Karma

[torridon]

The experiments on NDE's and healing have just begun. They have a long way to go. Don't start concluding on them just yet.

People said similar things about Yoga and meditations. People laughed at them just a few decades ago. Some people still do.  But the benefits of such techniques are only now beginning to be understood.

Scientific experiments are not just mechanical techniques performed by robots. There are humans involved and their biases, prejudices and beliefs are of great importance on how the experiments are designed and how the results are interpreted. Only when scientists become mentally prepared to accept favorable results will the real results be seen.

Fortunately, coming generations will not be stuck with the 19th and early 20th century ideas of science and spirituality that many of you seem to be stuck with.

We can accommodate an understanding of how yoga and meditation can benefit people without recourse to inventing entire new realms of reality. But reincarnation stands miles outside our understanding of how life works, how people develop from conception as a mixture of characteristics from male and female parents.  If you want karma to be taken seriously why not sketch out a rationale for how reincarnation could work within the framework of our current understanding of biology ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

The experiments on NDE's and healing have just begun.

If there really are "experiments", that would be science. 

Only when scientists become mentally prepared to accept favorable results will the real results be seen.

"Scientists" already are - that's what the scientific method entails. Are you "mentally prepared" to accept results that show your beliefs to be wrong?

Fortunately, coming generations will not be stuck with the 19th and early 20th century ideas of science and spirituality that many of you seem to be stuck with.

What idea of "spirituality" do you think you have that supersedes that?

[Sriram]

We can accommodate an understanding of how yoga and meditation can benefit people without recourse to inventing entire new realms of reality. But reincarnation stands miles outside our understanding of how life works, how people develop from conception as a mixture of characteristics from male and female parents.  If you want karma to be taken seriously why not sketch out a rationale for how reincarnation could work within the framework of our current understanding of biology ?

The point is very simple. Yoga and meditations have been developed in ancient days through a spiritual understanding of life. Not by scientists through a material understanding of life. 

Spontaneous Healing is a similar phenomenon.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sririam,

Spontaneous Healing is a similar phenomenon.

No it isn't - it's just regression to the mean in a medical context.

[Dicky Underpants]

For people who are in lower spiritual levels, the correction will take place over many lifetimes because they have lots of accumulated negative energies.   For people in higher spiritual levels, the karmic correction could take place within months or even days because they have less accumulated energy and instability. 
 
Just some thoughts.

Cheers,.

Sriram

Back to basics, Sriram. If Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the Divine 'soul' of the universe), how and when did each individual soul split off from the Godhead, to start acquiring negative karma? Are there Hindu stories about how this descent and division from supposed perfection was supposed to have happened?

[ekim]

Back to basics, Sriram. If Atman (the human soul) is Brahman (the Divine 'soul' of the universe), how and when did each individual soul split off from the Godhead, to start acquiring negative karma? Are there Hindu stories about how this descent and division from supposed perfection was supposed to have happened?

If I remember rightly, one of the schools of thought is that Atman did not 'split off' from Brahman but the individual identified with Ahamkara, the ego/self, which is composed of descriptive characteristics like man, father, British, clever, dim and so on.  This tends to make his actions  'self' centred and often in conflict with others equally self centred.  The variety of Yogas tend to be methods to facilitate dis-identifying with Ahamkara and identifying with Atman and sustaining union with Brahman.  Karma yoga is one of them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sriram,

No it isn’t. There are many private beliefs – about all sorts of things – but if you want to claim them to be “insights” then you need a method of some kind to validate them.

No it isn’t. There’s a bewildering variety of personal beliefs, some of which become embedded at the tribal level. The only commonality concerns the human experience – we all for example grieve the loss of loved ones, so the wishful thinking that (say) they are reincarnated is comforting, and so finds traction with those unconcerned with logic or evidence.
 
I’ll take your word for it that there are such attempts, but item one on their agenda should be to establish a method to distinguish their claims from woo. That these attempt will supposedly “gather steam” is just your assertion on the matter.

And nor does the world of science lose an sleep over the fact that it’s all indistinguishable from woo – in other words, it’s not even wrong.

There might be “billions” who have unsupportable beliefs but an argumentum ad populum doesn’t help you, not least in this case because those beliefs vary so hugely.

“Science” claims only to address that with which it can engage – ie, the investigable. If you want to call that “its own little playground” that’s up to you, but I think you do it a disservice when you do that given the remarkable record of success and importance it's had in all our lives – which is you why you’d (presumably) take medicine to cure a serious illness rather than set fire to a bunch of sage leaves..

Again it’s “beliefs” and not “insights”, and they probably won’t. And yes, science is “hardheadedly” materialistic because that’s all we know of that’s reliably accessible and investigable. If you think there’s another method to investigate your claims, then tell us what it is.   

