The Couch

Deliverance from evil?

Comments on Deliverance from evil?

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 03/18/11 - 3:14 PM:
Subject: Deliverance from evil?
What is evil? And can we be delivered from it?

Any thoughts?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/18/11 - 3:44 PM:

Insofar as evil is a value we give to things, and insofar as we control what values are created and applied, yes we can be 'delivered' from evil merely by changing the orientation of our value schema.

In short, to be delivered from evil means to stop identifying anything as evil.

But that's not quite as simple as calling a spade a fork.

It's more to do with recognizing the true nature of nature, and the true nature of people, and all the factors, immediate and karmic, that combine to produce an event.

Buddhism promises liberation from suffering. Not pain or pleasure, but suffering, recognizing that suffering is an acute existential, axiological angst in part caused by the dissonance between desires and realities. By eliminating the root source that generates this angst (through self recognition) its product is also eliminated. Hence, no more suffering. But it will still be painful to get your arm cut off.

In most other cases, where people are acting in evil ways, we need only remove ourselves from the situation. Granted this may be difficult. But, once free of the context, we can only be to blame if we ourselves create a new evil scenario and pollute our peace.

But insofar as positive and negative polarities dominate this realm, we can't liberate ourselves from the to-and-fro sway of energy balancing itself out.

8)
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
Posted 03/18/11 - 3:58 PM:

Monk2400 wrote:
Insofar as evil is a value we give to things, and insofar as we control what values are created and applied, yes we can be 'delivered' from evil merely by changing the orientation of our value schema.

In short, to be delivered from evil means to stop identifying anything as evil.

But that's not quite as simple as calling a spade a fork.

It's more to do with recognizing the true nature of nature, and the true nature of people, and all the factors, immediate and karmic, that combine to produce an event.

Buddhism promises liberation from suffering. Not pain or pleasure, but suffering, recognizing that suffering is an acute existential, axiological angst in part caused by the dissonance between desires and realities. By eliminating the root source that generates this angst (through self recognition) its product is also eliminated. Hence, no more suffering. But it will still be painful to get your arm cut off.

In most other cases, where people are acting in evil ways, we need only remove ourselves from the situation. Granted this may be difficult. But, once free of the context, we can only be to blame if we ourselves create a new evil scenario and pollute our peace.

But insofar as positive and negative polarities dominate this realm, we can't liberate ourselves from the to-and-fro sway of energy balancing itself out.

8)


But what if we can eliminate the problem that creates the angst. I'm not talking right now about unmet desires; I'm talking right now about getting your arm cut off. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to worry about how you are going to react so as not to feel as much pain, than to actually keep your arm?
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
Posted 03/18/11 - 4:55 PM:

You can't eliminate danger from the world. Nor can you eliminate pain. A human being will not be a human being if it does not experience pleasure and pain.

Buddhism proposes a way to eliminate the angst by eliminating its source--not danger in the world, but attachments. It proposes a radical shift in the orientation of experience, which is in reality no shift at all.

Release the concept of evil and release the power it has over you.

8)
peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
Posted 03/19/11 - 7:18 AM:

Monk2400 wrote:
You can't eliminate danger from the world. Nor can you eliminate pain. A human being will not be a human being if it does not experience pleasure and pain.


I didn't say that humans are not capable of experiencing pain. What I am saying is that the conditions that cause your arm to be amputated by another human being, will no longer be, so you won't have to experience that kind of pain.

"Monk" wrote:
Buddhism proposes a way to eliminate the angst by eliminating its source--not danger in the world, but attachments. It proposes a radical shift in the orientation of experience, which is in reality no shift at all.


I understand this. It is a coping mechanism to try and separate oneself from the event; to become unattached, and for many it works. But I believe there is a superior way, and that is to alter the human condition where war and crime are entirely eliminated.

"Monk" wrote:
Release the concept of evil and release the power it has over you.

