Discussion:
Is karma backed by science and reason?
Add Reply
Jahnu
2018-12-05 00:24:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The law of karma is a natural law, and just like any other natural
law, like the law of gravity, for instance, it works whether you
believe in it or not. It is a direct observable fact that people
either suffer or enjoy according to their activities.

What distinguishes the law of karma from other natural laws is that
whereas the physical laws work only on gross matter, the law of karma
works on the subtle level - it’s the natural law guiding the subtle or
psychic aspects of nature. It’s the law of the mind.

Is the law of karma backed by science? I’m not sure, I doubt there is
any scientific research dealing with karma. Is the law of karma backed
by reason? Absolutely. In fact, karma is the only reasonable
explanation of why people are born differently, and why people suffer
and enjoy differently.

Also, it would be easy enough to make a scientific experiment that
would verify karma.

Make two control groups of , say, 10 people. One group is made up of
vegetarians the other is made up of meat-eaters. Now monitor the
happiness and distress that befall each group over a period of 5
years, and a clear picture will emerge. Are there scientists today who
would make such an experiment? I highly doubt it. But that says more
about the state of the world than it says anything about karma.

The law of karma dictates that people create their own destinies
according to their actions - how they behave and treat other living
entities. Or, like it says in the Bible - as you sow you shall reap.

Note, how this statement from the Bible does not make sense without
reincarnation. We reap right from our very birth - we reap a certain
family, gender, nationality, abilities etc. When would we have sown
that if not in an earlier life?

So the law of karma can be understood properly only in connection with
reincarnation. When seen in terms of many lives, the law of karma
makes sense, explaining why some people are born rich while others are
born poor.

If bad things happen to good people in this life, it’s a reaction to
bad things they did in a previous life. Similarly, if bad people are
seen to enjoy a happy life, they are enjoying the karmic reactions of
pious activities performed in a previous life.

Someone might object - do you really mean to say that when a person is
born ugly, this is his or her own fault? How is that fair?

According to the law of karma, our actions in this life - how we
behave, how we treat other living entities - will determine our next
birth.

In contrast to this we have the material conception of things -
whether I am born into a nice, caring, wealthy family, with good looks
and good education, or I get born to a junkie mother and an abusive
father; whether I am born as the king of Arabia or I'm born in Syria
into a family on the run from bombings and war - it is all just up to
good or bad luck.

So which is more fair - that I am the maker of my own destiny, or that
my destiny is up to good or bad luck? Think about it.

--but, but if you believe in karma, if you believe that people create
their own destinies, that will make you uncaring and without
compassion, you will be indifferent to the plight of others, because
when you see a person suffer, you will know it's his own fault and you
will think that he just gets what he deserves.

Lets examine the logic behind this idea for a minute. So you are
saying, that if I know the reason behind someone's suffering, if I
know that the person created his own suffering by his own actions,
that will make me less compassionate towards him? And if I think it's
all just random chance, how people suffer or enjoy, that will make me
a more compassionate and caring person?

How does this make sense?

Say, a doctor tells Mr. Olsen - don't smoke three packs of cigarettes
a day, you will get lung cancer. Then 10 years later Mr. Olsen is
diagnosed with cancer. Does, the doctor then tell Mr. Olsen - I told
you so, it's your own fault, now, get out of my office. Or will the
doctor still feel sorry for the man and try to help him? What do you
think?

Or a mother tells her child, don't stick your hand in the fire, you
will burn yourself, and then the child goes and does just that -
sticks his hand in fire. Then, when the child comes running to his
mother, crying - I burned myself, it hurts.

Will the mother be tender-hearted towards her child and try to comfort
him/her? Or will she say - I told you so, now stop your whining.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that knowing the law of karma
makes a person more uncaring and discompassionate than if a person
believes it's just random chance. It's like saying that knowledge
makes a person less compassionate, and a person in ignorance is more
compassionate.

If you say, everything is ultimately random chance, what you're really
saying is that you don't know the reason behind it. You are professing
ignorance and trying to make that into some kind of noble reasoning.

Let me give you a practical example. According to Manu-samhita,
someone who kills a cow will have to take birth as a cow and be killed
in the same way, as many times as there are hairs on the cow's body.

So I know that all the cows being slaughtered in modern society, used
to be people who killed cows. Do I feel less sorry for the cows
standing in line in the slaughter house, waiting to be killed? Nope. I
still feel sorry for them. I'm still a vegetarian because I don't want
to support this senseless mass-murder on animals.

Even though I act as the instrument of another's karma, I still have
to suffer or enjoy the karmic reactions. Thus karma is an endless
cycle that binds us to the material world, life after life

I know for a fact that even though I know the law of karma and how it
works, it doesn't make me feel less sorry for the suffering people of
the world. In fact, knowing that people are ultimately the makers of
their own destinies puts me in a better position to help them, rather
than if I think, - too bad, it's just chance.

How can you guard yourself or others against chance? The answer is,
you can't.

