creating karma

[whitesilk]

I've recently read a quote that I would like to understand in a modern context. What does the term 'create karma' mean?

 

 

[Jeff]

When you act with intent you create karma.  Karma is the ongoing cause and effect of that intent. Works sort of like the law of motion in physics... A body in motion stays in motion...

[Marblehead]

Intent is also an important concept in Taoist wu wei.

 

 

[s1va]

Some of the best definitions for karma can be found in the Bhagavad Gita.  Krishna says any action done with the expectation of a result will incur karma.  Any action that is done as a means to achieve (any) ends, no matter how noble they are, will fall under this.  Action done just for the sheer pleasure of engaging in those actions and not for any other reason, will not accrue karma.

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

Some of the best definitions for karma can be found in the Bhagavad Gita.  Krishna says any action done with the expectation of a result will incur karma.  Any action that is done as a means to achieve (any) ends, no matter how noble they are, will fall under this.  Action done just for the sheer pleasure of engaging in those actions and not for any other reason, will not accrue karma.

 

Very interesting.  So if someone has sex with a partner and just does it for the pleasure, there is no karma with it? Or, if someone kills someone just for the pleasure of killing, you would say there is no karma with it?

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

Very interesting.  So if someone has sex with a partner and just does it for the pleasure, there is no karma with it? Or, if someone kills someone just for the pleasure of killing, you would say there is no karma with it?

 

Yes, you are right on both.  Such person will accrue no karma.  No action is considered as merit (punya) or sin (pApa), just by the virtue of that action alone.  Many kill others in war or in justifiable situation where it is the right course of action for them.

 

Perhaps you are giving a different meaning for pleasure here than what I implied.  But, no matter what, if a person engages in sex just to enjoy the sheer joy and bliss of the act and is not attached to it, he/she will incur no karma.

[Jeff]

Just now, s1va said:

 

Yes, you are right on both.  Such person will accrue no karma.  No action is considered as merit (punya) or sin (pApa), just by the virtue of that action alone.  Many kill others in war or in justifiable situation where it is the right course of action for them.

 

Perhaps you are giving a different meaning for pleasure here than what I implied.  But, no matter what, if a person engages in sex just to enjoy the sheer joy and bliss of the act and is not attached to it, he/she will incur no karma.

 

So then in the Gita view, theoretically a psychopath who is a mass murderer and just enjoys killing for the sheer pleasure of it, incurs no karma?

 

To me, the war example is a different case.

[Fa Xin]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, you are right on both.  Such person will accrue no karma.  No action is considered as merit (punya) or sin (pApa), just by the virtue of that action alone.  Many kill others in war or in justifiable situation where it is the right course of action for them.

 

Perhaps you are giving a different meaning for pleasure here than what I implied.  But, no matter what, if a person engages in sex just to enjoy the sheer joy and bliss of the act and is not attached to it, he/she will incur no karma.

 

What's the difference between karma, and cause and effect? Or is there any?

 

If I go sleep with a woman, for the pleasure of it (probably why it would happen if it did)... there would definitely be repercussions for me... I can think of a hundred ways it could go bad... lol

[Mudfoot]

18 minutes ago, s1va said:

 Any action that is done as a means to achieve (any) ends, no matter how noble they are, will fall under this. 

So this does not include achieving pleasure? 

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

So this does not include achieving pleasure? 

 

Yes, that is exactly my point.  

[s1va]

Just now, Jeff said:

 

So then in the Gita view, theoretically a psychopath who is a mass murderer and just enjoys killing for the sheer pleasure of it, incurs no karma?

 

To me, the war example is a different case.

 

To me, the psychopath example is a different case .  There are doctors and surgeons who cut open the physical body of others with sharp knife and other objects.  Some of the patients, these doctor's operate on die in surgery.  Their action technically can be termed as opening someone's body with a sharp knife and resulting in the person dying.  That definition would fit exactly.  But, the doctor is not a killer. 