8)


Releasing the concept of evil would not stop me from being heartbroken if (god forbid) my child were to be killed at war no matter how detached I tried to be. Yes, it is true that understanding that evil is not evil when seen in total perspective would help me intellectually, but on an emotional level it would not do much good.


peacegirl
Junior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 12, 2011

Total Topics: 1
Total Comments: 39
Posted 03/20/11 - 9:51 AM:

Because there is no activity here, I am going to say goodbye. If you want to join in any further discussion, please go to: freethought-forum.com. It is very exhausing to keep 3 forums up. Libertygirl, you've been great. I think you are one of the most open minded administrators I know, and I thank you so much for your open-mindedness.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
Posted 03/20/11 - 11:28 AM:

lib wrote:
What is evil? And can we be delivered from it?

Evil is nothing but intention to harm, injure, affect badly, to oneself, others and to the life and universe in general. This is a very general definition. As happens with all other values, it depends on the value assigner. Karmically , the moment you get a negative intention, you are caught in the evil. The evil is not necessarily the opposite of good. Evil has a connection with duality, a very strong one indeed. The judging voice, which divides the phenomenon into beautiful/ugly, good/bad, is, root cause of evil. The witness sense, about which I have discussed in one of my threads, many years ago, is a way to get deliverance from evil. If someone is so alert that never ever a thought skips in absentmindedness, there will never be, a wrong intention taking root into the psyche and all the previous ones, which are there since eons, will be burnt in the flame of awareness. Actions mostly arise from habits, habits are result of reinforcement of some thoughts, which are result of some subtle ideas arising from the root of the psyche [ or come from somewhere outside]. If you catch them young, there will be no evil.




Monk2400 wrote:
Insofar as evil is a value we give to things, and insofar as we control what values are created and applied, yes we can be 'delivered' from evil merely by changing the orientation of our value schema.

In short, to be delivered from evil means to stop identifying anything as evil.

But that's not quite as simple as calling a spade a fork.

It's more to do with recognizing the true nature of nature, and the true nature of people, and all the factors, immediate and karmic, that combine to produce an event.

Buddhism promises liberation from suffering. Not pain or pleasure, but suffering, recognizing that suffering is an acute existential, axiological angst in part caused by the dissonance between desires and realities. By eliminating the root source that generates this angst (through self-recognition) its product is also eliminated. Hence, no more suffering. But it will still be painful to get your arm cut off.

In most other cases, where people are acting in evil ways, we need only remove ourselves from the situation. Granted this may be difficult. But, once free of the context, we can only be to blame if we ourselves create a new evil scenario and pollute our peace.

But insofar as positive and negative polarities dominate this realm, we can't liberate ourselves from the to-and-fro sway of energy balancing itself out.


Energy is balancing itself out, but, the evil arises because of a ‘doer’, when ‘doership’ is not present, the evil ceases to be. Until there is a very highly aware mechanism present, incessantly aware that ‘everything is cause of everything else’; the false notion of ‘one’s being the doer of so and so’ is always present. This becomes the cause of creation of more and more of karma, both positive and negative.


peacegirl wrote:

But what if we can eliminate the problem that creates the angst. I'm not talking right now about unmet desires; I'm talking right now about getting your arm cut off. Wouldn't it be nice not to have to worry about how you are going to react so as not to feel as much pain, than to actually keep your arm?


A better karmic field, a positive universe where lesser amount of suffering is present, is indeed result of sum total of intention vectors being positive. That is why, so much emphasis on righteous education. If you could transmute every psyche by knowledge, socratic or otherwise, there will never arise a need of weapons, prisons, punishment and law.

Monk2400 wrote:
You can't eliminate danger from the world. Nor can you eliminate pain. A human being will not be a human being if it does not experience pleasure and pain.

Buddhism proposes a way to eliminate the angst by eliminating its source--not danger in the world, but attachments. It proposes a radical shift in the orientation of experience, which is in reality no shift at all.

