alright Jeff

[Jeff]

as I said before, they do not treat fools kindly.

 

Sounds similar to those who sometimes invoke angels. The sword can always cut both ways. Clarity can be very sharp.

[Captain Mar-Vell]

...

as I said before, they do not treat fools kindly.

 

Ha ha ha!

 

Bozos!

 

Piercing blade of prajna intuition cut both ways!

 

Ouch!

 

Wield it carefully, oh Manjusri.

 

You could take yer head off wid dat ting!

 

Always point the blade away.

 

Ahimsa!

 

Ahimsa!

 

Sword of Damocles.

 

Tell me, my friends.

 

What was Krishna's advice to Arjuna?

 

I bin meditatin' on dat a while...

 

ps I will be in chat as much as I can for a time.

...

Edited February 22, 2014 by Captain Mar-Vell

[3bob]

Sounds similar to those who sometimes invoke angels. The sword can always cut both ways. Clarity can be very sharp.

 

a very good point

[ChiDragon]

The question in the OP is very ambiguous because there was no beginning or ending. How can anyone come up with a definite answer.....???

[3bob]

on the historic level we have countless examples of a person or movement starting out with honorable intent and ending up in dark karmas. Where the tipping points are is not always so clear.

[Jeff]

on the historic level we have countless examples of a person or movement starting out with honorable intent and ending up in dark karmas. Where the tipping points are is not always so clear.

 

Even if it does not go "dark", good karma is still karma. The one who motivated by honor, is bound by karma.

[3bob]

with egotistic honor yes, while I'd say noble honor per dharma ends up equalizing or finishing karmas

Edited February 23, 2014 by 3bob

[Jeff]

It does seem to keep coming down to our different connotations of the word "honor". Would "noble honor" to you sort of translate to self-sacrifice? Or something like doing it "for the benefit of all sentient beings"?

 

Literally a guy who throws himself on a land mine to save his fellow troops?

[3bob]

well there are various examples but we might agree about the subject that its also like walking a razors edge?

[C T]

Karma has no beginning, because its only as real or as solid as the 'I'.

 

Honor has a beginning, it starts with the gradual formation and a subsequent solidifying process of 'I', 'Me', and 'Mine'. The more fixated one is on the 'I', the greater the need to proclaim and defend one's honor (plus a whole list of other self-aggrandising concepts), which then spins karma into gear.

 

Those who do not place too much attachment on the 'I', does 'honor' still matter?

 

What say you, gents?

[Jeff]

CT - I would agree and have been making much the same point. But, from our back and forth, 3bob may have a slightly different meaning for the word "honor".

 

 

3bob - I think this is an interesting point, could you better describe your razor's edge of honor that clear the gauntlet of karma? To me, it is not possible unless as CT describes the being is beyond the sense of "self".

Edited February 23, 2014 by Jeff

[3bob]

I'm not a Buddhist and it sounds like CT is coming from doctrine that is around 180 degrees different than what I am... so there won't be much agreement between us. (but I don't mind the contrast)

Edited February 23, 2014 by 3bob

[Clarity]

What if honor simply means being honest or truthful with oneself.

 

This is really what cuts through the karma like a hot knife through butter.

 

And then there's no need to 'mentally masturbate' over concepts.

[C T]

I'm not a Buddhist and it sounds like CT is coming from doctrine that is around 180 degrees different than what I am... so there won't be much agreement between us. (but I don't mind the contrast)

What you said above is completely irrelevant.

 

I was opining directly to the opening theme, which is, where honor ends and karma begins. What has my doctrinal inclinations got to do with what i wrote above, which was a straightforward enough proposal. If you are keen to only discuss with those who agree with you, or deemed to belong to one camp only, then it would be helpful if you made that clear from the beginning.

[Jeff]

What if honor simply means being honest or truthful with oneself.

 

This is really what cuts through the karma like a hot knife through butter.

 

And then there's no need to 'mentally masturbate' over concepts.

 

 

The difficulty for me with your definition is that most of our reactions (and the resulting karma) happen at a subconscious level. One can "honestly" believe that the honorable thing to do is to kill someone who insulted your honor, while at a subconscious level you are only protecting your "ego". As 3bob pointed out, many wars have started that way.

[3bob]

What you said above is completely irrelevant.

I was opining directly to the opening theme, which is, where honor ends and karma begins. What has my doctrinal inclinations got to do with what i wrote above, which was a straightforward enough proposal. If you are keen to only discuss with those who agree with you, or deemed to belong to one camp only, then it would be helpful if you made that clear from the beginning.

 

CT, that sounds like a touchy trigger finger. "(but I don't mind the contrast)"

[C T]

CT, that sounds like a touchy trigger finger. "(but I don't mind the contrast)"

 

i was only seeking clarification, sir, and merely stated an undoctrinated (personal) opinion in response to the OP.

 

..peace..