That may or may not be true. Absent the methods of science though, what method would you propose instead to investigate your claims about this supposed “not science apt” reality?

All very well...but pure scientism i'm afraid.

You do not own science Bluehillside...you can only put in a hostile bid.

Another ''Gussy up'' of science and failed appropriation by accountancy.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

In addition to the above:

Hi Gonners,

Sriram’s problem is that he overreaches - hugely so. If, say, you help the little old lady next door across the road every day for twenty years and after she’s died you find she’s left you a little something in her will you may or may not want to call that “karma”, but essentially it’s a commonplace and there’s nothing mystical about it.

What Sriram then does though is to extrapolate from that an entire system of celestial checks and balances by which you’d also be more likely, say, to win the lottery for your kind deeds. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but mine would be a large dose of confirmation bias – “Fred’s a really nice guy, and he just won the lottery – see, karma!” combined with ignoring the silent evidence of all the times nice people don’t win the lottery, horrible people do win it etc.

(emphasis mine)

Which is an interesting claim, because this is precisely what happens with certain evolutionary theories.

Evolution that is observable and works with what is already present is extrapolated therefrom, to create a whole discourse where it is claimed that all life descended from a single common ancestor.

More and more, it can be observed here that arguments used against various religious beliefs are (arguably) not only used incorrectly, they are true of the worldview of some that use them, so e.g. those claiming God of the gaps do so precisely because they are using evolution of the gaps, hoping that people will not notice the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Spof,

All very well...but pure scientism i'm afraid.

You do not own science Bluehillside...you can only put in a hostile bid.

Another ''Gussy up'' of science and failed appropriation by accountancy.

C'mere me old mucker - let me give you a bit of a man hug and some sound advice you'll thank me for one day. All comfy? Righto...

...if you want to accuse someone of "scientism", at some point you're finally gonna have to look up its actual meaning and then - now are you ready for this? Sure now? OK then - use it properly!

Yeah I know, it's radical, a big step, a major departure for you etc but, like I say, just imagine the freedom finally of not having to remember to use your own invented definition every single bloody time when instead all you'll have to do is use it the same way everyone else does.

The joy! The sunlit uplands! The Julie Andrews moment of running barefoot across the grassy alpine slopes of correct usage! FLY FREE MY YOUNG NEOPHYTE, FLY FREE I TELL YOU!
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Which is an interesting claim, because this is precisely what happens with certain evolutionary theories.

Evolution that is observable and works with what is already present is extrapolated therefrom, to create a whole discourse where it is claimed that all life descended from a single common ancestor.

More and more, it can be observed here that arguments used against various religious beliefs are (arguably) not only used incorrectly, they are true of the worldview of some that use them, so e.g. those claiming God of the gaps do so precisely because they are using evolution of the gaps, hoping that people will not notice the difference between interpolation and extrapolation.

Oh dear....

[Jack Knave]

Is that much different to 'anyone can do bad and put it down to being under the influence of Satan'? 

Or my background and parents were shit. So it ain't my fault and I can't help myself in being bad.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Spof,

C'mere me old mucker - let me give you a bit of a man hug and some sound advice you'll thank me for one day. All comfy? Righto...

...if you want to accuse someone of "scientism", at some point you're finally gonna have to look up its actual meaning and then - now are you ready for this? Sure now? OK then - use it properly!

Yeah I know, it's radical, a big step, a major departure for you etc but, like I say, just imagine the freedom finally of not having to remember to use your own invented definition every single bloody time when instead all you'll have to do is use it the same way everyone else does.

The joy! The sunlit uplands! The Julie Andrews moment of running barefoot across the grassy alpine slopes of correct usage! FLY FREE MY YOUNG NEOPHYTE, FLY FREE I TELL YOU!
 

Hillside....I think you should have read the various definitions of insight before you claimed the word 'for science'. Insight might be staple of 'popular science' or 'science journalism' but the word comes from other domains of study other than science. Another case of linguistic piracy on your part me hearty.....

[Jack Knave]

I'm surprised at you Sriram, another attempt to push the negative proof theory.

ippy

That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.

[Nearly Sane]

That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.

And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof

[Jack Knave]

Yes...and all those things that we do to the child are part of the karmic effects. The 'child' is a child only in the new body. It is actually a person who has lived as an adult in another life and done certain things that are positive or negative. These energies affect its next birth. 

According to the philosophy, our conscious mind is new and gets generated in the new body. But the unconscious mind is part of our spirit that remembers the past life. In fact its the unconscious mind/spirit that decides what form to take in the new birth so as to clean up and develop further.