 

I think the example that you are taking of psychopath may not be the right one for what is stated here.  A psychopath by the very definition of the word is someone who is mentally disturbed and in my view certainly acting with some ends/goals.  Which psychopath has acted without  an end goal in their mind?  What I defined as pleasure here is the sheer joy and bliss of engaging in the action and not the mental thrill that comes from torturing others.  Such actions (chasing some thrill) are always the result of attachments and done with some "ends", the end here being the physical or some type of gratification of the one commiting the act of harming others.  

 

Engaging in pleasurable acts is by no means a bad thing in and of itself.  It becomes a problem only when there is an obsession due to the attachment of something a person desires.

[s1va]

7 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

 

What's the difference between karma, and cause and effect? Or is there any?

 

If I go sleep with a woman, for the pleasure of it (probably why it would happen if it did)... there would definitely be repercussions for me... I can think of a hundred ways it could go bad... lol

 

Karma and repercussions are different from each other.  I think you are confusing them here.  A person can engage in an act that does not create any impression for that person, all the while others (partners) engaged in the act may accrue karma because they were in it  because they were attached.  It doesn't just have to be sleeping with a woman, it can be anything.

 

A ruler can declare war on another country and even go fight in the war without any attachments in his mind.  He won't accrue any karma no matter how many he kills in the war and in which ways.  All his subjects may not have the same mindset as him, they may be fighting for a reason and with attachments.  They will incur karma.

 

Once again, this is why Gita is the best example in my opinion on this.  Krishna is engaged (in some capacity) in the war.  But, his actions which caused many peoples death did not result in generating karma.  To have a deeper understanding of this, I would suggest reading the Gita.

[Mudfoot]

5 minutes ago, s1va said:

 becomes a problem only when there is an obsession due to the attachment of something a person desires.

And a psychopath might be attached to create pain and so on, rather then just being in a flow. 

Ok. 

[s1va]

11 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

So this does not include achieving pleasure? 

 

Pleasure need not be an achievement.  It can just be what a person experiences like the sheer joy, or like any other experience.

 

I think my choice of words, 'pleasure' here means something else to some others.  But I stand by the gist of what I stated.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Pleasure need not be an achievement.  It can just be what a person experiences like the sheer joy, or like any other experience.

 

I think my choice of words, 'pleasure' here means something else to some others.  But I stand by the gist of what I stated.

 

In my view, there is no such thing.  Where there is pleasure, there is the inverse absence of that pleasure (and hence suffering). What you would call “pure pleasure”, would for me just be subconscious desires being acted out. Someone desires sex, and they go for it. There are obvious karmic impacts on a broader level to acting on that desire, even if you consciously think it was just for the pleasure.  

 

But, thank you for the discussion, this has helped me better understand the Gita.  

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

 

In my view, there is no such thing.  Where there is pleasure, there is the inverse absence of that pleasure (and hence suffering). What you would call “pure pleasure”, would for me just be subconscious desires being acted out. Someone desires sex, and they go for it. There are obvious karmic impacts on a broader level to acting on that desire, even if you consciously think it was just for the pleasure.  

 

But, thank you for the discussion, this has helped me better understand the Gita.  

 

Not everything I said in that post was from Gita.  Gita does not use the word 'pleasure' in this context.  It is my personal choice of words and description.  The prior part about any action done as a 'means' with some 'ends' in mind, those are Krishna's words translated from Gita.

 

With respect to actions, Krishna talks about surrendering and doing all actions in communal spirit (compassionate, sharing or giving away, without the notion of '"I" doing it), as if all of those actions were done to the divine.  But no action, just by itself can be classified as meritorious or sinful.

[Jeff]

3 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Not everything I said in that post was from Gita.  Gita does not use the word 'pleasure' in this context.  It is my personal choice of words and description.  The prior part about any action done as a 'means' with some 'ends' in mind, those are Krishna's words translated from Gita.

 

With respect to actions, Krishna talks about surrendering and doing all actions in communal spirit (compassionate, sharing or giving away, without the notion of '"I" doing it), as if all of those actions were done to the divine.  But no action, just by itself can be classified as meritorious or sinful.

