creating karma

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

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. 

 

I did say remove, but if you realize the emptiness of it, there is no attachment, hence no desire to do such activities because of the need to do so.

 

Would you not also say that as you have progressed, the more you have let go of "stuff" you have come even closer?

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, Fa Xin said:

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. 

 

Addictions should be removed in my view.  Some people may use addictive substances and not get addicted to them.  It is alright in this case.

 

But, it is not possible to realize emptiness while being addicted to any substance.  By definition addiction is obsessive attachment towards something in my opinion, that a person struggles to overcome.

[Jonesboy]

5 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Addictions should be removed in my view.  Some people may use addictive substances and not get addicted to them.  It is alright in this case.

 

But, it is not possible to realize emptiness while being addicted to any substance.  By definition addiction is obsessive attachment towards something in my opinion, that a person struggles to overcome.

 

Exactly, so when I read about some enlightened Sage who smokes everyday.. His followers will say it's because he just liked it but wasn't addicted. To anyone who has ever smoked such excuses don't pass the smell test.

Edited October 4, 2018 by Jonesboy

[Jeff]

22 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

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.

 

My point is really about conscious as compared to subconscious desires. The way you are describing karma, it would seem to almost simply down to guilt or not with some act, as you are saying it is not based upon acting on a desire.  My point is that there are many subconscious desires (like addiction to smoking) that effectively create karma.

 

I am not saying that a realized person cannot act or the realization goes away.  But, any ongoing attached behavior (addiction like), is a sign that one is still in the land of subconscious desire. 

 

But, I understand that my definition is different than the classical Hindu view of karma and realization. 

[s1va]

13 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?

 

I can partially agree to what is stated here.  I think there will be subconscious likes and dislikes for everyone as long as they are a separate entity or an individual.  Even a Buddha or enlightened person may have liking to certain food or be married and engaged in sex.  This does not mean he is addicted to those.  Just by engaging in those acts, we can't one is necessarily caught up in the act.  It can be spontaneous acts, the food, sex, etc., not the addiction to substances.  We cannot confuse addiction with just engaging in any of those acts.  There is a clear difference in my opinion.

 

The likes and dislikes are also okay in my view, as long as long as they do not turn into cravings or aversions as how Buddha described in his noble truths.  The moment they change to cravings or aversions (due to attachments) it becomes problematic.

[s1va]

9 minutes ago, Jeff said:

 

My point is really about conscious as compared to subconscious desires. The way you are describing karma, it would seem to almost simply down to guilt or not with some act, as you are saying it is not based upon acting on a desire.  My point is that there are many subconscious desires (like addiction to smoking) that effectively create karma.

 

I am not saying that a realized person cannot act or the realization goes away.  But, any ongoing attached behavior (addiction like), is a sign that one is still in the land of subconscious desire. 

 

But, I understand that my definition is different than the classical Hindu view of karma and realization. 

 

This is not about guilt in any of the posts I made here.  May be that is where the misunderstanding and differences are from.

 

As per the subconscious, I get that part.  I wrote about the likes/dislikes in relation to that in my last post above.

[rex]

To create full karma you must have:

 

1) someone or something to be the object of your action;

2) the intention to carry out the action;

3) actually carrying out the action;

4) rejoice in having carried out the action.

[s1va]

15 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Exactly, so when I read about some enlightened Sage who smokes everyday.. His followers will say it's because he just liked it but wasn't addicted. To anyone who has ever smoked such excuses don't pass the smell test.

 

I had friends who smoked cigarettes casually and were not addicted.  Sometimes they smoked everyday for a while.  Somehow it just didn't affect them the same way it did for others.  But most people that I know who smoke cigarettes everyday are addicted.

[Jeff]

14 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I can partially agree to what is stated here.  I think there will be subconscious likes and dislikes for everyone as long as they are a separate entity or an individual.  Even a Buddha or enlightened person may have liking to certain food or be married and engaged in sex.  This does not mean he is addicted to those.  Just by engaging in those acts, we can't one is necessarily caught up in the act.  It can be spontaneous acts, the food, sex, etc., not the addiction to substances.  We cannot confuse addiction with just engaging in any of those acts.  There is a clear difference in my opinion.

