From: nagasiva@luckymojo.com (nagasiva yronwode)
To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc,talk.religion.newage,
    alt.religion.buddhism,alt.philosophy.zen,talk.religion.buddhism,
    alt.magick.tantra,alt.religion.hindu
Subject: Concepts of Karma (was Karma)
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 01:29:11 GMT

50000227 IVom 

hi Erik, I'm very glad you're posting this type of thread-initiatior.

"Erik Jordan" <ej7@swbell.net>:
>From Encarta:
>"Karma, in Indian philosophy, the sum total of one's actions, good or bad.
>These actions are attached to the soul as it transmigrates, and each new
>body (and each event experienced by that body) is determined by previous
>karma. All followers of Hinduism believe in karma, although some aspire to
>amass good karma and a good rebirth, while others, regarding all karma as
>bad, strive for release from the process of rebirth altogether."

some Buddhists also believe in karma, with similar variation as to type.

>I am amazed by the strength of belief which many individuals have in karma.
>Many people speak of it as a fact of nature.

many find it easy to become convinced of a thing.

>The cosmology of karma suggests just doesn't seem reasonable. It alludes to
>partial if not total predestination, (a physical impossibility). 
>To me it is an illogical notion ... a concoction to explain life, death, 
>luck, social order ... with no objective premise ... an esoteric catch 
>all. 

the objective premise is that action adheres to an individual, surrounds
hir like a wake or aura. the nature of this aura influences subtle
changes such as may be observed in rebirth.

>Some believers promote subordination of individuality to the cosmic will 
>rather than promoting each person's will as a significant component of 
>the whole.

this will always be the case, of course.

>(Are we to see ourselves as just another fiber in the web? With ego being
>equal to evil). 

that depends on one's objectives. if the ego stands in the way of one's
objective, then it will be regarded as evil or unwanted. if the ego is
to be tranformed or transcended, then it may be accepted limitedly. there
are several notions about constitutes an "ego", and this usually results 
in the differential of how it is to be treated.

>Moreover, karma seems to be a limiting factor in any
>individual life ... if one's karma is to be exploited then that's just the
>way it is ... "accept your fate" ... the sort of thing people usually accept
>via brainwashing or torture. 

it is also often used to explain cosmic events when all other typical methods
turn up nothing. "::shrug:: Must be your karma, man."

>My intellect and my ego simply cannot except
>such an idea as a truth. 

you and I are in the same boat. thus I searched for years to discover
an alternative to the conventional meaning of the term. 

>However, this may be due to lack of knowledge on my part. 

this is always a possibility. we can only be diligent and inquisitive.

>My purpose is simply to learn. The sheer devotion of some believers in
>karma compels me to learn more about the subject.

admirable.

>Would anyone believing in karma please define karma (in their own terms) 

I don't know if "believe in" is the best way to characterize it (since
karma as I understand it seems rather self-evident), but I'll be happy
to discuss it with you. my background is solitary Buddhist practicing
what I call Satantra (Satanist tantra), so count me as unorthodox and
strange. ;>

the only way that karma makes sense to me, other than as a social 
mechanism to steer the Herd toward societally-valuable behaviours,  
is as a psychological phenomenon. in this sense, karma is the
inferred "action", reflective of shifting phenomena, about which
we have a tendency to redefine or refine conceptions of 'self'.

this refinement or redefinition of self is what I accept as a
reasonable definition for "rebirth" (rejecting "reincarnation" as
a completely illogical dualistic fantasy, as it includes the
premise that there are two main substances of human life, one
meat-based and one "spirit"-based; I have absolutely no recall
of anything I can confirm as a "past life", and have not seen
evidence from others which would support this cosmological
notion, so I resort to Occam's Razor). karma of itself is neutral,
until we give it value based on our preconceived notions about
moral behaviour. at the point of observation of the phenomena 
with which we identify ourselves, accepting ourselves as the 
moral cause of it, we integrate prejudices about the nature of
a being which engages in such an action into our self-concept.

from a Buddhist perspective, this self-definition is what
encourages craving (tanha), and inspires suffering (dukkha).
the eradication of a consistent and integral conception of
self destroys the possibility of karma "adhering" to one,
and therefore making an extinction of tanha (nirvana) a real
possibility. the various methods constructed (margas) to
achieve this are all variations on this theme, from what I
can see, though they may be described in differing ways.
 
>and explain why they accept karma as a truth?

I maintain that no concept should be regarded as "truth"
in the sense of an unmovable certainty. skepticism,
doubt, is the monk's meditational honing tool whereby the
skill of intentional ignorance is brought to bear on
problems of intellect. instead I recommend what I am told
is traditional in Buddhism and many forms of Indian yoga:
tentative presumption with empirical testing, assisted 
by peer-review (a scientific approach).

your query regarding this concept and your open-mindedness
in consideration of alternative perspectives is a perfect
inspiration for the kind of peer-review of which I speak.

blessed beast!
om namah smashanakali! 
nagasiva