On 1/26/2012 3:04 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> Le 26/01/2012 21:23, Patrick Elliott nous fit lire :
>> BTW, as clarification. My understanding of the "real" meaning behind
>> Karma would be more or less these rules:
>>
>> 1. Karma doesn't happen "now", its generally punishment for action in a
>> *prior* life.
>> 2. Its karma that determines if you are lucky/unlucky, born rich, or
>> poor, gain in business, of fail, and everything else.
>> 3. In the most extreme case, someone from the absolute top caste could
>> go nuts, murder someone in the bottom caste, and not be charged (at
>> least in the old days, though maybe less so now), based on the theory
>> that the higher status of the offender made it divine justice, and the
>> low caste of the victim made it karma, for something they did wrong, in
>> the prior life.
>>
>> The west has turned this into some idiot version of, 'like calls like',
>> mysticism, and uses the term to describe the fantastically rare cases
>> where someone does something bad and suffers a similar reward, almost
>> immediately, rather than the much more common thing, which is to get by
>> with it, or the nearly as common result of being hammered by some random
>> event, that is magnitudes out of proportion to the supposed "crime".
>> Though, the later is often taken as a "sign" that some sort of justice
>> was served via karma as well.
>
> Speaking of Karma without raising Darma seems a mooth point...
> Same as looking at the worshipers of Shiva (goddess of "destruction")
> and not understanding their points.
>
> Karma is a concept... judging a concept by its application is like
> looking at the concepts of communism applied to Russia, China, Vietnam
> and North Korea. The main issue of communism is that the axiom of
> rational people is damn wrong. It's a story for 6 year old children so
> far in its theory... used to abuse so many millions of people.
> (Capitalism is not better, it's just more reality based about the
> human's nature).
Its fairly irrelevant if the "concept" can be reduced to some silly 
false causality, which makes people feel better. Just because we would 
*like* life to be fair, doesn't mean that universe gives a shit, or 
corrects things in the long run. It doesn't. Often, as long as someone 
has power, and/or wealth, they can do great harm, and not suffer. 
Others, can do no harm their entire lives, and do nothing *but* suffer. 
Those are often "poor" people, or those with no power at all.

Its not about its "application". Its about whether or not it has any 
basis, what so ever, in reality. And, it simply doesn't.

However, if you are talking about the original origins of the principle, 
and how it was used, then you *do* have to look at its application. And, 
must like the "divine right of kings", its purpose wasn't to explain why 
bad things happened, or give some sort of hope (save in the entirely 
false sense, rather like the after life of Christianity), but to 
maintain how things already are. If you don't have a next life, or there 
isn't someone telling you, "If you do all the right things, it will be 
better next time", you will act to change things. If you think your 
deserve what you get, or will be rewarded for suffering it, then, the 
very act of apposing it is, by definition of how what those rules say 
about your caste, life, choices, failures, and even luck, evil (or bad 
karma).

Its not about hope, its about conformity. Adding other words to it, like 
Darma, as though anything in that concept mitigates it, just helps 
perpetuate the original purpose.

Post a reply to this message