 

The likes and dislikes are also okay in my view, as long as long as they do not turn into cravings or aversions as how Buddha described in his noble truths.  The moment they change to cravings or aversions (due to attachments) it becomes problematic.

 

Again, you are trying to define some sort of spectrum where some types of likes (good) and dislikes (bad) are ok, but some where it is a really big like (craving) are not ok.  My point is that it is all same thing, a desire is a desire, being a strong desire or not is just some sort of arbitrary judgement on the spectrum. Such arbitrary judgements will then also be based upon the local society beliefs at the time.  Like with a smoking addiction, back in the 1950s everyone was doing it, so by society’s definition it is a norm (just like breathing) and obviously not an addiction.  

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I had friends who smoked cigarettes casually and were not addicted.  Sometimes they smoked everyday for a while.  Somehow it just didn't affect them the same way it did for others.  But most people that I know who smoke cigarettes everyday are addicted.

 

Even then, they smoke socially, smoke only when they drink, etc. While they are not addicted there is still some desire that is driving them to such action.

[s1va]

12 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Even then, they smoke socially, smoke only when they drink, etc. While they are not addicted there is still some desire that is driving them to such action.

 

In my friend's case, yes it is some sort of desire.  But not necessarily with everyone all the time.

 

The following example is not about cigarettes, but in general about likes/dislikes driving people to certain actions.  Let's say someone has reached Buddha or Enlightened state.  Where this person lives, there are apple and orange trees.  When this person wakes up everyday, she has a choice to either have apples or oranges for his breakfast.  This particular Buddha, let's say chooses to have Apple every single day, because she prefers apples over oranges.  No other reason and there are no other choices available.  If there are no apples and only oranges, she would have no problem eating them.  But, when there is a choice she prefers one action vs. the other.  Sure, this liking is because of some subconscious impressions from before.  But, such likes/dislikes when we normally discuss about karma from the aspect of bondage, does it mean this person has desires for apples and therefore she is not enlightened?  Not in my view.

 

I think such preference and basic likes and dislikes will always be there no matter what state a person reaches, until there is any trace of individuality left. 

[ilumairen]

21 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Even then, they smoke socially, smoke only when they drink, etc. While they are not addicted there is still some desire that is driving them to such action.

 

I would suggest, in this discussion, you may have more attachment to their smoking than they might.

[Jonesboy]

6 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

In my friend's case, yes it is some sort of desire.  But not necessarily with everyone all the time.

 

The following example is not about cigarettes, but in general about likes/dislikes driving people to certain actions.  Let's say someone has reached Buddha or Enlightened state.  Where this person lives, there are apple and orange trees.  When this person wakes up everyday, she has a choice to either have apples or oranges for his breakfast.  This particular Buddha, let's say chooses to have Apple every single day, because she prefers apples over oranges.  No other reason and there are no other choices available.  If there are no apples and only oranges, she would have no problem eating them.  But, when there is a choice she prefers one action vs. the other.  Sure, this liking is because of some subconscious impressions from before.  But, such likes/dislikes when we normally discuss about karma from the aspect of bondage, does it mean this person has desires for apples and therefore she is not enlightened?  Not in my view.

 

I think such preference and basic likes and dislikes will always be there no matter what state a person reaches, until there is any trace of individuality left. 

 

One of the aspects of the Primordial State is Clarity.

 

Quote

The manifestation of the primordial state in all its aspects,
its "clarity," on the other hand, is called the nature. It is said
to be "self-perfected" (lhun grub), because it exists spontaneously
from the beginning, like the sun which shines in
space. Clarity is the pure quality of all thought and of all
perceived phenomena, uncontaminated by mental judgment.
For example, when we see a flower, we first perceive
its image without the mind entering into judgment, even if
this phase of perception only lasts for a fraction of a second.
Then, in a second phase, mental judgment enters into the
situation and one categorizes the perception, thinking,
"That's a flower, it's red, it has a specific scent, and so on."
Developing from this, attachment and aversion, acceptance
and rejection all arise, with the consequent creation of karma and transmigration. Clarity is the phase in which perception
is vivid and present, but the mind has not yet entered
into action.