Release the concept of evil and release the power it has over you.

Some pain is inevitable but the suffering is optional. Suffering is for one who believes in it! [ This belief is present at a very deep level, at cellular level]

peacegirl wrote:
Because there is no activity here, I am going to say goodbye. If you want to join in any further discussion, please go to: freethought-forum.com. It is very exhausing to keep 3 forums up. Libertygirl, you've been great. I think you are one of the most open minded administrators I know, and I thank you so much for your open-mindedness.


Thanks peacegirl. It was nice interacting with you.
peacezenpeace
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 03/20/11 - 11:53 AM:

peacegirl wrote:
Because there is no activity here, I am going to say goodbye. If you want to join in any further discussion, please go to: freethought-forum.com. It is very exhausing to keep 3 forums up. Libertygirl, you've been great. I think you are one of the most open minded administrators I know, and I thank you so much for your open-mindedness.

thank you for your compliments. it's typically pretty quiet around here on the weekends. come back anytime hug
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
Posted 03/20/11 - 11:56 AM:

thinker wrote:
If you catch them young, there will be no evil.

some evil arises from physical deformity, specifically problems in the brain that affect a person's ability to feel compassion or empathy. i think in some cases, no amount of behavioral conditioning will have any impact on a person's potential to enact malice or inflict harm.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/20/11 - 12:23 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

some evil arises from physical deformity, specifically problems in the brain that affect a person's ability to feel compassion or empathy. i think in some cases, no amount of behavioral conditioning will have any impact on a person's potential to enact malice or inflict harm.


A good point. In that case though, the definition of malice or harm might be different for that person. If the person in question is not inflicting the pain intentionally, it does not qualify as evil at a scale, but might qualify as evil at another scale. We had an interesting discussion on a related note about the protagonist of Memento. If you look closely that movie offers much about evil/existence/truth of human condition!
cripes
Senior Member

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 22, 2009
Location: the SE portion of a state in the NE part of the US

Total Topics: 18
Total Comments: 157
cripes
#11 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/20/11 - 1:16 PM:

libertygrl wrote:

some evil arises from physical deformity, specifically problems in the brain that affect a person's ability to feel compassion or empathy. i think in some cases, no amount of behavioral conditioning will have any impact on a person's potential to enact malice or inflict harm.
There is strong belief both empathy and compassion are greatly gender specific (female). I personally think the existence and non-existence of both are adaptations. So I'd hesitate to label any driven act regarding either as evil. Out of date? Perhaps. Evil is a value judgment, and values have no place, IMV, when considering the condition of an animal, including the human animal.

Females would/could have developed both empathy and compassion because they were/are natural nurturers while males need(ed) to lack both in order to do the dirty work of protecting and hunting. Taking life is no easy feat emotionally, certain feelings need to be blocked out to carry out the act.

I consider any so called inborn "abnormalities" as merely variations within any species, including ours.
Monk2400
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 19, 2005

Total Topics: 116
Total Comments: 1518
#12 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/21/11 - 12:40 PM:

cripes wrote:

Females would/could have developed both empathy and compassion because they were/are natural nurturers while males need(ed) to lack both in order to do the dirty work of protecting and hunting. Taking life is no easy feat emotionally, certain feelings need to be blocked out to carry out the act.


I wonder if the wolf has any moral uneasiness about taking a life.

They don't need to block out any feelings at all. In fact, the moment of the kill no doubt sharpens all of their senses because it is always a matter of life and death.

So it is too for the human animal. Or so it must have been if we suppose the modern evolutionary timeline to be true. As for empathy of mothers versus fathers, we're talking about mammalian traits that would have existed looong before humans took form. Perhaps they were specialized in various directions according to the need of the jungle or the plain, but it is not something that will have arose with humanity.

In other words, if today we find it difficult to kill other beings, it is a latter-day adaptation, probably due to humanity's continuing social isolation of itself from the natural world.