Krishna says:

One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities,
who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego,
who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always
satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with
determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me - such a devotee
of Mine is very dear to Me. —Bg 12.13-14



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das


default
2018-12-05 11:37:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 05:54:07 +0530, Jahnu <***@gmail.com> wrote:

No
Christopher A. Lee
2018-12-05 13:34:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
No
What kind of fucking moron asks such a stupid question of atheists?
Jahnu
2018-12-05 21:48:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
What kind of fucking moron asks such a stupid question of atheists?
You don't ask atheists anything, why would you that? It would be like
asking a third grader about Einsteins theory of evolution. The reason
I post these questions here is to make it clear to everyone how stupid
atheism makes you, to make it clear to everyone that atheism, in fact,
is a disease of the mind.

Krishna says:

The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal
fragmental parts. Due to conditioned life, they are struggling very
hard with the six senses, which include the mind.

The living entity in the material world carries his different
conceptions of life from one body to another, as the air carries
aromas. Thus he takes one kind of body and again quits it to take
another.

The living entity, thus taking another gross body, obtains a certain
type of ear, eye, tongue, nose and sense of touch, which are grouped
about the mind. He thus enjoys a particular set of sense objects.

The foolish cannot understand how a living entity can quit his body,
nor can they understand what sort of body he enjoys under the spell of
the modes of nature. But one whose eyes are trained in knowledge can
see all this.

The endeavoring transcendentalists who are situated in
self-realization can see all this clearly. But those whose minds are
not developed and who are not situated in self-realization cannot see
what is taking place, though they may try.

- Bhagavad-gita 15.7-11




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Cloud Hobbit
2018-12-05 22:03:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Its funny how if atheists are so bad and so ignorant, why is it only theists like Jesper who resort to quote mining.

You re a fake Jesper.
You had an original thought once, but it died from loneliness.
Jahnu
2018-12-05 22:10:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Cloud Hobbit
You re a fake Jesper.
You had an original thought once, but it died from loneliness.
Cloud Hobbit? hahaha :) What kind of moron calls himself Cloud Hobbit?

Because, you are so original, right?

Do you understand now how atheism has damaged your already fragile,
disturbed mind?

"Science is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to
our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us about red and
blue, bitter and sweet, beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and
eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these
domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined
to take them seriously."

Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel prize winning physicist




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
Cloud Hobbit
2018-12-05 22:46:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Jahnu
Cloud Hobbit? hahaha :) What kind of moron calls himself Cloud Hobbit?
Because, you are so original, right?
Do you understand now how atheism has damaged your already fragile,
disturbed mind?

No. No such thing has happened.
My mind is just fine as evidenced by my rejection of theist bullshit and imaginary gods.
Post by Jahnu
"Science is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to
our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us about red and
blue, bitter and sweet, beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and
eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these
domains, but the answers are often so silly that we are not inclined
to take them seriously."

Erwin Schrodinger, a Nobel prize winning physicist

So you still can't speak for yourself. You always post quotes of persons who have no relationship to the subject at hand. Usually out of context quotes which changes the meaning into something they NEVER said.

When you can prove any God exists then maybe we might consider you as something more than just another idiot placed here for our entertainment.

But still you're boring and repetitive.
Jahnu
2018-12-06 05:17:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 14:46:55 -0800 (PST), Cloud Hobbit
Post by Cloud Hobbit
So you still can't speak for yourself. You always post quotes of persons who have no relationship to the subject at hand. Usually out of context quotes which changes the meaning into something they NEVER said.
When you can prove any God exists then maybe we might consider you as something more than just another idiot placed here for our entertainment.
But still you're boring and repetitive.
...said the guy who calls himself Cloud Hobbit, and who can't speak
for himself, except repeat tired old slogans he learned from a bunch
of retard atheists.

Preaching on-line to antagonists, one thing I hear real often is - uh
duh, you can't think for yourself. You need some old books to think
for you.

But the real fact of the matter is that main-stream people would be up
the proverbial creek without a paddle if they didn't have TV,
newspapers and magazines to tell them what to think and believe. They
all say the same things and have the same values. How is it
independent thinking to talk, think and be like millions of other
people?

I would venture to say, that the more a point of view is prevalent in
society, the more people who share a view-point, the less independent
it is.

Practically nobody except the Hare Krishnas think like the Hare
Krishnas, and the Hare Krishnas are a tiny minority of people on
planet. So actually the Hare Krishnas must be the most independent
type of thinkers.

The Hare Krishna way of thinking is based on an ancient, revealed
science, that has been tried and tested since time immemorial whereas
the thinking of people in mainstream society is dictated by mass media
and Hollywood. So whose thinking is most independent, seriously? That
also begs the question - what is the definition of independent
thinking, and who defines it? If you say, independent thinking is
defined by the majority of people, how is it independent thinking? So
when people tell you, that you have no independent thoughts, they have
no idea what they are talking about. They are merely mindlessly
repeating a slogan.

