Tuesday, April 10, 2007

The Laws of Karma ....

I see a lot of comments on the blog. Thanks all ... I've been busy winding up my thesis ... But here is an interesting (?) question ...
Is the law of Karma the same always ? Or is it slightly dependent on the circumstances ? Is it the same if a person stole money for medicne for a sick child and if someone stole for not so dire a need, like say have a party.
How do we define dire? If we think of it really, nothing is so dire. If the child died, he would be born again ...
And if it's all in the mind maybe I have the same dire need to have the party that the other person has to save his child. This is not so funny given how important people think their social status is.
So does that make stealing in both these cases of equal karmic significance?

17 comments:

Syam said...

We do not define karma on the situation. Though I am not such a big karmic guy.:) I think it does not dependent on circumstances. It is dependent on the person. Finally karma is person specific. He has to answer his conscience, whether it is right or wrong.

Avadooth said...

i will leave it to krishna to answer

in gita he said (it seems)" if gnani kills everyone on this planet earth, even then he is not bound by the sin",

in siva gita lord shiva tells parvathi mata "i dont have sin"

personally,i think there is no point in analysing things that are based on belief system,faith,scriptures,books,etc.

if at all there is anything to be analysed it is the one that is in experience. Once you completely analyse and experience wht can be experienced without having to believe anything, all questions will be answered.

Srinivas said...

ok my turn,
I have read somewhere, that every person has some set rules in his conscience, depending on the way he gre up etc.,
they prevent you from doing some things and convince you that doing some other things is fine. An example being stealing. The stealing box is not checked in the rules list for most people so it will be a crime if you do it. But if in someone else's rule list if its checked, I think he can steal and yet not feel guilty.
So as syam said, conscience is everything.

Avadooth said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Avadooth said...

hi folks,

good one syam and srinivas. i appreciate what ever you guys wrote.

hey, please answer my questions too on the other blog in anagha's ramblings. the one about mind.

avadooth

Avadooth said...

"karturagnaya prapyathe phalam, karma kim param karma that jhadam"
Ramana Maharishi.
it means it is through the will of the Karta "the doer" that a Phalam "the fruit or result of a karma", prapyathe "means comes into experience"

karma alone is not sufficient to bring phalam to experience. since karma is jhadam i.e. it is not independent, it is dependent on the kartha.

karma siddhantha is disproved many times in the history of India.

yet, as you(anagha) say(s) and believe(s) "theory of relativity does not mean that newtons laws are incorrect or inapplicable"

may be karma siddhantha is applicable but it doesnt have any meaning with out the karta.

Anagha Mudigonda said...

thanks for your comments all ... though it is contrary to intuition i think the karmic significance is the same in both these cases. why else would a guy like duryodhana go to heaven ! but perhaps the grace of the lord descends faster on the stealing for medicne guy. or perhaps not. it's only us that attaches values to discipline and goodness and honesty etc. perhaps because of the things they may motivate us to do.

Avadooth said...

Assumptions, assumptions,assumptions........

are you sure there is heaven? are you sure there is God? are you sure duryodhana went to heaven?

i am not sure at all.

but assuming all is true, yours is a good point.

Anonymous said...

Is it not that karma just is? Every exhalation is the result(karma) of an inhalation - nothing more, nothing less.

Some see the world as being evil - that is a judgement of judgements. Is not Karma just a judgement that
is unavoidable?

Doesn't all relative existence create karma constantly? If a rock splits away from a mountain, karma is in motion as it tumbles downwards.

I think... Is there immediate karma, with my writing of this post right now. The karma will be, whatever wheels my thoughts put in action.

If I just observe my karma and let it be, am I to be liberated from it?

So what I get is that karma is the relative world based on fragmentation. In the fully integrated spiritual world where all is one and there is no separation, how can anything produce karma? Full integration cannot be defined, yet karma always can... :-)

I have died to my "yesterday" self and am realising today the karma of whatever I did yesterday, but as yesterday is no more, so that "me" is gone and if I can be here now I can transcend, but not destroy my karma.

Avadooth said...

Derek is absolutely correct.
i completely agree with you

hey, plz clarify whether fragmentation and Whole (fully integrated spiritual world)can coexist.

if they dont. is it the fragmentation or the Whole that is existing.

if every exhalation is a result of every inhalation, what is inhalation a result of?

Which one is first exhalation or inhalation?

Anonymous said...

Avadooth wrote: "hey, plz clarify whether fragmentation and Whole (fully integrated spiritual world)can coexist"

I only ever have questions as there are no answers except the questions.. Isn't a fully integrated spiritual contextual? Fragmentation would be the spiritual pretending it is not one with all in order to play in the universe? :-)

Avadooth said...

good one again Derek,

my experience says they coexist and becoz they coexist one need not do any pracices like meditation,prayers,rituals, to experience the self.................................(infact everything and anything is experiencing the self itself)

as silence and sound coexist...

as light and darkness coexist.....


as absolute and relative coexist .......

as Anagha's "theory of relativity and Newtons laws coexist".........

hey,

which one would you prefer
oneness as silence without awareness or pretentious seperation with awareness?

Anagha Mudigonda said...

For a while at least separateness with awareness. Looks like more fun to me :)

Anonymous said...

Yes, at this point in my journey through existence - if indeed it is a journey, I seem to be committed to the (fun)game.

Now I'm one, now I'm not! What is not, can be more important than what is.

Now there is God, now there is not... Now there is Heaven, now there is not!

There is an All. When we doubt and question, that is part of it. The All has taken various names, depending on where in the world you live. Contemplating that is certainly a good game! :-)

Avadooth said...

but once you have acknowledged it as pretentious seperation, pretention doesnot exist(the same with seperation).

the choice you have is not a choice in fact.

in either way the seperation is negated. (known fun rather than unknown excitement)

it is not long before the pretention is forgotten,know-fun becomes pointless and SILENCE REMAINS(PREVAILS) AS IT IS. AS IT HAS ALWAYS DONE.

Anagha Mudigonda said...

Why should separation be pretentious ? It could be respectful and with awareness that is it only temporary.

Avadooth said...

there can never be any state called seperation with awareness.

there can be seperation with assumption or seperation with forgetfulness.