All this is meant for erosion of our base nature and  for development of the higher nature.

Here are cases of reincarnation ......(Ian Stevenson)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=vIDES6VWl1MC&pg=PA270&lpg=PA270&dq=case+studies+in+lebanon+of+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=kB57-_wsex&sig=2VASz_dmvM5nS803CjdewiuC3ug&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB8KikqMnQAhVJqo8KHR47CUQQ6AEIPDAG#v=onepage&q=case%20studies%20in%20lebanon%20of%20reincarnation&f=false


Sorry that seems to be a long link...but it is a PDF file.

The karma idea could be seen as either as a personal one or as an impersonal one i.e. what is brought forward isn't a past life but just segments of past experiences that need dealing with. According to Jung, Buddha was asked about this twice by his disciples and he refused to give an answer on it, or side stepped the issue, implying he didn't really know. So I find it rather odd you are pushing one version of this.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And while that's true, it is an attempt to shift the burden of proof

Everyone around here has the burden of proof since no one actually holds a neutral position. Attempts at claiming the default position being eminently debateable.

[Nearly Sane]

Everyone around here has the burden of proof since no one actually holds a neutral position. Attempts at claiming the default position being eminently debateable.

prove it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

prove it.

Certainly.....would the person with the neutral position please stand up.

[wigginhall]

Never mind disproving karma, can anyone give a concrete example that demonstrates it?  I'm not asking for proof, just something more concrete than all the waffle.  So far, it reminds me of astral travelling, very vague and unspecified. 

[Jack Knave]

If these insights revealed some authentic objective truth then we could test for that with objective methods. And to some extent we have done that for instance with the blind trial studies that have been done on the power of prayer,  But the most generous interpretation of these studies comes down to placebo effect and nothing more profound than that.

Further to that, if these insights revealed some profound but partly hidden objective truth, then there would be some worldwide consensus of such insights; however what we see is some measure of homogeneity yet also enormous diversity in the detail and interpretation, which is in line with what we would expect in our species - it echoes the diversity profile of other aspects of humans such as the taste in music or fashion or arts.

People who go around making grandiose claims of privileged insight are setting themselves above everyone else.

And that is exactly what you do with your science, and judging by the deep love you have for it that has been expressed in your previous posts it comes across as being your ideology and religion.

[Jack Knave]

Hi Gonners,

Sriram’s problem is that he overreaches - hugely so. If, say, you help the little old lady next door across the road every day for twenty years and after she’s died you find she’s left you a little something in her will you may or may not want to call that “karma”, but essentially it’s a commonplace and there’s nothing mystical about it.

What Sriram then does though is to extrapolate from that an entire system of celestial checks and balances by which you’d also be more likely, say, to win the lottery for your kind deeds. Why he thinks that is anyone’s guess, but mine would be a large dose of confirmation bias – “Fred’s a really nice guy, and he just won the lottery – see, karma!” combined with ignoring the silent evidence of all the times nice people don’t win the lottery, horrible people do win it etc.

The rain falls on the good as well as the bad, and likewise the sun shines on the bad as well as the good.

[torridon]

And that is exactly what you do with your science, and judging by the deep love you have for it that has been expressed in your previous posts it comes across as being your ideology and religion.

Well I wouldn't put it that way.  I would see science as a tool, a means to an end; it is the end result that is important, an improved understanding of things.  Having said that, science is broadly speaking the ethos that is focused on delivering that by diligent enquiry and I don't see any merit in sloppy work.

[wigginhall]

It seems odd to compare scientific enquiry to a religion, since scientific accounts are often falsified, which leads to new discoveries.  Can we say this of religion?   Science fails all the time, in some ways, it is designed to fail.   Again, does religion do this?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hillside....I think you should have read the various definitions of insight before you claimed the word 'for science'. Insight might be staple of 'popular science' or 'science journalism' but the word comes from other domains of study other than science. Another case of linguistic piracy on your part me hearty.....

In which ol' Spoofy just ignores the rebuttal of his abuse of the term "scientism" so as to keep it nice and dry for its next misbegotten outing, while lurching into another mistake by failing to grasp that "insight" needs a method to establish its bona fides if it isn't to be just white noise or guessing.

And so it goes....

[bluehillside Retd.]

JK,

That's not the NPT, he isn't asking for it to be disproved he is just saying that so far science hasn't come across anything that disproves it.

It's still the NPF - arguing that "science" hasn't disproved it is an attempt at making a point. Otherwise why say it?

Why he thinks the indifference of science to assertions it finds to be not even wrong (because there's nothing to investigate) is anyone's guess, but attempt the NPF he does nonetheless.