?

WHERE IT'S GONE:

<previous>For ONE MINUTE, think of nothing but your breathing. Focus on just your breathing. Don't think of how much time has passed, or anything else, for ONE MINUTE. One minute is easy, right? <end previous>

No it is not. Tried it many times but to take it to one minute is by far one of the toughest things I have ever done.

I could use an excuse and say, " Oh there was so much noise around me", but that doesn't qualify as a valid excuse.

Anyway, to blank one's mind out would mean what?

Is it possible for the mind to have no thought in it's head?

In fact, I was told to chant 'Om' or 'Aum' while performing this exercise but wouldn't that be a thought too? (although a pure one)

What is the function of the mind? Could I say one of its functions is to think?

If you take out this function then what purpose would the mind serve?

We can entertain any dialog that you want. I love discourse. Personally, I dislike getting off-topic, but that’s how it goes sometimes. I’m not going to be a conversation cop.

The point:
All things evolve. Or they die.

The discussion

Now if you put the idea of karma into your mind and go about your daily life, would'nt that make you a very selfish person?

The abstract is that thinking of karma all day long could make the person selfish or not. I’d say no, because a karma-thought is not different from a flower-thought, or sex-thought, or any other thought of the “aggregates.” It is the continuous, obsessive thought itself which is selfish. Its “form” matters little, other than for the purpose of simple identification of “body-thought,” (i.e. acknowledging one’s breathing is irregular), or “mind-thought,” (i.e. I am not focusing on breathing), or “desire-thought” (i.e. I wonder how much time has passed). There are boundless thoughts, but fall into five categories, called "aggregates."

The practice of Aum during a chant is more properly a trick—if you will—for your mind. There’s no way that the undisciplined mind can focus for 6 seconds, let alone 60 seconds on anything so simple, and mundane, (and absolutely necessary) as its breathing. Through chanting Om, the Divine Sound, you give yourself a fall back position so your mind doesn’t start telling itself funny things, and feelings get hurt, then in the way, and then ego enters the picture, and your meditation becomes ugly. After which point, one's Breathing is nowhere to be found.

There is an esoteric science to Breathing, which I won’t go into. Essentially, Om creates a form of metaphysical “healing” for the body. In Westernized translations these belief systems (which are misconstrued as “philosophy”) we’ve generally lost the true meaning of Om. So for all intents, it is used as a “place-holder” during meditation.

Anyway, to blank one's mind out would mean what?
Is it possible for the mind to have no thought in it's head?
In fact, I was told to chant 'Om' or 'Aum' while performing this exercise but wouldn't that be a thought too? (although a pure one)

We hold this series of questions to the light of the original post:

Karma means not only action, but also the result of an action. The consequence of an action is really not a separate thing. It is a part of the action and cannot be divided from it. The law of karma means the law of causation. Wherever there is a cause, there an effect must be produced.

Again, I use the analogy of a road sign. Karma is just a set of directions, if one will. Thought is the road; more like a very busy highway. Is it possible for a road to have no vehicles on it? Sure. I’ve never seen it though. Even if I’m the only vehicle out there, there’s still a vehicle on it, no? And can you simply picture a road with no cars on it? No. Because every road that is one’s mind comes, at least partly, from a road used. Hence is the “re-action” based on the “action.” Even the well-intentioned thought of a happy, carefree, deserted road is still a thought. It is based on one’s experiences. It is based on one’s actions. The thought and action can’t be separated, as you’ve detailed in your original post.

And more to the point, the sign can’t be separated from the road, but I’ll save that string for another time.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

I've never encountered the concept of "destructive thinking" before, but now that you've explained it, i think it captures what i feel towards a lot of the discourses i've gotten myself involved with. The metaphor of the run-away car is perfect. Too much thinking sometimes leads to just more thinking that doesn't really get anywhere until thinking becomes the end rather than the means. Worse, it can lead us into actions that will blind us from seeing other practical consequences because we have become almost fanatical in our belief of how our mind has constructed the universe. It's good to know that there's a good basis for what i feel and it's not just some anti-intellectual crap.