[3bob]

"Karma has no beginning, because its only as real or as solid as the 'I'.

 

Honor has a beginning, it starts with the gradual formation and a subsequent solidifying process of 'I', 'Me', and 'Mine'. The more fixated one is on the 'I', the greater the need to proclaim and defend one's honor (plus a whole list of other self-aggrandising concepts), which then spins karma into gear". by CT.

 

The text above sounds like doctrine to me, whether your own or a variation of Buddhism which does not normally accept a real "I"

thus resulting in or implying that every I is false or ego.

[C T]

"Karma has no beginning, because its only as real or as solid as the 'I'.

 

Honor has a beginning, it starts with the gradual formation and a subsequent solidifying process of 'I', 'Me', and 'Mine'. The more fixated one is on the 'I', the greater the need to proclaim and defend one's honor (plus a whole list of other self-aggrandising concepts), which then spins karma into gear". by CT.

 

The text above sounds like doctrine to me, whether your own or a variation of Buddhism which does not normally accept a real "I"

thus resulting in or implying that every I is false or ego.

Does this mean you have a different view? Please share. It could further the discussion.

[3bob]

Does this mean you have a different view? Please share. It could further the discussion.

 

What does it matter if you already have your mind made up? (and I also pretty much have mine made up)

[Jeff]

What does it matter if you already have your mind made up? (and I also pretty much have mine made up)

 

Well, I am still interested in the razor's edge point. What do you think that I am missing?

[doc benway]

much of the karma going around is related to someone's honor being slighted for which they seek to get even or ahead on...

 

what are your thoughts on where honor ends and karma begins?

 

I think it can very, very quickly turn into a slippery slope when one battles with violence to establish, extract, or force honor. Btw, I still have trouble with some of the teachings in Bhagavad Gita along these lines being that the warriors on both sides of the epic could have chosen to change their stance for sake the first law of non-violence. In other words I think it is 99.99% impossible to fight violently without karma of some degree.

(thus around and around we go)

 

My current feeling (haven't thought about it too deeply) is that most activity related to honor leaves karmic traces.

Some may be negative, some positive, and some neutral. Nevertheless, honor is meaningless in the absence of subject/object discrimination, therefore karma will come into play.

[C T]

My current feeling (haven't thought about it too deeply) is that most activity related to honor leaves karmic traces. Some may be negative, some positive, and some neutral. Nevertheless, honor is meaningless in the absence of subject/object discrimination, therefore karma will come into play.

This is the same point i was reflecting on when i made the comment (a few posts up) which caused 3Bob to see a 'trigger finger'.

[Clarity]

The difficulty for me with your definition is that most of our reactions (and the resulting karma) happen at a subconscious level. One can "honestly" believe that the honorable thing to do is to kill someone who insulted your honor, while at a subconscious level you are only protecting your "ego". As 3bob pointed out, many wars have started that way.

 

Ah yes, well, I'm not talking about belief or what people 'think' is honesty. Being honest means seeing things for what they really are without lying, pretending, or obfuscating.

 

For example, if I step back and ask why 3bob even brought this up, it's because he has weaknesses around not having any honor (his spiritual experiences and his ancestors), and weaknesses around violence and traumatizing others (his ancestors too). I mean look at the words he uses "razor's edge" and "trigger finger" (it's all cutting and shooting karma from the past).

 

The 'difficulty' you mention is really with 'honesty, lying, and manipulating'.

 

So while we can all go round and round on the merry-go-round of conceptual thinking, it's more useful to address the weaknesses.

 

There is a use for dialogue, but if there's no common language or agreement on terms upfront, then it's all pretty pointless—not amounting to not much more than spinning our mental wheels.

[3bob]

Ah yes, well, I'm not talking about belief or what people 'think' is honesty. Being honest means seeing things for what they really are without lying, pretending, or obfuscating.

 

For example, if I step back and ask why 3bob even brought this up, it's because he has weaknesses around not having any honor (his spiritual experiences and his ancestors), and weaknesses around violence and traumatizing others (his ancestors too). I mean look at the words he uses "razor's edge" and "trigger finger" (it's all cutting and shooting karma from the past).

 

The 'difficulty' you mention is really with 'honesty, lying, and manipulating'.

 

So while we can all go round and round on the merry-go-round of conceptual thinking, it's more useful to address the weaknesses.

 

There is a use for dialogue, but if there's no common language or agreement on terms upfront, then it's all pretty pointless—not amounting to not much more than spinning our mental wheels.

 

Excuse me Mr. Shrink, "razors edge" is a very common term adaptable to many things - Buddhism for instance - who many lean towards around here, thus is Buddhism weak and without honor along with its founder? (I'd say no)

As for "trigger finger" it sounds like you have one up your up-turned nose. (but I'm not sure since I'm not a remote viewing shrink or whatever)

 

Back to the topic... for any interested.