8)
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#13 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/21/11 - 4:36 PM:

Thinker wrote:
If the person in question is not inflicting the pain intentionally, it does not qualify as evil at a scale, but might qualify as evil at another scale.

well, we can took a look at sociopaths, for example. they can and do inflict pain intentionally and feel no remorse from it. some may do it out of a sadistic compulsion, others may do it out of a perceived "greater good". timothy mcveigh, for example - the oklahoma city bomber - who called the u.s. government "the ultimate bully". i'm not aware of mcveigh having specific brain abnormalities, but some sociopaths do.

in another direction, we can look at the example of arthur frederick goode, a serial pedophile and child murderer who was considered borderline mentally retarded. there are actually many criminal cases of the mentally retarded committing violent crimes of rape/assault, sometimes resulting in death penalty, other times resulting in a more lenient sentence because of their cognitive deficiencies.

i think in the examples of goode, mcveigh, and others like them, the intent to harm is pretty self-evident, if not for sadistic reasons (meaning a specific intention to cause someone else's suffering) then at least for reasons of personal gratification or pleasure regardless of suffering as a side effect. i think these would classify as acts of evil.

i also believe that people can bring harsh karmic repercussions upon themselves without realizing how they brought it on themselves. more to the point, i believe that unintended "evils" can bring certain causally-related events into a person's life which call attention to the individual's need to change their behavior. even if the individual is not able to recognize the need (before getting executed, for example), others are able to see the repercussions and draw their own conclusions as to what should or should not have been done.

Thinker wrote:
We had an interesting discussion on a related note about the protagonist of Memento. If you look closely that movie offers much about evil/existence/truth of human condition!

i don't think the film paints leonard as an agent of evil. is it evil to become a vigilante? to seek to avenge the brutal crime that led to his wife's death? in certain contexts it can be construed as evil to do so. yes, there are different scales by which these things are weighed.

[spoiler alert] more questionable is the fact that his quest led him to kill at least one person who was the wrong guy. did he kill an innocent person, though? we don't know. in my view, it cannot be clearly established based on the information presented in the film that leonard is in fact guilty of having committed something evil. the possibility is clearly present, though.

what are your thoughts? was shelby an agent of evil?

also, along these lines, does anyone believe there is such thing as a "necessary evil"?
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#14 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 12:24 AM:

lib wrote:
i don't think the film paints leonard as an agent of evil. is it evil to become a vigilante? to seek to avenge the brutal crime that led to his wife's death? in certain contexts it can be construed as evil to do so. yes, there are different scales by which these things are weighed.


I do not think that I am able to answer your question, but, the movie is my favorite one and I have watched it many times and I challenge my friends, in a playful manner, to give a description of the movie, because, I feel that none of them understood its story. The fact that Leonard was intent on chasing a John G( Even after having killed many such persons), by creating his own facts and then tatooing them, is indeed not understood by many until they closely watch movie. Leonard kills for living, after perhaps having killed the guy who was the criminal, because, he had no goal left[ Even this goal he makes in a moment but then forgets that he did so---might be a good food for free will thread---what about the free will for person like Leonard?].

There also is a doubt that whether Samy Jankins was not Leonard and that he did not kill his wife himself because of his condition!
[ I am thinking on other 'moral' aspects and will try to give a feedback on them smiling face]

libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#15 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 12:46 AM:

Thinker13 wrote:
The fact that Leonard was intent on chasing a John G( Even after having killed many such persons)

although it is plausible that he killed many people, this is not how i would interpret the film, especially not after recently reading "memento mori", the short story on which the film was based. i don't think there's only one correct interpretation, though. as with inception, nolan provides many deliberate ambiguities to make way for many possible interpretations.

[ I am thinking on other 'moral' aspects and will try to give a feedback on them smiling face]

thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#16 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 2:36 AM:

lib wrote:
although it is plausible that he killed many people, this is not how i would interpret the film, especially not after recently reading "memento mori", the short story on which the film was based. i don't think there's only one correct interpretation, though. as with inception, nolan provides many deliberate ambiguities to make way for many possible interpretations.


