Karma theory vs Empiric Science

[alienstyle]

Hi there,

Great to see one of the most modern approaches taken up by this online city towards the subject of Reincarnation. And one of my most favourite quotes from here (in the original website behind) is:

"To me, reincarnation is not an abstract religious concept or a philosophy, but a natural phenomenon." - Carol Bowman.

Religion & Philosophy vary from one region or culture to the other. So to get rid of the disturbances coming from their varied opinions, people these days - especially in this age of global village - are relying much more on the official/empiric science as the only way out.

For example: the Tlingit Indians of the Alaska believe in Reincarnation but not in the mainstream Karma theory, while some others in the world believe in both. - But which philosophy to accept? So it's now the Science that is to answer.:cool

 

[alienstyle]

A VOTING REVIEW : by me


Not only the Tlingits in Alaska, but also the following others too: (Not believing in the mainstream Karma theory)

• Some West Africans
  

• A section of the Shiite Moslems in West Asia

• The Ancient Greek Philosopher Plato
  

For example, the above West Africans have a cultural belief that life is basically a pleasant thing. The Tlingits also hold the similar belief. (As if we don't need to bother about all those mystic forces suddenly jumping upon us to do unexpected harm because of the past life's unseen deeds. As if, even if such things happen, we should take it as accidents/coincidence/chance/etc.)


This blue coloured 'points & concept' is taken from Dr Ian Stevenson's Book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation". I've it in my home. It's in Chapter #2.


One thing is exciting:


Since Plato was a popular Philosopher, we may assume that he had (or even still has) certain followers in his own opinion of Reincarnation. Thus there arises at least 4 groups from the History of the Planet upto the Modern Times who negate the so-called Karma theory.


Whereas in India - in my own country - there are at least 2 religions/philosophies who reportedly claim this typical Karma theory. I say 'at least' because I don't yet know much about the Sikh religion or Sikhism also originating in India. And I've used the word 'reportedly' for the following two:


(1) Buddhism


(2) Hinduism


This is because I'm not sure whether this conventional Karma doctrine was ever originally present in the Hindu Philosophy. Or whether it was a later distortion in the Indian Culture e.g. to induce fear against the people wanting to revolt.


As far as Buddism is concerned, I however believe that the Buddha did propagate such mystic & seemingly complicated Karma theory. Because from history syllabus in the school life in India to my arrival at the Wikipedia these days, I see every info corroborating. Moreover the Buddha wasn't of the type of a man who believed 'life is basically pleasant'.


So Non-believer groups of the much advertised Karma Theory, according to my analysis, lead by at least the margin of 4-3.


Meanwhile, Buddhism is spreading in the West rapidly these days. But the West is science sensitive. So let us see what happens.

 

[Nightrain]

Hi Alienstyle!


Given your own proximity and exposure to Buddhism and Hinduism, I would be interested in hearing your definition of main-stream Karma theory. In the West we have developed such a composite theory composed of Christianity, Platonism, Empiricism and New-Age Romanticism, that it is hard to know, if what we are discussing has any similarity to the Eastern theories.


We have had numerous threads of discussion about Karma, which have involved some bitter contention based on whether life is a laboratory, a school, or a theater; and whether free will can coexist on the same page with life's plan, or re-destination.

 

[alienstyle]

A FULL LIST: Thanks to Ian Stevenson


(1) Tlingit Indians of Alaska


(2) Inuit Eskimos of Greenland & Canada


(3) Some Brazilians ( influenced by Africans )


(4) West Africans


(5) Igbos of Nigeria ( East Africa )


(6) Large groups of Shiite Muslims in the West Asia


(7) Alevis of the South-Central Turkey


(8) Ainu of North Japan


(9) Trobriand Islanders ( Tribes ) of Central Australia


(10) Athabaskan Indians of the North-Western Canada and the Central Alaska .


Many such people believe in reincarnation without linking it with the mainstream doctrine of karma i.e. the concept of one's moral conduct affecting what happens in a later life.

