Karma

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Torridon,

British people in general seem to be especially of the 'Zoom -In' variety.  More tuned towards details, materialism and empirical observation rather than metaphysics and spirituality. 

Almost all British Philosophers from William of Ockham to Hobbes to Hume to Bertrand Russel seem to be material philosophers interested in politics, economics, logic, language, empirical methods and such matters.   You don't find any metaphysics or mysticism.  More into details and less into the Big Picture.

Maybe that is why the British were good engineers and scientists......but even after 300 years of colonizing India they learnt nothing of eastern philosophy.  The Germans from Max Mulller to Schopenheuer were much better.   In recent decades even the Americans seem to be more capable of understanding Indian philosophies.

Maybe it is something genetic!!

A great western philosopher these days is likely as you say to be one working on economics or language/information.

[Jack Knave]

Since western people are normally completely ignorant of Indian/Eastern philosophers and philosophies.....by 'reputed philosophers', I expect you mean Western Philosophers!!

Try Schopenhauer and Jung!

Jung didn't espouse karma. And I doubt if Schopenhauer did in it strict terms.

[Nearly Sane]

Jung didn't espouse karma. And I doubt if Schopenhauer did in it strict terms.

Your doubts about Schopenhauer are correct.

[ippy]

It is probably as much woo as Dark Energy or Parallel Universes.

It is basically philosophy and an attempt to explain life and its features that we can notice. Its obviously not physics that we can relate one to one and make accurate predictions. 

So...we should stop trying to put everything into the physics (exact science) mold. We must also stop confusing philosophy with religion.

As far as evidence is concerned, Ian Stevenson has done some work on this. ...and there are many observed cases in Lebanon (a muslim country).  People who have NDE's also often talk of reincarnation.

And we have pink elephants in the west, perhaps your blue ones could be taken in an exactly similar way we take our pink ones.

ippy

[torridon]

Since western people are normally completely ignorant of Indian/Eastern philosophers and philosophies.....by 'reputed philosophers', I expect you mean Western Philosophers!!

Try Schopenhauer and Jung!

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  Granted, Schopenhaur warmed to elements of Eastern thinking finding unexpected similarities with his own, but he regarded Indian notions of karma as being a subtle use of myth and metaphor rather than reality; in his own words he referred to reincarnation as the myth of the transmigration of souls.  Having myths and metaphors is fine, but the karmic myth results in defacto harm to many vulnerable people who need support and understanding not prejudice and isolation.

[Sriram]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.  Granted, Schopenhaur warmed to elements of Eastern thinking finding unexpected similarities with his own, but he regarded Indian notions of karma as being a subtle use of myth and metaphor rather than reality; in his own words he referred to reincarnation as the myth of the transmigration of souls.  Having myths and metaphors is fine, but the karmic myth results in defacto harm to many vulnerable people who need support and understanding not prejudice and isolation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer

********

Schopenhauer read the Latin translation of the ancient Hindu texts, The Upanishads, which French writer Anquetil du Perron had translated from the Persian translation of Prince Dara Shikoh entitled Sirre-Akbar ("The Great Secret"). He was so impressed by their philosophy that he called them "the production of the highest human wisdom," and believed they contained superhuman concepts. The Upanishads was a great source of inspiration to Schopenhauer. Writing about them, he said:

It is the most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the solace of my life and will be the solace of my death.[89]

It is well known that the book Oupnekhat (Upanishad) always lay open on his table, and he invariably studied it before sleeping at night. He called the opening up of Sanskrit literature "the greatest gift of our century," and predicted that the philosophy and knowledge of the Upanishads would become the cherished faith of the West.[90]

Most noticeable, in the case of Schopenhauer’s work, was the significance of the Chandogya Upanishad, whose Mahavakya, Tat Tvam Asi is mentioned throughout The World as Will and Representation.

