Reading Philosophy

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.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

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.

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.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

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?

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

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.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag

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?

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.

Once Fred Neitszche declared God is Dead, f*ck became the most important word in the English languag