| |
|
Thanks for starting a new thread May.
For the sake of being complete, I'll post my previous comments here. For those who have already read them, please scroll down to the line of Graemlins who usher in the new comments from the cold remains of the old:
------------
May:
Karma is inherently tied with Dharma.
The statement that Lionheart made of 'you do what you have to do' is a simple restating of this.
You get 'good karma' from performing your Dharma. You get 'bad karma' from denying your Dharma.
People in this culture have an extremely christianized view of Karma.
Remember, again, the whole Bagavad Gita of the Hindu's is based upon Arjuna NOT wanting to engage in the slaughter of his cousins. Krishna, reprimanded and then lectured him on it. It was his Dharma to engage in the slaughter. He would only get good karma by waging the war.
Also, the Raksas of Vedic and post-vedic Hinduism received good Karma for being evil demons, it was only when they stepped outside of the bounds of their Dharma that their Karma would be jeapordized.
Also, at least in Hindu beliefs (I tend to refer back to them for Karma considering that was where the concept originated) Saints were constantly cursing people for all sorts of slights. Usually the curse took the form of bestowing bad karma on to someone so that their next reincarnation would be the manifestation of the saint's curse.
The idea that cursing inherently causes bad Karma is a personal religious one (based on Eastern religions) not one universal to all traditions and not an empirical law of nature.
-------------
and
-------------
Agreed, from a Buddhist view of Karma.
When I refer to Karma, Dharma, etc. I usually refer back to Hinduism considering that was the origin of the concepts.
In Hinduism there are 4 paths or 'Margas'. One of them is Karma-Marga (the way or path of action). Again, in the Bagavad Gita Krishna lets Arjuna in on the secret of Karma-Marga (which also explains the relationship between Karma and Dharma) which is that action performed purely out of a sense of one's duty (Dharma), with no thought of selfish gain, leads to spiritual fulfillment.
Here's a quote on the main difference between Hinduism and Siddhartha's teachings by Theologian John Renard:
"But perhaps the most striking Buddhist turn of thought is its rejectiion of Hinduism's substantialist view that the core of every person is an indestructable soul that must either be set free or condemned to suffer the consequences of negative karma in subsequent rebirths. Buddha considered the notion of an immortal self that needs to be saved just one more delusion to grasp at in desperation, one more cause of suffering."
Which kinda gets back to my main point which is that, in a lot of occult/new age circles there is this belief that 'karma' (however the individual defines it) is an absolute law of the universe. But everyone, from the various sects of Hinduism, to the various Buddhists, to the western occultists, have a different definition of it. So which one is right? Is it the people who came up with the concept originally?
Or is it Siddhartha that while being a major religious figure was first and foremost a man who basically disagreed with his Hindu teachings and made his own.
Or is it the many other 'reformers' who modified the concept over the ages.
Also, plenty of people in western culture have this belief of Karma as having to do with retribution within this life. Sometimes colloquially termed 'instant karma'. Karma, as far as I can tell, was always about how you reincarnate. Not any retribution you'll recieve in this life.
Karma, by nature of being about the afterlife (i.e., what form you'll reincarnate into, if you don't free yourself from the cycle), is a RELIGIOUS concept that cannot be tested, even by magical standards, within this life.
Saying that 'don't do this or you'll suffer the consequences of karma' is effectively the same thing as saying to someone 'don't do this or God will condemn you to hell', or any other religious cautionary statement.
I definitely agree that there is an inevitable mixing of religion and magical theory and technique but it's helpful, and honest, to at least realize when one has moved from one into the other.
-----------------
       
So, my questions to May and any others who hold Karma, Dharma, etc. to be a true external law of the universe and not just a religious dogma (as flawed and true as any other religious dogma) is:
1) Why do you believe Karma to be real?
2) Why have you chosen your sect/tradition/personal definition of Karma over the other myriad definitions?
3) Do you feel that your views of Karma apply not only to you but to everyone else? If so are you saying that the other religious views that don't embrace karma are wrong and or misguided?
4) How much mixing of religious theory (this or any other) and magical theory is appropriate for discussions among practitioners of different magical traditions? Appropriate meaning to try and keep things in the realm of communication and thought provoking discussion as opposed to religious evangelizing?
(for the last one I define religious theory as doctrine or dogma handed down from a tradition or teacher as a hard truth even though it hasn't been verified one way or the other through personal experience or experimentation - and yes, this could include certain dogma's passed down from Crowley, Carroll, Harner etc. but to start off with let's keep it to the realm of religion and the things that can't be verified, hence the need of religions to explain those things i.e., Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, religious aspects of paganism, etc.) |
|
|