Concerning the Upanishads and Vedas, he writes in The World as Will and Representation:

If the reader has also received the benefit of the Vedas, the access to which by means of the Upanishads is in my eyes the greatest privilege which this still young century (1818) may claim before all previous centuries, if then the reader, I say, has received his initiation in primeval Indian wisdom, and received it with an open heart, he will be prepared in the very best way for hearing what I have to tell him. It will not sound to him strange, as to many others, much less disagreeable; for I might, if it did not sound conceited, contend that every one of the detached statements which constitute the Upanishads, may be deduced as a necessary result from the fundamental thoughts which I have to enunciate, though those deductions themselves are by no means to be found there.

*********


No one can be so highly influenced by Hindu philosophy without accepting Karma and reincarnation because they form the foundation of Hinduism.

You wanted some western philosophers and I have given you. There is a thread on Tat Tvam Asi in the Eastern section.

[Nearly Sane]

And yet in all of Schopenhauer's writing there doesn't appear to be an acceptance of karma and reincarnation.

[Nearly Sane]

To be honest though i'm not sure that an idea needs acceptance by 'reputable' philosophers to be philosophy.

[SusanDoris]

I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old  common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Susan,

I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old  common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.

The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well. What the Sriram's of this world then do is to dump onto that observable fact a whole wodge of nonsense about "karma", "energy", "spirituality" etc to gussy of a basic truth with any manner of woo that - at best - is just conjecture (where is this "energy"? What form does it take? How can we measure it? etc) and that - at worst - as torri notes leads to all sorts of contemptible conclusions about the disabled being as they because it's somehow their fault.

Didn't Glen Hoddle get the heave-ho from the England manager's job for spouting this kind unpleasant idiocy?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Susan,

The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well. What the Sriram's of this world then do is to dump onto that observable fact a whole wodge of nonsense about "karma", "energy", "spirituality" etc to gussy of a basic truth with any manner of woo that - at best - is just conjecture (where is this "energy"? What form does it take? How can we measure it? etc) and that - at worst - as torri notes leads to all sorts of contemptible conclusions about the disabled being as they because it's somehow their fault.

Didn't Glen Hoddle get the heave-ho from the England manager's job for spouting this kind unpleasant idiocy?

You can get the heave ho as a manager for walking on the cracks in the pavement.

[torridon]

Susan,

The problem I think is that at its heart there's a grain of sense - the reciprocal altruism of "If I'm nice to people, they're more likely to be nice to me" - which serves tribal societies (of any species) well...

To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately.  Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense.  But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due.  If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately.  Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense.  But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fancy in ignorance of the authority that modern science is due.  If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.

So according to you it is not courageous to fight injustice.

[torridon]

So according to you it is not courageous to fight injustice.

I don't see how you derive that.  The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be countered. I spent two years as a volunteer with an iNGO that specialised in providing advocacy support for people that were effectively victims of karma in Asia and Africa where disabled peoples often face the added burden of discrimination and prejudice because of this spurious belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't see how you derive that.  The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be fought. I spent two years as a volunteer with an iNGO that specialised in providing advocacy support for people that were effectively victims of karma in Asia and Africa. Disabled peoples often face the added burden of discrimination and prejudice because of this spurious belief.

Er, from what you wrote.

''But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage........ If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented invented to appease human sensibilities.''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

  Like many ideas.......... it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due.

What on earth is this? When did science demonstrate that humans are completely directed deterministically and that this is all there is? That sounds more like scientism rather than science.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The doctrine of karma is a source of injustice that needs to be countered.

As is this''If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.'' Recognise it?

[Sriram]

I wonder if Sriram can present just one item of Hindu philosophy which is not good old  common sense, or sound advice, or golden rule, etc.

So....according to you...Karma and reincarnation are good old common sense??!!   

[torridon]

Er, from what you wrote.

''But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage........ If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented invented to appease human sensibilities.''

Oh I see, this is you jumping in taking a line out of context without reading previous posts.  What I meant was to have the courage to face truth rather than indulge fantasy beliefs that allow us to avoid truth.  Karma is one such.