As for karma, we can get bogged down by our varying definitions of "selfishness" and by our varying attitudes towards it, but at the end of the day we will simply cling to life concepts that give us meaning and give us a handle of truth and a way to live our lives sensibly. I don't believe in reincarnation, an area where karma is directly involved, but the principle of karma itself is a sound principle for me, even as a christian. Christ himself said that "you reap what you sow." Karma itself cannot be selfish or evil--it's just a principle. People who use the principles for selfish ends--they're the ones who are selfish. I know very few people who do good things for self-serving reasons or for the sake of reaping good karma. What they do--good acts--is simply the natural extension of what they are--good people. Those who actually think of positive consequences for good deeds--i have a feeling they are mostly manipulative and quite evil.

“To God, there is no zero. I still exist.” Scott Carey, The Incredible Shrinking Man

It's 4:57am where I am, and It's actually late for me. Maybe I'll make a more full post later today. Maybe this will say all I want it to...we'll see.

My guess is that you've run into, or been run-over by, (as we all have)destructive thinking all your life. It's just that you've never noticed it, or cared to notice it, or have just written it off as something else. Perhaps I'll give a more thorough definition of the Aggregates, which are basically "piles of shit"; just put nicely for the sake of civility.

Think of the words: shit, crap, crud, snot, dirt, bog, swamp, morass, mire, mirth, filth, dreck, feces, spilch, spelth, filth, rubbish, rubble, pustule, garbage, etc. These are just the things that come to my mind at this late hour. Think of all the words for love: adoration, enamorous, heart-felt, wonderous, enraptured, et al. Again, these are just what come to mind at this time. And I'm not looking in a Thesaurus. The point is that either there's just more words that mean shit than mean love, or else I just can't think of nearly the same amount. I don't think I'm much different from the average person. Either way, it amounts to the same: in our everyday language we adopt more words, use more words, NEED to KNOW more words for bad stuff than good stuff.

This isn't a scientific experiment, but try it for yourself. I'd love to be proven wrong. Go around with a pen and paper, and on the spot ask people to come up with these two lists, SHIT/LOVE see which is longer. I HOPE that I'm wrong about my theory, but I suspect I'm not.

As for karma: The instant variety is still something very much taught by the gurus, and teachers. In fact, it is the "momentary" karma which leads to the "reincarnation" karma. If it's helpful and beneficial to think of an immediate response to what you do, that's quite for the better, and it's supposed to be the end result of all the grand teachings: Live well today, live well for this moment.

A word on Jesus.
He's been Westernized somewhat through the helpful work of the Roman Catholic church, but he was travelling, learning and teaching in the same areas that karma is considered a "doctrine." It's likely, and probable that karma figures heavy in his teaching. Fortunately, Jesus spoke in parables to confound the learned, teach the wise, and uplift the poor and humble. As such, we have much of them still with us.

He also told us to have the faith of a mustard seed. Jesus was all about making the small movements, not the huge gallopping public prayers the religious caste were known for. (Although he did stand on his convictions, and in a sense made larger movements than the religious caste.) They were self-serving and manipulative, in that their goal was to show folks how great they were, but did nothing for those very people. That was their reward, "adoration." "Store your riches in Heaven," I feel is another reference to karma.

I'll bet that just took 5 years off my life--but GODDAMM if it wasn't worth every second

This is the altruism argument which can old true for most religions, not just karmic systems.

If a Christian lives a life of simplicty, gives up luxuries and travels the world trying to heal the sick and make things better for others, have they done a good thing?

No, they haven't. They have done something of neutral morality. They have lost nothing themselves and others have gained, but they have made this exchange only because they believe they will get eternal bliss as their reward after death.

If an atheist believes they will go to oblivion after death and does the same things, are they good?

Yes, they have sacrificed what they believe to be their only chance at life or pleasure for the good of others in the belief they will gain nothing.

Some reject even that believing that the sense of moral well being they gain destroys the altruism.

Thus, only autistic psychopath atheists are capable of altruism or true good. How reassuring.

We were gods once and will be again.