 

This goes back to the old debate, does a Buddha have a favorite tea cup. No, they are all perfect as they are. He may choose a bigger one because he wants more to drink without having to refill it. A smaller one for when he just wants a little to drink.

[Jonesboy]

7 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

 

I would suggest, in this discussion, you may have more attachment to their smoking than they might.

 

Not at all. You could replace smoking with the desire to be right in forums or to fight a wrong or to respond to negative comments. While not an addiction there is a desire that motivates the behavior. I have found driving and forums are excellent examples of noticing such attachments.

[dwai]

3 hours ago, whitesilk said:

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

 

 

Karma means to do action. Creating karma is a misnomer imho. What you do is accrue the fruits of your actions (or Karma phala). What it means is when you do action, you are generating a ripple effect in the universe. That effect in turns affects you. It could be in this lifetime or in another lifetime. 

 

We as awareness have three bodies. The physical body, the subtle body and the causal body. Karma/actions in the physical and subtle body (body and mind) results in affecting the causal body (and causal realm). So long as there is identification with the three bodies, we are susceptible to karmic results. Once the identification is gone (aka enlightenment), we no longer accrue karma phala.  

 

[dwai]

2 hours 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.

When action is done in accordance with Dharma, positive results (Punya) are accrued. When action is done in discordance with Dharma, negative results (pāpa) are accrued.  One is still bound in causality.

 

Nishkāma karma means to do action without desire of the outcome. To do the action for the joy of the action, to do the action in benefit of others (service). 

 

WRT war -- 

 

When Mahabharata War was waged, The Pandavas were aligned with Dharma and Kauravas against it. Yet, the entire Bhagavad Gita was an exposition on having Arjuna fight the war without guilt and with a clear conscience because he was performing his duty as a kshatriya and in accordance with dharma. 

 

A discussion of Karma without Dharma is incomplete and pointless. 

[s1va]

Quote

Karma (/ˈkɑːrmə/; Sanskrit: कर्म, translit. karma, IPA: [ˈkərmə] ( listen); Pali: kamma) means action, work or deed;^[1] it also refers to the spiritual principle of cause and effect where intent and actions of an individual (cause) influence the future of that individual (effect).^[2] Good intent and good deeds contribute to good karma and future happiness, while bad intent and bad deeds contribute to bad karma and future suffering.^[3][4]

 

I think everyone here understands the way create karma is used in this context, both in question and answers.  If we want to argue on syntax and semantics, yes, we can!

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

When action is done in accordance with Dharma, positive results (Punya) are accrued. When action is done in discordance with Dharma, negative results (pāpa) are accrued.  One is still bound in causality.

 

Nishkāma karma means to do action without desire of the outcome. To do the action for the joy of the action, to do the action in benefit of others (service). 

 

WRT war -- 

 

When Mahabharata War was waged, The Pandavas were aligned with Dharma and Kauravas against it. Yet, the entire Bhagavad Gita was an exposition on having Arjuna fight the war without guilt and with a clear conscience because he was performing his duty as a kshatriya and in accordance with dharma. 

 

A discussion of Karma without Dharma is incomplete and pointless. 

 

 

I don't have to use the technical terms someone deems necessary to explain my thoughts.  You want to stick with the first dictionary definition of 'karma', karma phala and dharma, and want to describe only with those words, go ahead.  My point was such dharma is always subjective to the action in question and the intent and the context etc. 

 

Anyway, thanks for reading my posts, find what you think as fault in my arguments and further taking the time, many times to mark my posts with a Negative ("Sad") emoticons to my original comment, followed by your explanation, which by the way I disagree and stick to my original statements.

[Pilgrim]

3 hours ago, s1va said:

Action done just for the sheer pleasure of engaging in those actions and not for any other reason, will not accrue karma.