To the T. Nolan is a master in doing that. thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#17 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 3:05 AM:

lib wrote:

In another direction, we can look at the example of Arthur Frederick Goode, a serial pedophile and child murderer who was considered borderline mentally retarded. there are actually many criminal cases of the mentally retarded committing violent crimes of rape/assault, sometimes resulting in death penalty, other times resulting in a more lenient sentence because of their cognitive deficiencies.

Karma is a very complex concept at times and I feel overwhelmed. It is easy to account for karma, its role, its balancing out for an individual who is going to get liberated, but for universe as a whole, the karmic balancing is too difficult a puzzle to crack. If I speculate for a while from Karmic viewpoint, as there is nothing bad in it, and I am not claiming that I am nearer to the truth: Even in case of mentally retarded: The karma which had its share for mental retardation [There is a necessity of accepting metempsychosis/reincarnation/transmigration of soul as a concept to talk on it for a while!]---and then there is, the karma, which is getting created by this subject’s crimes of rape and assault. Karmic ally, there should come a state, in this subject’s current birth or in his next birth, where, he should be able to feel ‘normally’ [again ‘normalcy’ is a vague concept but say it exists for time being]. After that, he should be able to balance out this karma by paying for it, by being conscious of abject misery and pain and so and so on. At a grand scale the karma he is creating by perpetrating crimes is also to get balanced out.

If I take an example: If I befriend some swindlers and some very corrupt people and then they drug me and make me commit crimes: The share of karma in the perpetration of crime is lesser than my conscious commitment toward crime [considering I am a ‘normal’ guy and am not in a bad company], but, since I am allowing myself to be abused by those corrupt friends of mine, I have my share of Karma in that.
That is why, more importance/weight -age is given to the intentions and awareness and not to the acts. I have also read that karmic ally, a more evolved being gets results of Karmas quicker than others and I have also read that physical manifestation of Karma is only because of lack of awareness and its becoming gross in nature. Awareness burns karma and it is not allowed to get manifested physically.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#18 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 3:18 AM:

lib wrote:

i think in the examples of Goode, McVeigh, and others like them, the intent to harm is pretty self-evident, if not for sadistic reasons (meaning a specific intention to cause someone else's suffering) then at least for reasons of personal gratification or pleasure regardless of suffering as a side effect. i think these would classify as acts of evil.

Indeed, they classify as acts of evil. The theory of Karma suggests that you are responsible for your current disposition [Or say since you took responsibility by being a ‘doer’, by attaching a lot of weight to your ego!]---therefore, whatever you do, has karmic weight age—which is not only current, but also has a lot of history. I mean, I may be a ‘bull in the china shop’ visionary/missionary, with much conformity about the truth I know, much confidence in the prophesies I have, much faith in the revelations I am going to do, but, if I am not wise in the truest sense, whatever I will be doing will turn out to be an addendum to the stupidity and will not do any good of the world at large. That is why, doubt is better than immense blind faith. A faith which comes after awareness has reached a certain point of development is very different and that does not create miseries. So, I am responsible for my being naïve and being under the impression that I am enlightened; that is, indeed my karmic disposition: Therefore, even if my intentions are good---they emanate from a position of ignorance: I mean I may have immense charismatic power like Hitler and I may be working to create an Utopia, but that might really be, adding to bad Karma, because, even if my intentions are good, I am starting from a position of ignorance, but ironically, none can remain inactive and very few of us realize that we could be wrong and even rarer are those who have this in mind while doing anything or thinking anything.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#19 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 3:21 AM:

lib wrote:

i also believe that people can bring harsh karmic repercussions upon themselves without realizing how they brought it on themselves. more to the point, i believe that unintended "evils" can bring certain causally-related events into a person's life which call attention to the individual's need to change their behavior. even if the individual is not able to recognize the need (before getting executed, for example), others are able to see the repercussions and draw their own conclusions as to what should or should not have been done.