 

[Jody]

If you ask me, the original Brahman priests pushed the idea of karma to justify the existence of the caste system ("sorry you were born to clean our toilets, bub. You must have done something wrong in a past life.")

 

[alienstyle]

If you ask me, the original Brahman priests pushed the idea of karma to justify the existence of the caste system ("sorry you were born to clean our toilets, bub. You must have done something wrong in a past life.")

Thank you Jody, for floating this counter hypothesis. And I'm adding yet another -


Not only in the direction of the past, but also towards the future: "If you the lower caste revolt (e.g. attack me using a gang & bypass even the Police) then you shall be simply punished in a next incarnation."


It could be a sandwitch attack. Inducing guilt via the past & fear via the future, at the same time.

 

[usetawuz]

A poster previously floated the idea of karma as "remembering", which is gaining ground in my overall view. As for mainstream cultural thought providing a resolution to the question, I've been told by guidance to focus on the "mockingbird in the palm tree out the window".

 

[alienstyle]

Hi Alienstyle!
Given your own proximity and exposure to Buddhism and Hinduism, I would be interested in hearing your definition of main-stream Karma theory. In the West we have developed such a composite theory composed of Christianity, Platonism, Empiricism and New-Age Romanticism, that it is hard to know, if what we are discussing has any similarity to the Eastern theories.

Hi Nightrain,


Thank you for the post.


Very important question indeed that I marked in blue colour. And the doubts flowing underneath the portion of your post painted red, may need to be addressed in my own way.


I'm not saying that I've already grasped the total knowledge in this direction, but so far as my understanding goes at this moment (from my proximity & exposure to a vast portion of the Indian Culture, as well as the Internet etc) I believe that I have really something to say of my own.


I'll respond more fully later.

 

[alienstyle]

To start with, let me first transmit some knowledge of the Indian LANGUAGE. And from this onwards, I'll now move on to the country's CULTURE & PHILOSOPHY.


The word karma literally means:


Action. (Not Reaction.) {And thus also not Action & Reaction taken together.}


But my country's Philosophy here interferes! And helps (or hijacks) the word to take a flight into a route of much vaster meanings!! And it is thus to the Westerners/Foreigners, the simple word karma has attained the status of a huge term representing many ideas or as if 'several sentences' rather than a single word that is just a noun - the ACTION.


More later...

 

[Delonada]

I sometimes wonder about the word karma as it is used these days. Sometimes it just sounds like a very intricate system of checks and balances. Personally it feels a bit too systematic to me. It's like we are sent here just to create karma and then to repay it, when it sounds it would be better to not reincarnate to always keep the karma cost at 0 value.


Personally I like this idea of West Africans that life should be pleasant(although challenging). I remember from the book I am reading on the Michael Teachings that it refers to the soul as an extension of the Tao(in the book it sounds like it is THE being) that then separates itself to play a game, the game being to get back to the source by living through itself.


So maybe this is all just a game, as cruel as it might sound in many instances. Maybe we'll never truly know

 

[alienstyle]

Continued...


On the other hand, in the Indian LANGUAGE, the Result is called: Phol.


And the Result of Action is, according to the Language, said to be: Karmaphol.


But the country's Philosophy claims: Karma & Karmaphol are equivalent things. So the Foreigners - who don't know our language - take the word karma as:


Karma = Karmaphol


= Result of Action.


And that too, under the influence of this Philosophical doctrine, further becomes:


Karma = Equivalent Result of Action.


Now I cite you a very emotional answer that I got from an Australian girl - via the Internet - when I asked (in 2009) what the most Westerners, these days, understand by the word 'Karma':


Hi.Im from Australia.I dont believe in karma but what i assume it to mean is that a person gets an 'effect' balancing out their previous action-in otherwords like what the others said "what goes around comes around"


So eg:if a person does something bad then they accrue bad karma and then the "universe' will give them something bad/a bad situation so that can make up/balance that bad karma and people try to do good deeds to acrue good karma.I dont know if that is accurate sorry but that is what i presume karma to mean.


