Here's a little web page that offers some intuitive insight.

http://hubpages.com/hub/The-12-Laws-Of-Karma

karma NOPE if there was such thing thee wouldn’t be injustice in this world. A person can be an *** al their life commit horrific criminal activities and live a very happy and fulfilling life.

karma & Reincarnation .....yes

I decide not to take revenge or do bad things to people not for the fear of karma, but for a clear conscience. I know what's right and what's wrong, and I hate feeling regret or guilt, and that is enough to make me think twice before I do something stupid.

Karma is merely a reaction to an action--every action has consequences. Usually, when we do something perceived as negative, we get negative consequences.

I don't believe that thinking something negative brings negative results--not unless we bring about self-fulfilled prophecies or punish ourselves for those thoughts.

There is a saying about "no kindness ever goes unpunished." I have found that performing good deeds does not always bring about positive "karma"!

I didn't read all the posts, but definitely feel that Karma is spiritual. I think of myself as very spiritual and I am a huge believer in Karma.

I was told from day one that superstitions are things of no consequence. I laughed at superstitious people. I explained to them that sup.s are stupid. And I could not help but notice at the same time that I was just as superstitious as everyone else. I camouflaged it with believing my own, custom-made, individual, myself-created superstitions.

A sort of karma-thing is an accessory to that. If you ask do I believe in Karma, I say no, but if I tell somebody about a good news regarding my healt, I say "let's touch wood" and if I get lucky two times in a row, and I tell somebody about that, I say "nicht verschreien".

I noticed that the scientist-types and the very smart types don't believe in karma. I believe, however, that it's an innate thing to believe in a select type of superstitions, an off-shoot of common moral behaviour, which has been genetically ingrained in people (not by nurture).


For instance: it is not by choice that nobody says something bad about a relative who has just died. It is not a choice, because people (survivors in that situation) do not have the power to do otherwise.

Karma is a metaphysical concept. It links positive and negative actions to an individual with the idea that balance will be had eventually.

For something to be positive or negative requires a value assessment. This is innately subjective, as only a subject can make such an estimate. If there is no god doing the assessing then its all individual perspective on whether something is good or bad becuase there would be no universal judge to decide on the action in question. This would remove the balancing part as how could a system of contextual wrong-ness and right-ness ever achieve balance. The answer is it couldn't, so without objective morals you have no god less karma, with subjective morals only a god+karma solution would work. Without a value assessor you have no way to balance outside of objective morals, objective morals is a sad concept that can be picked apart easily so lets not go down that road.

I see no way for a natural Karma to exist, you either loose the value assessment, or the idea that it will eventually balance, I believe the loss of either characteristic renders the concept no longer Karmic. Either you water down the Karma to not really be Karma just steal the label or its metaphysically reliant on an assessor, a judge.

I think the value of the concept is a psychological one at best, it gives people something they can believe in to justify inaction in situations where action could cause them greater suffering.

Even if a universal judge could decide on every single action ever performed and come to a consistent moral solution, as well as tally up the exchange and then add in whats needed to balance . . . its a giant cluster F, and when you see the results of the world you must be smoking something dam good to come to the conclusion that this judge being is a benevolent being (either that or you live a charmed existence, oh how I wish I where you some days)

What I see is a world with no universal judge; a world of relative morals; a world of people trying to use flawed logic precipitated on incomplete information selected with confirmation bias to render some sort of equity for their lot in life.

I also see honor. I see people make a difference every day by drawing a mental line in the dirt that they will not cross and will not see others cross without a challenge. I respect those people, I call them doers, they are the opposite of shruggies. They see wrongs and do something about it, no Karma needed, no thanks needed. Why do they do it? Because its the right thing to do dammit!

Can't say I believe .... I just see a desire to believe.
Karma takes the pressure off me in a sense that I don't have to take responsibility for changes in others via retribution etc.

Its a way to explain the injustice we see in the chaos around us.

God moves in mysterious ways ... does the same.

if karma is real it explains why there are more bedbugs than people.