 

Sure, I get it. In that context there are really no other people as everything is just an aspect of Brahman. Hence, karma would only be a local mind thing and what you are consciously aware of. So if you dont feel guilty about an act (did it for sheer pleasure), then there is no karma result.  But, since I see other sentient beings as “existing”, there is effectively a broader karmic aspect beyond the individual view.  An obvious example would be if you had sex with someone for the sheer pleasure of it and got someone pregnant. I would say the act (of sheer pleasure) had a huge karmic impact to others and in the world (and that original subconscious desire would come back to you as karma big time  ).

[s1va]

19 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

There are obvious karmic impacts on a broader level to acting on that desire, even if you consciously think it was just for the pleasure.  

 

This made me think for a bit.  Yes, there are karmic implications at a broader level.  The way it is implied in Gita towards the accrual of karma is all geared towards a person's (individuals) moksha or liberation.

 

Therefore in my view, such karmas can be further classified as binding and non-binding karmas.  The ones that I stated are non-binding karmas to that person at individual level, but from the aspect of others (other beings), it is binding to them.

 

(I think while I was typing this you made another post above.  I just read that and I think I have addressed the answer for that also here)

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, Jeff said:

An obvious example would be if you had sex with someone for the sheer pleasure of it and got someone pregnant. I would say the act (of sheer pleasure) had a huge karmic impact to others and in the world (and that original subconscious desire would come back to you as karma big time  ).

 

I have addressed some of this in the previous post.  I will only talk about the highlighted portion here. 

 

Yes, the practical results of actions will come back and manifest themselves in the world.  Krishna is not denying any of this in Gita.  But, such results won't bind the doer of those actions mentally, if the said person was engaged in the act without attachments.

 

Krishna himself had many wives and children as the result of his marriages .  But he was not bound by those acts or ever felt trapped by these karmas, unlike others who were also engaged in the same acts with him.

[Jeff]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

This made me think for a bit.  Yes, there are karmic implications at a broader level.  The way it is implied in Gita towards the accrual of karma is all geared towards a person's (individuals) moksha or liberation.

 

Therefore in my view, such karmas can be further classified as binding and non-binding karmas.  The ones that I stated are non-binding karmas to that person at individual level, but from the aspect of others (other beings), it is binding to them.

 

(I think while I was typing this you made another post above.  I just read that and I think I have addressed the answer for that also here)

 

Yes, the binding and non binding karma concept would be consistent with other threads where in Hindu traditions one can be realized (Jivamukta) while still addicted to cigarettes and stuff.  In other traditions, there is no such thing as non binding karma. There is either karma or not karma.  

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Jeff said:

Yes, the binding and non binding karma concept would be consistent with other threads where in Hindu traditions one can be realized (Jivamukta) while still addicted to cigarettes and stuff.

 

Can you please explain how this relates to addiction?  In my opinion those who are addicted are attached towards their object of addiction and also obsessive.  Here, we are talking about the complete opposite, acts that are done without attachments or desires, just done in the spirit Wu Wei.

 

One can smoke and still be realized.  If a Buddha smokes a cigarette, I doubt if his Realization will go away when he is smoking a cigarette.  But one can't be addicted and realized in my opinion and these are entirely 2 different things.

[Fa Xin]

If it’s all impermanent and empty, if it’s all an illusion or a game... what does it matter in regards to addiction?

[Jonesboy]

Addictions would show that one is still caught up and hasn't realized emptiness.

 

What is the difference to addiction to cigarettes or sex or TV or food or power or money or needing attention? To say it is okay to have these desires for some "thing" , and getting caught up in "stuff" and you can still be enlightened is kind of crazy to me. Isn't that what spiritual practices are all about removing?

[Fa Xin]

Not that I believe that or don’t....I’ve had a lot of issues with addictions in my earlier years and it does hinder a person greatly. but the thought had crossed my mind...

[Fa Xin]

3 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

Addictions would show that one is still caught up and hasn't realized emptiness.

 

What is the difference to addiction to cigarettes or sex or TV or food or power or money or needing attention? To say it is okay to have these desires for some "thing" , and getting caught up in "stuff" and you can still be enlightened is kind of crazy to me. Isn't that what spiritual practices are all about removing?

Why need remove anything when it’s all good as it is? There’s a reason for everything. 

 

I can personally say my addiction was a large large part in my drawing closer to God.