Indeed. That is where change starts and karma starts balancing out.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#20 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 3:23 AM:

lib wrote:
Also, along these lines, does anyone believe there is such thing as a "necessary evil"?

I do not get you here. Do you mean to say that there is ‘inevitable share of negative karma’? Your being helpless toward doing something, you think is wrong?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#21 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 12:28 PM:

Thinker wrote:
Karma is a very complex concept at times and I feel overwhelmed. It is easy to account for karma, its role, its balancing out for an individual who is going to get liberated, but for universe as a whole, the karmic balancing is too difficult a puzzle to crack.

i'm totally fascinated by karma. i'm not too familiar with the formal teachings of karma, but i have formed many theories/beliefs about it based on my own observations. thanks for sharing your own thoughts & observations as well, it's often hard for me to find people who are interested in talking about karma. it is very puzzle-like, that's what i like about it. i like watching films from the perspective of karmic movement. very often a film will have various arcs involving the growth of the characters, mainly the protagonist, sometimes of the antagonist too. but the karmic arc and how it affects everyone is also especially fascinating to me. in simplified form we can call it "the moral of the story", in other words: what are we supposed to learn from it? but yes sometimes the lessons are less obvious than others. and sometimes you can watch a film, or read a novel, and obviously glean much finer points from a repeat viewing later on, after you've integrated certain principles.

Thinker wrote:
That is why, doubt is better than immense blind faith. A faith which comes after awareness has reached a certain point of development is very different and that does not create miseries.

ah yes, quite so.

Thinker wrote:
Even in case of mentally retarded: The karma which had its share for mental retardation [There is a necessity of accepting metempsychosis/reincarnation/transmigration of soul as a concept to talk on it for a while!

i do believe in reincarnation to a certain extent, not necessarily one of specific souls moving from body to body (if it does happen that way, i think it's only a limited portion of the time and not in every case) but what i believe is more like patterns of personality and behavior (archetypes) that are causally and energetically connected to others by means of karmic movement and other metaphysical connections. to me, it's not so much about specific people and their memories being carried from one body to another, but more about their values and the roles they play in a community, and how these archetypes take on newly refined shapes moving from one generation to another.

Thinker wrote:
If I take an example: If I befriend some swindlers and some very corrupt people and then they drug me and make me commit crimes: The share of karma in the perpetration of crime is lesser than my conscious commitment toward crime [considering I am a ‘normal’ guy and am not in a bad company], but, since I am allowing myself to be abused by those corrupt friends of mine, I have my share of Karma in that.

yes. agreed.

Thinker wrote:
I have also read that karmic ally, a more evolved being gets results of Karmas quicker than others and I have also read that physical manifestation of Karma is only because of lack of awareness and its becoming gross in nature. Awareness burns karma and it is not allowed to get manifested physically.

these are interesting ideas. are there any texts on karma that talk about these concepts, that you would recommend?
libertygrl
Administrator
Avatar

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Apr 16, 2005
Location: San Francisco

Total Topics: 425
Total Comments: 4673
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 3:17 PM:

Thinker wrote:
I do not get you here. Do you mean to say that there is ‘inevitable share of negative karma’? Your being helpless toward doing something, you think is wrong?

i think "necessary evils" traditionally refer to having to commit an evil in order to make another matter right. an example might be plotting to kill someone who has kidnapped and tortured you. i'm not totally familiar with the expression, though, so if someone else knows of other meanings, please share your thoughts.

here is what wikipedia says about it -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessary_Evil

- although i don't really understand very well the 3 distinctions that they're making. maybe someone can shed some light on it.

as to your other question: is there an inevitable share of negative karma? i would say that, yes, anyone with a sense of karma will have an inevitable share of negative karma.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 11:37 PM:

lib wrote:
these are interesting ideas. are there any texts on karma that talk about these concepts, that you would recommend?