I dont believe in karma though-i think its a doctrine/belief that causes much damage,despair,hopelessness and hurt.For example there are many cases where people/a family might be living on the street or be without food or other bad situations but people dont want to/wont help them because they believe it is their karma accrued from a pastlife and they fear that by helping them they would be interfering with that persons karma balancing out so it causes that person/society to turn away/turn their back on that person in need instead of responding/acting from compassion and helping them and that to me is quite sad and leaves that person in need without hope in many instances.


More later...

 

[earthblood]

I, too, don't necessarily agree with the idea of karma that has gained currency in the West - mainly something like "If you lie, something heavy is going to fall on you." In other words, the idea seems mainly about punishment, which strikes me primarily as an extension or variation of the Christian idea of sin. The idea of "balance" that comes in and which Alienstyle referred to, I think, has its root in notions of dualism which have come to us through ideas like yin/yang, good/evil, as well as some of the concepts in Neopagan and New Age thought. I do believe that the actions and experiences of our lives create threads that will connect to future lives, but I also believe the process is probably extremely nuanced. I don't feel that it's a tit-for-tat kind of thing or that balance is necessarily a factor. I also feel that the process by which our actions and circumstances echo in future incarnations depends on a lot of factors and that the process as a whole is probably beyond our ability to grasp it given the temporal and physical limitations of our bodies and minds.


I've been quite interested in "conscious universe" theory and what Delonada said about the soul departing from source "to play a game, the game being to get back to the source by living through itself" is quite compelling.

 

[Nightrain]

I think the difference between the Western perception of justice and Eastern philosophy of Karma is best characterized by a situation during the British occupation in which a house servant in India was caught stealing. The servant heartfully apologized and felt that the whole situation should have ended there. However, the British homeowner preferred that the servant be summarily punished and forever banned from the household. In the mind of the Indian servant and his peers, such a harsh reaction was not only unwarranted, but completely pointless.


Although India is considered the source of the word Karma, it has been incorporated into Western philosophy to mean the kind of punishment we in the West are most familiar with; an eye for an eye; whereas, in the East it merely means that one is responsible for one's own actions and, therefore, subject to one's own correction.


In the West we have come to believe that Karma means that we will be punished by some other force than ourselves. In other words, if we kill someone in this life, they will kill us in the next. Or, whatever we abuse in this life will be lost in the next. This concept has evolved purely from a culture which has held the religious belief for millennia that we are like puppets on strings being controlled and punished by a great puppet-master in the sky.


When it comes to understanding Karma, I believe that it is necessary to also understand the culture from which the word emerged. This means more than understanding the East of today, because so much of the world has changed from what it used to be. However, this doesn't mean that the Eastern interpretation is any more correct than the Western; for the concept of Karma has been abused, itself, by people in all cultures.


One example of this is the belief that the poor people of Calcutta living in squalor should be left to their misery, because it is their Karma, and we have no right to interfere. Yet, this same philosophy has existed among Calvinist Christians who believe in predestination and held the same view of those less fortunate.

 

[alienstyle]

Continued...

When it comes to understanding Karma, I believe that it is necessary to also understand the culture from which the word emerged. This means more than understanding the East of today, because so much of the world has changed from what it used to be. However, this doesn't mean that the Eastern interpretation is any more correct than the Western; for the concept of Karma has been abused, itself, by people in all cultures.

Hi Nightrain,


A very sharp series of expressions you have launched here. And I can't help even admiring this paragraph. Your overall post is also quite mind-boggling. But the above quoted portion is something that I couldn't help thinking about while going to bed in the last two nights, with all the lights switched off.


The qouted opinion deserves serious consideration. I also believe it.


More later...

 

[alienstyle]

'Karma' is also REWARD


Apart from the seeming abuse of the concept of Karma, unfortunately there is even another negative thing going on with it.


Most people - probably among the Foreigners - take it to mean PUNISHMENT only. But such a mainstream notion of karma is actually polarized. It is both negative & positive. In other words, it also means REWARD - depending upon the case.