Next time someone challenges you - you can't think for yourself - ask
that person to name just one single, miniscule, little thought he or
she has come up with by themselves. Let's hear some of your
independent thoughts. That'll stomp anyone... just try. Nothing of
what people in general have to offer are based on independent
thinking.

The real fact is that nobody is thinking independently. Everyone's
thinking is inspired by what they have heard and learned from others.
So what's best? - to be inspired by the ancient teachings of the Vedic
tradition or to be inspired by CNN and Fox news or the garbage they
teach you in school?

"I owed a magnificent day to the Bhagavad Geeta. It was the first of
books; it was as if an empire spoke to us, nothing small or unworthy,
but large, serene, consistent, the voice of an old intelligence which
in another age and climate had pondered and thus disposed of the same
questions which exercise us."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Krishna says:

One must deliver himself with the help of his mind, and not degrade
himself. The mind is the friend of the conditioned soul, and his enemy
as well. (Bg. 6.5)

For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends;
but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest
enemy. (Bg. 6.6)



https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM
LORD Krishna
2018-12-05 23:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.pinterest.com/vwsouthtowne/Das-Karma/

LORD Krishna
Belsnickel
2018-12-06 06:55:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LORD Krishna
https://www.pinterest.com/vwsouthtowne/Das-Karma/
LORD Krishna
Happy Krampusnacht!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krampus

Belsnickel
LORD Vishnu
2018-12-05 22:56:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=Karma+Ghia&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn0ZDj44nfAhVHCKwKHS8nDIAQvgUILCgB&biw=1024&bih=677

https://www.google.com/search?q=Karma+Ghia&newwindow=1&nfpr=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2c_n44nfAhVQ4qwKHetiD_0Q_AUIECgD&biw=1024&bih=677

LORD Vishnu
Belsnickel
2018-12-06 06:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by LORD Vishnu
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&q=Karma+Ghia&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjn0ZDj44nfAhVHCKwKHS8nDIAQvgUILCgB&biw=1024&bih=677
https://www.google.com/search?q=Karma+Ghia&newwindow=1&nfpr=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT2c_n44nfAhVQ4qwKHetiD_0Q_AUIECgD&biw=1024&bih=677
LORD Vishnu
Happy Krampusnacht!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belsnickel

Belsnickel
Jahnu
2018-12-06 20:53:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 22:57:54 -0800 (PST), Belsnickel
Post by Belsnickel
Happy Krampusnacht!
Most people live in the illusion of identifying themselves with their
bodies and minds. Real knowledge begins when a person can distinguish
between matter and consciousness. IOW, before one can distinguish
between the self and the body and mind, there is only illusion.

This may come as a surprise to you, but there are actually people who
believe that consciousness is the result of chemical reactions in the
brain. I know, right?… it sounds totally off the wall, but many
people actually believe that. The same people will even tell you that
you are the deluded one, and that they are living in the real world.

Can you imagine that?

Anyway, if you are a little more thoughtful than that, you will
appreciate that anyone, regardless of his beliefs and convictions, can
experience that he or she is a constant observer of existence.

Krishna says:

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood
to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at
death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change. (Bg. 2.13)

What Krishna is saying here, is that the body changes constantly from
childhood, to youth, to old age. But the self or the 'I' within,
remains constant. One's mind and intelligence change, sure. We are are
supposed to grow wiser with age. One's thoughts, feelings, willpower,
and convictions change as time progresses.

But it is the same observer within, who experiences these changes. The
I-feeling remains the same. So the person stays the same despite the
alterations in matter.

That is the eternal soul. It is the same self who sits in a child's
body as the one sitting in the old man's body. The self doesn't
change. The thoughts and feelings and intelligence change, but it is
the same self observing these. The I-feeling remains the same. In this
way anyone can experience his or her own eternity.

It's simply a question of absorption - either one is absorbed in
matter, which is in a constant flux. That means, one is identifying
with his thoughts, feelings and likes and dislikes. Or one is absorbed
in one's eternal self. That means, one is identifying with observing
one's thoughts and feelings. The absorption is in one's own
consciousness.

The soul or the self is called marginal, which means it will be
controlled either by spirit or matter. The choice one has is whether
to be controlled by matter, controlled by the false ego, or whether
one wants to be controlled by God.

When one's choice is motivated by the desire to become free from the
false ego, free from bodily identification, then one begins the
spiritual journey back home, back to Godhead.

Krishna says:

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am
covered by My internal potency, and therefore they do not know that I
am unborn and infallible.(Bg. 7.25)




https://www.youtube.com/user/jahnudvip?feature=watch

https://picasaweb.google.com/113672947796865733014/Jahnu

http://www.touchtalent.com//artist/118705/jahnu-das

http://youtu.be/B46rjU_q_cM

LORD Krishna
2018-12-05 22:44:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I had a '58 Karma Ghia in the '70s,
and a '68 Karma Ghia in the '80s,
Science? and Reason? German.

Yellow ('58), Red ('68).

LORD Krishna
Loading...