Doesn't really matter what the definition of "karma" is.

But things do have a tendency to come around full circle.

I think everything that you've stated here is basically based on your own subjective view of what you imagine karma to be.

Clearly, as with all mystical concepts karma is not cut-and-dried. There are many different ways of thinking of karma. There's really no need for karma to even be associated with "moral values" actually, other than perhaps the subjective views of the actual person who is creating that karma.

I think of it more like the wake of a boat that's goes in circles. If you make large waves with the boat, you're going to have to drive through those large waves the next time around. Whether or not you judge large waves in terms of 'morals' or not is your own subjective views. That's where the concept of morals becomes subjective.

The question really comes down to what kinds of waves are you creating?

The analogy of a boat creating waves in water is truly an extremely weak analogy but it gives a general picture of what's basically going on.

If you create "waves" in life, you're creating far more than mere water waves. You're creating waves of emotion. Both in yourself and in other people. You may need to ride those waves of emotion out yourself. Perhaps in this lifetime, perhaps in another.

The idea of karma doesn't necessarily need to be associated with reincarnation, etc. That's an ideal that almost parallels the idea of "justice" in the Abrahamic religions with the idea that everyone has to pay for the damage they do eventually and death can't get them out of having to pay for what they did.

Whether there is any truth to those idea is anyone's guess.

But in terms of karma just within this life it can be a very real thing thing. People who do things that most people consider to be nasty, will more than likely ultimately experience similarly nasty experiences themselves. Whether it's in the form of feelings of self-guilt, nightmares, a miserable life in general, or actual incarceration or punishments inflicted on them by other people. There's a real good chance that if they continually do nasty things to other people it's going to affect their lives in a nasty way too.

Is that subjective? Sure, but it still WORKS.

And in the sense that I've described it here it can be an extremely secular concept with no need to bring in anything metaphysical at all.

For example, if you choose to partake in a lot of bad actions (karma is nothing more than action, that's the meaning of the word karma), then there's a very high probability that you're going to end up suffering from that. Either via your own loss of self-esteem, or via the retribution that others will inflict on you when they catch up to you, like incarcerating you, or whatever.

All that karma basically says is that you actions affect your life directly. It's basically the same thing as saying, "You reap what you sow".

Can you "cheat karma"? Sure you can. But have you actually violated it when you do? Perhaps not.

Let's say that you do something truly horrible, then later you wish that you hadn't done that. Already you're feeling remorse and regret for what you've done. You may decide for yourself that you will never do anything that bad again, and potentially "Forgive yourself" because you realize that your very own feelings of remorse are indeed genuine. Then perhaps that karma will be "erased".

Who "erased it"?

You did. Karma is nothing more than the RESULT of actions. When you realized the folly of your previous ways and decided to never do that bad thing again, that was itself an ACTION, thus you created a new karma. You've calmed the waves of your very own previous karma.

Karma is not something that's carved in stone or kept track of by the gods. It's totally malleable. It's nothing more than your ACTIONS and the results of those actions.

This is why people who do bad things and sincerely repent and believe that they have been "Saved" by the grace of a deity genuinely are in a very true sense "forgiven" their past karma.

Who forgave them? They did!

They changed their outlook on life and their entire behavior and that in turn changes their Karma.

Clearly it doesn't necessarily change all of their karma. If their past actions caused them to become incarcerated and they have a change of heart, they will still be incarcerated. That part of their karma isn't going to "miraculously change metaphysically" just because they had a change of heart.

However, from secular point of view, their change of heart may have cause an impression on their parole board and they may be released early. That would have been a result of their karma. (their change in actions and how they interact with the world).

So this basic idea of karma can actually work in a very secular and practical way. Where a person actually draws the line between physical and metaphysical is up to them.

But the concept of karma remains either way.

Unless of course you're demanding that it must only be considered valid in terms of reincarnation. Then a belief in life after death is obviously a necessary ingredient. And a belief that actions from this life can somehow be carried over to the next life.