This one-sided notion seems frequent outside India! This is either due to the lack of knowledge about the literal meaning or owing to the so called modern teachers (of its philosophy) making a lopsided oneway interpretation. Or it is even because people has a general tendency to focus on the negative results so much that they just forget the other side of the mainstream karma doctrine.


For example, in India at least, both ways are observed. (I'm not necessarily saying that the other way is a scientific one or at least finally something that can be praised.)


Probably this is because, in the original country of its concept, the so called teachers couldn't just make the unipolar interpretation - because we know our language. Thus we know that karma means ACTION; so we will ask: if we do a good action, what will happen? The 'teachers' would have to then respond to us by saying something like: "You will have a happy & prosperous birth in the next life." or "You will have a nice car & a nice house right from your next birth and your new parents will have been already a millionaire family."


So in our country, when a child is born in a rich house and he/she enjoys air travel under the sponsorship of parents' money - people in the neighborhood may believe:


"The person (the child) must have done something good in a previous life."

 

[Nightrain]

Or it is even because people have a general tendency to focus on the negative results so much that they just forget the other side of the mainstream karma doctrine.

I should mention that my own observation as a Westerner has been that the use of the word Karma among educated Westerners has been very much the same as you have described in India -- that it means that we are responsible for our actions, both good and bad. I think that it may only SEEM one-sided on the negative aspect for the same reasons that our news media only reports negative news. There is a tendency, as you mentioned above, to focus on the negative, while taking the positive for granted. When someone in the West observes someone who has been blessed with good fortune from birth, it is often said that that person was, "...born with a silver spoon."; whereas someone with unexplainable bad fortune, "...has bad Karma". Both, I think, imply an understanding of the word useage, and the term "bad Karma" certainly implies the understanding that there is also good Karma.

 

[alienstyle]

Continued...


Thank you for clearing the confusion, Nightrain!


True...it may only SEEM so!


And I also agree with you that this tendency may have been highly influenced by the news media.


- Anyway, it has been important to eliminate such possible confusions in advance, before moving on to the in-depth discussions of the very topic of this thread.


More later...

 

[alienstyle]

Ian Stevenson's Notion/Definition : of the 'Karma' theory


In his book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation" (McFarland & Co., Feb 2001) Dr. Ian Stevenson writes, in the Chapter #2, something like:


The Hindus and the Buddhists believe that the moral conduct in one life influences the circumstances in a next; and this is the Essence of the doctrine of karma.


[Here the word conduct is used in the sense of action. I have no doubt about, of course, Stevenson's knowledge about the literal meaning of the karma. He surely knew that it means 'action'. So I conclude he has just chosen the word 'conduct' as an alternative term.]


But I would just like to insert here an extra word. Thus to me, Stevenson's definition or notion of karma (as depicted here in this book) could be more refined as:


The Hindus and the Buddhists believe that the moral conduct in one life influences the circumstances in a next; and this is the Essence of the mainstream doctrine of karma.


More later...

 

[alienstyle]

Continued...


The 2nd chapter of Dr. Ian Stevenson's book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation" (Revised Edition, February 2001) is titled:


The Belief in Reincarnation.


Towards the end of this chapter, in page-38, he has urged us to consider the belief systems of various reincarnation-believers all over the world into two parts:

• Primary belief
  

• Secondary beliefs
  

The first part is also called by Stevenson as the Central belief. It's about whether the very event of the reincarnation exists. And this is, of course, common between all the believers.


But apart from this primary belief, there is a wide range of various associated beliefs running throughout the world. Dr Stevenson terms it also as the Subsidiary beliefs. These are concerned about who reincarnates, how it occurs, and what causes in one life can be linked with what effects in a next, etc.


Where 'karma' is just an example. Which, as Stevenson has here reported, is not accepted by a variety of world cultures (both present & ancient) believing in reincarnation. Among the ancient, an example is:


Plato's belief system about reincarnation.


