|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 13:06:53 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. Please give an example of something that you accept as "karma".
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 1, 2024 13:11:16 GMT -5
.... If we accept Enigma's definition that "beliefs are strong attachments to ideas," then many of us do not have beliefs and have no interest in beliefs. Everything that happens is sort of "in one's face," down to earth, and quite matter of fact. This isn't good or bad; it's just a difference in the way different people respond to different life events. Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. "belief of a witness; the belief of our senses" Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith. Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree.
|
|
|
Post by farmer on Feb 1, 2024 13:50:29 GMT -5
Why do people look for ‘frauds’? To prove your point for you? To have some confirmed disapproval to hide behind? Why do people look at the world through such jaundiced, pessimistic and forlorn eyes? What are you talking about you silly hipster? Call a spade a spade, and a fraud a fraud. You protect yourself from the fakers, and you honor the real thing when it occasionally comes along. Take a guess… how many assumptions and conclusions can you imagine in a days time?
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 14:05:16 GMT -5
Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. "belief of a witness; the belief of our senses" Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith. Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree. My original reply (my interpretation of your examples of "extreme irritation" instances that you experienced) was sidetracked by redefining "belief", then further considerations. When you believe / know that you are right in an argument, there are two available assessments of the other's position: he can't understand, or he understands but he has some motivation to support a "nonsense" (a term you used in your post). Interestingly, when you make one of these two assessments about the other, the other seems to automatically make the other of the two assessments about you. It is my further observation that eventually each side ends up acting the way that they assessed the other side. And all this, because honestly we take our beliefs for truths.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 1, 2024 16:25:18 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 1, 2024 16:32:43 GMT -5
Redefining words creates confusion. This is the dictionary definition: link- belief /bĭ-lēf′/
noun
The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another. "My belief in you is as strong as ever."
Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something. "His explanation of what happened defies belief."
Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence. "belief of a witness; the belief of our senses" Similar: persuasion conviction confidence
A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith. Similar: faith
The thing believed; the object of belief.
A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. Similar: doctrine creed
A first principle incapable of proof; an intuitive truth; an intuition.
Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence.
It's understandable that people will disagree about definitions, and that topic has been discussed exhaustively on this forum. Many of us subscribe to the Zen outlook which disclaims any doctrine and points to a "transmission outside of the scriptures and outside of the mind." From this POV there are no tenets, beliefs, or doctrines that apply. The truth must be "grokked" directly, and the truth being pointed to is beyond conception but can be apprehended directly. You'll never hear a ND sage say, "This is what you must believe" or "this is what we believe." A ND sage will, however, say, "Each human must investigate the nature of reality for him/herself and find what lies beyond the concensus paradigm of separation." It's more a matter of discovering and directly knowing that THIS is infinite and undivided rather than believing anything. Although I think Enigma's definition of what a belief is is spot on, others will disagree. Buddhists have a 3-part ontology. You hear the teachings, you think it through and join the dots, and you investigate it to find out for yourself. It has all been restructured to hold up the religious institution, but the original idea was pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Feb 1, 2024 19:38:43 GMT -5
It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 0:28:05 GMT -5
It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger. It's like that in Karma theory in a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him strung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2024 5:12:14 GMT -5
Karma, as I came to understand it prior to any existential interest, was the misconceived Western notion of a cosmic accounting system. This distortion is understandable, given the common Christian misinterpretations of the bible verse referring to "every hair on your head", and the notion of an "all-knowing God". Some of the more insightful sources I've read on these forums over the years offer correction to these misinterpretations. The Western version is mechanistic. The other versions are also mechanistic, but account for the merging of the two contexts: the relative, temporal context of what appears to you, on one hand, and the absolute, eternal context that you are, on the other. The existential truth, is simplicity incarnate. The ten gazillion thingies, not so much. It is pretty simple that actions have consequences and you reap what you sow, but when a good bloke like JC ends up tortured on a cross, it doesn't fit the theory.