One thing about that kind of belief is that is solves the problem of birth defects, ect.

In other words, once you accept the idea of reincarnation and karma in that context, then the idea is that everyone is "born into" a situation that was basically created by their previous karma or actions.

I'm not saying that I personally buy into that idea myself. But from a purely philosophical point of view I can see where it could have merit. That would certainly explain things in this life that would otherwise appear to be unreasonable or even "unfair".

Of course, the purely atheistic secular belief that "unfair" things happen because life is just a random accident to begin with certainly works equally well. And is possibly even a better explanation. Whether its a "better" explanation or not is obviously a subjective notion as well.

Well if a "scientist" wants to consider the concept of "karma" they had better create a meaningful and decisive definition for it first, otherwise it would be a total waste of time to ask questions about it.

As I just mentioned in my last post, if "Karma" is defined solely in terms of actions and their consequences within this life, then science basically already relies upon karma (i.e. cause and effect)

But if people start getting into describing it as a system that keeps track of moral values then it can be a rather difficult to define scientifically because scientifically it's hard to say what is 'moral' and what isn't.

It sure as hell does if you want to have a conversation about 'it'. Or even if you want to think (using language) about it.

I aspirin some toothache (with a trombone living spam an alchemist) and a clock beyond the dissident swim state of intimacy where we befriend our impresario apple navigate.

Thats what you get when definitions don't matter.

On the other hand, if you don't want to participate in a conversation about karma.... why post in this thread?

We simulposted, with posts in a similar vein. You are right about 'scientists', but it also applies to any thinking human attempting to reason on a topic.

If you're going to quote me, quote me entirely and word for word.
You left out the second part of my statement which defines karma.
"But things do have a tendency to come around full circle".

Next time, read the entire statement and take time to understand what it meant before injecting meaningless babble at an attempt to be insulting.

I believe in Karma, but it is not something that can be held in a "karma bank account" for a later life, or a later time.

What comes to you is a result of your state of consciousness in the present moment.

I saw a show on television last night about a man who was murdered by two women. Was he an innocent victim? Not really. He was an abusive wife beater who had four X-wives, two of whom had restraining orders on him. He lead the kind of life that attracted his fate. He got his Karma.

Now in spite of his awful past record, I believe if he had reformed, got sober, found religion, changed his life and learned to love others, this fate would not have befallen on him. I believe he attracted his experience by how he was living and thinking in the present, not because of anything he had done in his past.

This means that your power to change your life and your future exists in the present moment. You can change your life and your heart now and change your future and all of your "karma" disappears. Nothing will come back to bite you on the butt....and if it does it will be something you have not resolved or changed. If you murdered someone in your past, you may still have to face the punishment for that, but it will not be Karma, it will be the law of man.

Eastern Squirrel, what you described as "coming around full circle" is Karma. I realize some people aren't comfortable with the term, but I think we all know what it means.

Here is a quote from the Mummy: (Its about Karma.)

"You know, nasty little fellows such as yourself always get their comeuppance."

...and he did. He was eaten by scarabs.

You made two assertions. Your first assertion was, paraphrased, "the definition of karma doesn't matter'. Do you stand by that assertion or not? Did you change your mind between the first sentence and the second sentence? If you did, maybe you should have edited your previous words, or recant them, rather than accusing others of failing to read your words when they take them exactly at face value.



This statement does nothing to retract your assertion that the definition doesn't matter, so its totally reasonable to conclude that, at the time you posted this, you did indeed believe that the definition doesn't matter.

Further, this sentence which you now claim as a 'definition' reads more like 'an observation of how things tend to go' rather than a definition of anything. Maybe you meant to say "Karma is the tendency of things to come around full circle" ? If so, what do you mean by 'full circle' ? Surely you don't mean that 'karma' is 'rotational inertia'




Of course I read your whole statement - it was only a few lines. I only skip when people go on and on, repeating themselves. I simply assumed that you said what you meant.

So where do you stand, now? Do you agree that if people are going to have a conversation about something, that definitions do matter?