And among the present, some examples are the reincarnation beliefs of:


(1) A large group of Shiite Moslems in West Asia


(2) Some West Africans


(3) Tlingits of Alaska


As it has seemed to me, after reading the chapter - all these four belief systems don't basically accept that (now my writing following Stevenson's expression...) the moral action/conduct in one life governs the circumstances in a later life, or even has the slightest effect on it.


Dr. Stevenson also opines in this chapter that he has not yet obtained any evidence of such (morality based) karma theory.


And this may be significant to note that it is even after investigating about 3000 cases of the reincarnation type in various cultures in the world & over 40 years of research by a meticulous and brilliant person like him.


This chapter #2 in his book is also brilliant. Enormous overview is here available about the history and geography of the various belief systems in the world regarding the reincarnation. I highly recommend this chapter.


It has seemed to me that - if the Indian Culture now wants to still defend their 'Karma' theory, then either they come up with a new Definition/Notion about such doctrine, or wait for some further progress of the empirical research with probably some innovative new Methodologies inserted.

 

[alienstyle]

A Reply

I do believe that the actions and experiences of our lives create threads that will connect to future lives, but I also believe the process is probably extremely nuanced. I don't feel that it's a tit-for-tat kind of thing or that balance is necessarily a factor.

Hi earthblood -


Your above expressions, marked by me in 3 colours, have seemed to me to be somewhat close to the real truth.


Let alone the concept of equal (tit-for-tat) or equivalent (balanced) results of moral action - latest empirical research indicates, as far as I know, that not even any slightest effect of them has got any evidence, practically.

 

[alienstyle]

Ian Stevenson's CHAPTER NOTE : on Karma


I feel it now important to post Dr. Ian Stevenson's exact language/description about Karma in his Chapter Note in the Book "Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation" [2nd Edition, February 2001] at page-261. He exactly writes here:


The Meaning of Karma The Sanskrit word "karma" means "action". By extension, it has come to mean also the effects of an action and, more particularly, the effects of moral conduct, especially an effect that occurs in a life after one in which the associated cause has occured. The doctrine of karma in Hinduism and Buddhism includes many kinds of causes and effects, but popular usage focuses on appropriate retribution for the causative behavior. For example, a man born blind may be supposed to have gouged out the eyes of someone else in a previous life.


MY REVIEW:


This 'more particularly' part has paradoxically become the doctrine of karma 'in general'. Because of some Religious and other teachers having now made it widespread in the world. And this is exactly why I call it: Mainstream Karma-theory.


A factor for which it has become the mainstream could be that, religion has an inherent emphasis on moral action. (But to promote morality, such a theory now seems to demoralise more people and really help less people!)


Anyway - to remember my terminology it may help to note that, both the words Mainstream and Moral start with the same letter M!


By the way: in the use of the word 'especially' and the expression 'life after' - Stevenson means that inside such a doctrine (or the mainstream doctrine) of karma is implied the Reincarnation theory too.


And by the word 'appropriate retribution' is indicated the Equivalent (or even equal) Result of Action. Which is the peak of the Mainstream theory.


It appears that Stevenson has studied DEEPLY whatever material he has received regarding the Indian Philosophy of Karma. And he has used a brilliant branching in the Note here: general action - moral action - life after moral action - appropriate retribution in reincarnation.

 

[Nightrain]

When discussing Karma and its many interpretations, I think it is necessary to keep in mind the possibility that Karma -- no matter how it is defined -- may be only a human invention, designed to reassure people that there is some kind of balance in the afterlife as well as in the physical world. I think you might also agree that the concept has also been adopted in India for purposes of control through transmigration, whereby evil people would be reborn as some lower form of animal or insect. In fact, I believe the Hindu Veda belief in Transmigration is older than the Buddhist doctrine of Karma. But, regardless of how old the concept is, or how it is defined from prefecture to province, the concept may still be nothing at all like the true reality of the afterlife; and the reasons for us coming back with handicaps or good fortune may be as varied as each individual.