 

If this is indeed howe it reads I am pretty sure this is meant in the sense of accumulating negative karma to be paid back later. I am also fairly certain that what they are describing is from a certain state of being not the normal enjoyment of relative awareness that is common to so many.

 

I can assure you performing an illegal action in the presence of a police officer will grant one immediate karmic reaction to the actions performed. IE Getting arrested. 

[Pilgrim]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

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.

This is the description of a sociopath. How can you say Karma and repercussions are different from each other? I would like to read how they are separate.

[s1va]

Just now, Pilgrim said:

 

If this is indeed howe it reads I am pretty sure this is meant in the sense of accumulating negative karma to be paid back later. I am also fairly certain that what they are describing is from a certain state of being not the normal enjoyment of relative awareness that is common to so many.

 

I can assure you performing an illegal action in the presence of a police officer will grant one immediate karmic reaction to the actions performed. IE Getting arrested. 

 

 

Yes, if a person engages in an act that a police officer thinks is illegal, the person will undergo the consequences.  That is not what I meant when I talked about not creating karma.  Once again, this is mixing things with Karma and repercussions.  There will be repercussions for all actions.  

 

Sometimes people kill in self defense.  There are exceptions to laws.  The point I was making was any action by the virtue of that action alone is neither a merit, nor a sin.  I stick by those words.  Consequences of an action and accruing karma are two different things.

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

 

I don't have to use the technical terms someone deems necessary to explain my thoughts.  You want to stick with the first dictionary definition of 'karma', karma phala and dharma, and want to describe only with those words, go ahead.  My point was such dharma is always subjective to the action in question and the intent and the context etc. 

 

Anyway, thanks for reading my posts, find what you think as fault in my arguments and further taking the time, many times to mark my posts with a Negative ("Sad") emoticons to my original comment, followed by your explanation, which by the way I disagree and stick to my original statements.

 That's okay. You are welcome to express your opinions as am I. 

[s1va]

1 minute ago, Pilgrim said:

This is the description of a sociopath. How can you say Karma and repercussions are different from each other? I would like to read how they are separate.

 

There is a fundamental difference between those.  May be you are not familiar with them.  

 

Krisha engaged in war killing others.  He did not accrue any karma.  However there were repercussions for his actions.  This is the whole concept of Gita.  He is engaged in those actions and will undergo the consequences, but he is not affected by them in anyway.

[ilumairen]

38 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Not at all. You could replace smoking with the desire to be right in forums or to fight a wrong or to respond to negative comments. While not an addiction there is a desire that motivates the behavior. I have found driving and forums are excellent examples of noticing such attachments.

 

I have to go to work, but will consider what you've presented.

 

Thanks for the reply. 

[Pilgrim]

1 hour 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?

I have considered this as well and the answer I came up with was something like this.

 

1. It is entirely possible Tobacco, Alcohol use / consumption, or other things you can imagine may very well be something in the physical body where the demand is present. We like to use phrases like addiction but might it not be something else?

 

Lets consider that in recent times there is mounting evidence for genetic memory playing a part in our lives. If this is the case then a body that has a desire for a certain substance may be hardwired for it, due to ancestral use of certain things like Tobacco or Alcohol. In this case I would say the realized being is simply allowing the body it's relief, no different than urinating with a full bladder.

 

2. The other possibility is a fan favorite of mine. There are stories of Highly realized beings in India like Trailanga Swami doing all kinds of incredible things,  like eating a red hot coal and incurring no damage. Or allowing someone to attempt to poison them and drinking the Lye that was supposed to be milk and the effects not bothering the saint, the one who tried to harm him was stricken by Karma immediately and experienced the harm in their own stomach until the swami pardoned them.

 

The point of the second example being that once has gone beyond the state of being dependent on the physical reality and is merely inhabiting a form and can transmute by will alone the atoms of this world then they are free to do as they wish.

 

Until you can don't try to imitate them. 

 

Stick with the milk. 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Pilgrim