[Sriram]

To be honest though i'm not sure that an idea needs acceptance by 'reputable' philosophers to be philosophy.

I certainly agree with that.  But some people always seem to want some Authority in terms of name dropping. And who is 'reputable' is not clear.  I consider many ancient Hindu sages as reputable philosophers. But most of you wouldn't know them at all.

I am sure that increasingly in many parts of the world, including the UK, Indian sages and philosophers are better known than the so called 'reputed' western philosophers. Who reads Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Schopenhauer  and others?  Millions in the west read the Gita, Upanishads, Ramana Maharishi, Buddhist sutras and listen to contemporary gurus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Oh I see, this is you jumping in taking a line out of context without reading previous posts.  What I meant was to have the courage to face truth rather than indulge fantasy beliefs that allow us to avoid truth.  Karma is one such.

No...In your post you make it clear what human courage is...just accepting that life is unfair...
That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma...as anybody in power can say, I am doing this to you...it's unfair...but hey life's unfair!!! An attitude which I move governs the lives of possible more people than are in the domain of Karma......In fact you could slot life's unfair INTO a doctrine of Karma.

[Sriram]

To be generous to Sriram I would say the attractiveness of karma as a concept lies in its ability to mitigate the apparent unfairness of life; it posits a larger reference frame in which all wrongs can be righted and all debts repaid ultimately.  Like many ideas, it has popularity because of its simple appeal in that sense.  But it thus represents one more win for human weakness over human courage, it is a win for naivety over understanding, it is a flight from reality into the arms of fantasy in ignorance of the respect that modern science is due.  If we are up to it, we can just acknowledge the harsh truth that life is unfair and nature was not invented to appease human sensibilities.

Why is it a flight from reality?  And what do you know of reality to be able to dismiss the concept of Karma outright?

You actually KNOW why we are born, why there are so many individual differences,  what morality is....and many other such things?

You would probably just attribute it all to chance and evolutionary mechanisms.  'All these things just happen to exist and don't need any explanations at all'!!

Confusing mechanisms for goals is common in science. 

[torridon]

No...In your post you make it clear what human courage is...just accepting that life is unfair...
That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma...as anybody in power can say, I am doing this to you...it's unfair...but hey life's unfair!!! An attitude which I move governs the lives of possible more people than are in the domain of Karma......In fact you could slot life's unfair INTO a doctrine of Karma.

I think you are reading some of your own prejudices into my post. I'm not advocating some disinterested attitude to suffering because, hey, shit happens, man. I am advocating facing up to reality rather than not facing up to reality; in the context of karma beliefs that means accepting the reality that birth defects happen through no fault of the person so afflicted and these people are needing support not the prejudice that flows from an unwarranted belief that this is some sort of cosmic justice being meted out.

[ekim]

That is as dangerous as the doctrine of Karma which I oppose on several grounds which include a Christian view on the propensity of humans to take selfish advantage. I.e. anyone can do bad and put it down to being an agent of Karma

Is that much different to 'anyone can do bad and put it down to being under the influence of Satan'?  Karma is about action and its consequences, which seems to have an affinity to 'Whatever you sow, so shall you reap'.  Karma yoga, amongst other things, is about purifying your actions so that they don't impinge upon later reincarnations as opposed to ending up in a Heaven or Hell.

[torridon]

Why is it a flight from reality?  And what do you know of reality to be able to dismiss the concept of Karma outright?

You actually KNOW why we are born, why there are so many individual differences,  what morality is....and many other such things?

You would probably just attribute it all to chance and evolutionary mechanisms.  'All these things just happen to exist and don't need any explanations at all'!!

Confusing mechanisms for goals is common in science.

It's not what I know, it is more what we have learned through hundreds of years of cumulative research in all flavours of science, none of which is consistent with a notion of reincarnation upon which karma depends.  An honest thinker would want to take due account of what we have learned of the nature of life, of matter, of energy and incorporate that into their rationale. What enormous hubris is implied by the arrogant disdain for that body of understanding.