Judging by the title of this thread, "Karma theory vs Empiric Science", it seems that you may also be questioning the validity of Karma as a theory. I wonder, however, whether Empiric Science will ever have any effect on how we consider Karma?

 

[alienstyle]

In fact, I believe the Hindu Veda belief in Transmigration is older than the Buddhist doctrine of Karma.

Yes. The Veda belief of transmigration/reincarnation is older than the Buddhist's. - In fact much older. - Several thousand years older. (to tell you further)


The Buddha propagated the Reincarnation theory from about 2500 yrs ago. As He was born around "-500" in our English Calendar i.e. nearly 5 centuries ago from the time of the Christ. The Buddha concluded the primary belief in reincarnation, along with the secondary beliefs of Karma etc, from MEDITATION. It was a 6 long years of Meditation with eyes closed. And the tree where he meditated under is called Bodhi tree. It is still preserved in India.


And I visited it in the childhood with my parents. Then I didn't know anything about the Philosophy. But I enjoyed the place. There were many Japanese tourists at that time. And they were adding to my more enjoyment of the place as a child. I still remember them. One of them was reading a scripture, probably in the Japanese language, and I couldn't understand it.


The place is named "Buddha-Gaya". It's near Gaya in the province of Bihar. The Buddha was born in a village in Nepal. Which was also a part of our country at that time. So the Buddha's birth and His conclusion of the reincarnation theory both happened in the INDIAN soil.


Unfortunately, the Buddhism was later driven away by the Hindus from the INDIA, the very land of its origin! Behind this ran actually a deep philosophical clash for which it was perhaps hard to blame the either side. The Hindus love the Veda's concept of God; but the Buddha didn't accept such idea, because of 'evidences' found contrary to it during His own 'meditation'. That's another great discussion or story - maybe not ON TOPIC in this forum - because the reincarnation theory had nothing to do with this ancient Indian dispute!


But the Vedas (all the 4 Vedas) arose several millennia before the Buddha. The Vedas were also derived from MEDITATION. Many Indian Rishis (sages) - some of them were women too - carried out deep meditations for a long long time in the ancient India. Sometimes in the Forest, sometimes in the Hills, sometime in other places like Cottages etc. And the resultant of their 'conclusions' in the 'laboratory' of their own minds gave rise to finally what is known as the Vedanta Philosophy.


After mixing many rituals / ceremonial things / etc., it was finally presented to the public as the Vedas. But the Essence of the Vedas is a Philosophy (very different to Buddhism, apart from the Reincarnation, the only common denominator!). And this is the Vedanta Philosophy, or simply, Vedanta. The Hindus regard it as the basis for their religion. So it's also called the Hindu Philosophy.

 

[alienstyle]

Conceptual Research etc : & Cultural Conditioning

"When discussing Karma and its many interpretations, I think it is necessary to keep in mind the possibility that Karma -- no matter how it is defined -- may be only a human invention, designed to reassure people that there is some kind of balance in the afterlife as well as in the physical world. I think you might also agree that the concept has also been adopted in India for purposes of control..."

- Nightrain
The reality is that the conclusions of both the Reincarnation & Karma have arisen in India through the Conceptual Research rather than the Empirical Research. And of the conceptual approaches, was especially used MEDITATION.


In fact, even in modern India, empiricism is still not emphasized (or even respected) as much as in the West, so far as my experience goes till today. And to tell further, in my opinion, it is even reflected in the Publication Industry here. Especially among the local language Publishers - as far as I know at this moment.


Anyway back to Ancient India...


The MEDITATION is one of the various methods of the Conceptual research. Which is usually done by Philosophers, etc. Here by the meditation, I do not mean mainly conscious level works like thinking. Here in Ancient India, meditation means Subconscious Meditation.


In other words, the conclusion of Reincarnation & even the mainstream Karma (i.e. moral Karma theory) have come - essentially - via the SUBCONSCIOUS-MIND!!! Now the curious question is that, HOW was the subconscious working during all these Meditation sessions???