literature.awgp.org/english...ion/TheAbsoluteLawofKarma/

If you naviagte to the link above, you will find a 36 pages sleek book. It might be a good read, but in case, there is some difficulty with some ideas ( because they have background of Hinduism) ---we can discuss ideas from book here. More than that I have read through some Buddhism sources here and there and gleaned by meditation as well.
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 11:39 PM:

lib wrote:
i'm totally fascinated by karma. i'm not too familiar with the formal teachings of karma, but i have formed many theories/beliefs about it based on my own observations. thanks for sharing your own thoughts & observations as well, it's often hard for me to find people who are interested in talking about karma. it is very puzzle-like, that's what i like about it. i like watching films from the perspective of karmic movement. very often a film will have various arcs involving the growth of the characters, mainly the protagonist, sometimes of the antagonist too. but the karmic arc and how it affects everyone is also especially fascinating to me. in simplified form we can call it "the moral of the story", in other words: what are we supposed to learn from it? but yes sometimes the lessons are less obvious than others. and sometimes you can watch a film, or read a novel, and obviously glean much finer points from a repeat viewing later on, after you've integrated certain principles.


Very glad to know that lib. It will be a joy to listen about your theories on it. To watch movies 'Philosophically' suggests your highly evolved thought process.thumb up
Thinker13
Senior Member
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2009

Total Topics: 357
Total Comments: 3379
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted 03/22/11 - 11:55 PM:

lib wrote:
i do believe in reincarnation to a certain extent, not necessarily one of specific souls moving from body to body (if it does happen that way, i think it's only a limited portion of the time and not in every case) but what i believe is more like patterns of personality and behavior (archetypes) that are causally and energetically connected to others by means of karmic movement and other metaphysical connections. to me, it's not so much about specific people and their memories being carried from one body to another, but more about their values and the roles they play in a community, and how these archetypes take on newly refined shapes moving from one generation to another.


I agree completely. I have read 'Born Again' by Walter Semkiv, in which, I got introduced to the theory of 'Split Incarnation', which is a very peculiar theory. I started a thread 'Split Incarnation' long ago.

In India, there is a saintly figure 'Sathya Sai Baba' [ Whether he is really pious or not is not the matter at hand so I leave it at that] ---he has highest fan following in India. He claims to be a reincarnation of another miraculous saint from Maharashtra called 'Shirdi Sai Baba'. Interesting thing is: a scorpio stinged Sathya Sai Baba when he was very young ( may be 8 years ---i do not recall well!)----he lost his consciousness and later as he reagined it-he started saying to everyone "I am Sai Baba of Shirdi".

[ As an aside: Being an earnest researcher in Astrology, I know that he has a stellium of Sun, Mercury, Venus and Saturn in the mysterious sign of Scorpio in the Ascendant ---this might suggest of an archetype---when taken into the account with scorpion sting to the young boy!]

If the conventional reincarnation theory is to take care of this incident---you will reject his claims, because, it is not possible to get a reincarnation in an already living person, but, from the viewpoint of your proposal here, it is very much possible.


The interesting thing to discuss [ or to speculate!] might be: "what happens to the karma when another karmik set is superimposed---for example: what happened to the karma which was there with that boy when supposedly another karma ( say that of Sai Baba of Shirdi) got superimposed on it?"
Search thread for
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



Sorry, you don't have permission . Log in, or register if you haven't yet.



Acknowledgements:

Couch logo design by Midnight_Monk. The photo hanging above the couch was taken by Paul.

Powered by WSN Forum. Free smileys here.
Special thanks to Maria Cristina, Jesse , Echolist Directory, The Star Online,
Hosting Free Webs, and dmoz.org for referring visitors to this site!

Copyright notice:

Except where noted otherwise, copyright belongs to respective authors
for artwork, photography and text posted in this forum.