Common sense. It's a hint that what I've started referring to as "common mind" is a flawed state of mind. "common mind" is a turn of phrase that I morphed from "consensus trance", that I first read from zd. Everyone has an intuition about what's going on. There are some people who are wise, and they can write things that amplify that intuitive sense. Advice folks give to turn attention away from thoughts and abstracts, and instead, turn attention into the present .. from that, this intuitive, commonsense, emerges naturally.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Feb 2, 2024 5:14:24 GMT -5
Assuming that that was a "fact" (?): it would prove that no matter that you honestly believe you're doing good, no matter that others honestly believe you do, your negative emotions will bring your way situations that will amplify your negative emotions more and more. It is like in the example when irritating heat brought a situation that caused anger. It's like that in Karma theory is a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him stung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
If you relate this to the idea of "sin" as "missing the mark", like an archer .. the target is of infinite extent, and the return fire can come from any direction.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 6:17:08 GMT -5
It's like that in Karma theory is a sense, but it doesn't mean terrible things don't happen to good people. Assuming the Christ story is true, he didn't generate the karma that got him stung up, and even while being tortured, he wasn't generating karma. The Jews that were adverse toward him generated the karma via that adverse reactivity, and we know that Jesus knew this because he said, 'Forgive them. They know not what they do'.
If you relate this to the idea of "sin" as "missing the mark", like an archer .. the target is of infinite extent, and the return fire can come from any direction. Sin as generally conceived of misses the mark, but in principle there's still good and evil, just that it relates to pure intent or ill will. Taking the Jesus story to be true, he wasn't seething with ill will when he was being tortured. He basically understood that these people are miserable, so they emanate that all around.
I think Genesis with the knowledge of good and evil, it means we know it in ourselves by the nature of our will. On that basis I believe in universal morality, and ironically, the reason it is objective is because it's subjective. Hmmm. I should do koans.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 8:51:00 GMT -5
It's odd that irritation isn't seen as an identical situation. Why irritation if one doesn't believe in a separate self? To see the obvious answer, logic must be left behind. Maybe because of the difference between "conscious beliefs" and "subconscious beliefs". Maybe the irritation / anger can help us bring a subconscious belief to our conscious level. Maybe irritation / anger can be used as a trigger for "lucidity", seeing through conditioning.Sure, but that's still mucking around on the personal plane, i.e. the realm of self. So the insights gained will not lead to liberation, only a more comfortable version of bondage.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:00:04 GMT -5
Think he means LOA is a higher universal principle than Karma. I don't have an opinion, only that I'd rather focus on attraction than karma. - 'In law, ignorantia juris non excusat (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"),[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat ("ignorance of law excuses no one"),[2] is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely by being unaware of its content.
European-law countries with a tradition of Roman law may also use an expression from Aristotle translated into Latin: nemo censetur ignorare legem ("nobody is thought to be ignorant of the law") or ignorantia iuris nocet ("not knowing the law is harmful")'
Yes, LOA applies regardless, doesn't matter if you know about it or not, believe in it or not. Niz and RM were no exceptions. I find it a bit strange that no one has an issue with Niz and RM still being subject to gravity (a lower principle), but when saying Niz and RM are still being subject to LOA (a higher principle) that suddenly becomes highly controversial.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Feb 2, 2024 9:00:46 GMT -5
Maybe because of the difference between "conscious beliefs" and "subconscious beliefs". Maybe the irritation / anger can help us bring a subconscious belief to our conscious level. Maybe irritation / anger can be used as a trigger for "lucidity", seeing through conditioning.Sure, but that's still mucking around on the personal plane, i.e. the realm of self. So the insights gained will not lead to liberation, only a more comfortable version of bondage. That's why I use these padded cuffs
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Feb 2, 2024 9:10:39 GMT -5
Buddha (Dhammapada 1: The Pairs (verses 1–20)) "Intention is the forerunner of all things; intention’s their master, they’re made by intention."Other similar translations: "Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought." "All that we are is the result of what we have thought: it is founded on our thoughts, it is made up of our thoughts." Yep, it seems the Christian idea is premised by belief whereas the Buddhist narrative is premised by intent. Indeed, in Buddhist philosophy, kamma pertains to volition, and it's quite simple in principle - actions have consequences. This relates to the anger discussion, such as when 'acting in anger' one might be emotionally overwhelmed and become compelled than intentional. Because karma pertains to will, be it intentional or compulsive, karma theory entails ethics based on goodwill and ill-will (as opposed good and evil forces). Although a very simple principle - actions have consequences - the nuances of karma theory are multilayered. Yes, LOK comes with a whole package of premises that you just don't have or need with LOA. That's why LOA is a higher principle than LOK. LOA is compatible with both volition and non-volition, free will and predetermination, self and no-self, personal and impersonal context, space-time-condominium as well as no space-time condominium. LOK, on the other hand, makes only sense in the personal context, with a separate self, volition and a space-time condominium. If you take away one of those premises, LOK falls apart. None of those premises are required for LOA to work though. The only thing that LOA is not compatible with is randomness - and noumenality of course.
|
|