Was the subconscious misleading? Or was it arising like a real guide (showing up the real knowledge)?? Or was it performing actually somewhere in between - say 50% correct conclusions & 50% false faiths???


The fun with the Conceptual research (especially Meditation based one) is that, it can be very flamboyant in nature unlike its empiric counterpart. Which is pragmatic in nature. By these words, I mean that conceptual research is a somewhat daring approach whereas the empirical science avoids the risks of concluding things so much quickly. In chess analogy, you can say - 2 players both playing 10 games in a given tournament (with various opponents) and both scoring 80% i.e. 8 points finally, but one coming up with 8 wins & 2 losses whereas the other displaying 6 wins & 4 draws (thus also: 6 x 1 point + 4 x 1/2 point = 6 + 2 = 8 points). Here the former is the analog of the CONCEPTUAL approach to research, while the latter represents the style of the EMPIRICAL approach to scoring the knowledge.


Now coming to the world of the subconscious...


In the 90s - as far as I know - science has officially recognized a dramatic new phenomenon called the False Memory Syndrome. And it can happen to any person, even in good health!! Here the cognitive memory is affected i.e. information based memory. - But fortunately not the emotions (or the themes) in the memory.


For example, the sequence of the events can change when we recall such memories. The events XYZ can float from the subconscious as XZY. Another type of symptom in this syndrome is, simply the event of an information P becoming the information Q. Here the distortion is probably even more.


LIKEWISE...an idea suddenly dawned in me that during the Meditation or the Conceptual Research also, a curious phenomenon could occur where the 'new conclusions' too can be DISTORTED just like the 'old memories'. - And I call it the False Conclusion Syndrome!


On the other hand, such conclusions from the Meditation can depend on several factors : two examples -


# Level of Meditation


# Cultural Conditioning


I believe the deeper the level of Meditation, the greater the possibility of the correct conclusions coming up about such topics. But the more the cultural conditioning surrounds you, the more the chances of the 'False Conclusion Syndrome' penetrating. Of course these two factors being like the opposite forces, we can potentially cancel out the 'conditioning' by increasing the levels of the Meditation SUFFICIENTLY.


And just like the above False Memory cases, where the person actually feels confident about the memories, here also the researcher (the conceptual researcher) simply remains unaware of the episode, and still feels confident even with the eyes open after the meditation!


Maybe, the mainstream Karma theory came from such a 'cultural conditioning' in INDIA - coupled with the fact that the levels of the Meditation were not running adequately deep while working on this idea. - It is usually also hard to organize the levels of the SUBCONSCIOUS sufficiently deep at every stages in the Meditation.

 

[Love]

So you're saying that at first you admired the quote


"To me, reincarnation is not an abstract religious concept or a philosophy, but a natural phenomenon." - Carol Bowman.


Now, you think you admire the conceptual.


Are you still confused? or you're trying to answer the question of reincarnation? or you found the solution?


No offense, because I read the way of your writing is quite informative and I wonder how are you coming with your research.

 

[Nightrain]

Are you still confused? or you're trying to answer the question of reincarnation? or you found the solution?

Although I should leave it to Alienstyle to answer your question, I'm inclined to believe that what he is saying pertains to finding an accurate definition of Karma by using a combination of objective Western observation of phenomenon AND subjective Eastern reasoning based on disciplined meditation – as opposed to strict scientific empiricism AND overly credulous faith in scripture, as seems to be the case in Western thought.


I don't believe there is any confusion implied, but rather that there is room for middle ground between Western and Eastern thinking, so long as people don't seek answers with blinders on.

 

[alienstyle]

So you're saying that at first you admired the quote
"To me, reincarnation is not an abstract religious concept or a philosophy, but a natural phenomenon." - Carol Bowman.


Now, you think you admire the conceptual.


Are you still confused?

Hi Love,


The subject of Philosophy itself is a product of the Conceptual Research. (As I've already written/indicated that such a research is done by the Philosophers etc.) And as a subject, there are various Philosophies now in existence in the syllabus at the University levels.


But many of these individual philosophies contradict each other significantly. For example - even being both born in India - HINDUISM believes in God but BUDDHISM doesn't, in such an idea of God as defined in the Hindu tradition of the Vedas. (Even though they both believe in the Reincarnation however!)


Both the Hindu sages and the Buddha carried out long meditations to conclude their own philosophies. And both were born in the same country of ancient india. Still the variance arose in the opinion about God. (Which may not be this time explained by even the Cultural-Conditioning!)


So in a nutshell we can say that PHILOSOPHY - in general - can lead to mixed results (part truth, part falsehood). For example, regarding the above idea of the 'God', either the Hindu is a liar or is liar the Buddha. So the CONCEPTUAL research, the very mechanism behind the subject of Philosophy, may also come under the suspicion - in general.


Therefore from an angle, your questioning the 'conceptual' definitely makes sense. Just as there has been appropriate the use of the word 'philosophy' in the above quotation of Carol Bowman's.


But I admire that part of the Conceptual Research where the real conclusions can take place. And I do believe there's got to be such a region in such a research.


Thank you Nightrain for your beautiful answer alongside! And there's truly no confusion implied, hopefully.

 

[alienstyle]

A modern Conceptual Research? (by Avi Sion, 2002)


Now I present a link (that defies the Mainstream Karma i.e. the moral action theory) where the author Avi Sion - who has copyrighted his work here in 2002 - has seemed to carry out a personal conceptual research to retort this part of the Indian Philosophy, or its distortion.


Unlike Ian Stevenson, the writer hadn't here cited any rigorous empirical statistics, but still concluded in the end - like Dr Stevenson - of there being no support available yet for this idea.


THE LINK : in blue colour


The author has seemingly run a modern conceptual research on this topic.


Note:- You may bypass the Nagarjuna reference (a Buddhist Scholar's) here, and study just the Author's own part.

 

[Love]

Now I present a link (that defies the Mainstream Karma i.e. the moral action theory) where the author Avi Sion - who has copyrighted his work here in 2002 - has seemed to have carried out a personal conceptual research to retort this part of the Indian Philosophy.
Unlike Ian Stevenson, the writer hadn't here cited any rigorous empirical statistics, but still concluded in the end - like Dr Stevenson - of there being no support available yet for this idea.


THE LINK : in blue colour


The author has seemingly run a modern conceptual research on this topic.


Note:- You may bypass the Nagarjuna reference (a Buddhist Scholar's) here, and study just the Author's own part.

Thanks for more info from you !


Well, people find all excuses and reasons for all kind of beliefs and reasons. Be it whatever.


I am not of any advocate to any particular religion or belief in this discussion for the sake of debate and learning.


Though I have one.


Let's think if there were God(s), would they be Man or Woman or both ? or no sexes?


If there is God who created God?


If there is no Karma why the ** it exists? Different people come to conclude to suit their needs and comfort but logically why do you think then Karma exist or not?


Why is there life cycle? (vicious circle)


I may not fully understand what I am asking but answer me for the sake of teaching or sharing if you think you're smarter and more intelligent I humbly bow and listen.


Thanks

 

[alienstyle]

Hi Love,


I've not forgotten your Question, or rather the very essence of it. As you've written something like: I may not understand what I'm asking - so I've already picked up the THEME of your query.


But of late, I've been suddenly busy writing the SYNOPSIS for a Book that I've myself written in my local language Bengali. I want to publish it. But to do so, I'm suddenly finding as if I'm to also make a Mini-version of it.


The topic of this Book is however away from Reincarnation. - At least officially. - It is on the subconscious mind's other aspects.


Regarding your Queries, my current understanding is:


Karma is a concept that has something subtle to say BUT NOT IN QUITE THE MANNER IN WHICH IT IS STILL PROPAGATED BY THE VAST MAJORITY OF ITS TEACHERS - They are claiming cause & effect relationships, correlations, etc. But NOT CITING ANY MECHANISM AT ALL.


I'll respond more fully later, hopefully.