Jump to content

Why I reject karma and reincarnation, as illogical and nonsensical


Alan McDougall
 Share

Recommended Posts

PeterJ,

 

I did not look into Wu Wei, but think I may have been at least tangentially introduced to the concepts through conversations with folks who might have been intimately familiar with them.

 

Interesting point, regarding that, in this thread on the illogic of Karma and Reincarnation, on a science forum, is that the "truth" of Wu Wei would not be any different if I learned it or not. It's truth content could be enjoyed without ever opening the cover. What is true, remains true whether I know about it or not.

 

With Karma being thought of, as "what goes around, comes around" anyone can see the truth in it, without reading a book, or being taught by a wise old man. And in this, Karma is not illogical nonsense. On the other hand, if Karma is based on made up rules that have no actual cause and effect relationship to the universe, and no ability to be tested and experienced by uninitiated people, then it is leaning into nonsense land. The rules make no sense...there is no mechanism one can manipulate, there is no rule giver with the power to make it happen...except us. If the collective of all other individuals is considered to be objective reality, then objective reality is true, judgemental and powerful. One can be good or bad, in this collective's eye. Fearing hell, striving for heaven, is a good figurative way of framing the literal truth of having the choice to either please or harm others.

 

As for reincarnation, I apply the same test. Can you be aware of, and experience the progression, without anybody making up the rules and teaching them to you. That is, if they are true, you would just know it. Like the Sun in the sky, it would just be there. You could ask John who he was last time, and he could say. This does not happen, because it can not happen that way. There is no mechanism to get Elvira into John. The rules are not based on reality, they are based on figurative, subjective value judgments, and one must venture onto some other plane of reality inorder to "get it". So the test is, if you cannot "get it" just by looking at it and experiencing it, then somebody made it up, and it has a heavy figurative meaning, and very little literal meaning.

 

You said "rebirth" makes more sense than reincarnation, and here I would agree. Probably not according to the teachings, because I didn't read the book, but the idea of the same form and structure that existed in my mom and dad, now existing in me, makes perfect, evident sense. One can trace such rebirthing back to Lucy. It makes sense and there has to be a little Lucy in me, but Lucy is not an identity that I can claim I have all of, and you have none of.

 

Regards, TAR


PeterJ,

 

I think the future is not determined. Reality is manifest, but only in accordance to what it just was like. What it will be next has not yet happened. And the mix is too complex to predict what will emerge. And there is no model that is truer than reality itself. As I have said before, you can write a formula for a peanut butter cup, you could design a model that described the position and momentum of every quark in a peanut butter cup, but the formula/model would not taste sweet and chocholatey.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay. You have your opinions. Still, I'd suggest looking into this properly and replacing those opinions with research results. The idea that karma is a conjecture not grounded in experience is clearly absurd since nothing at all is endorsed by mysticism unless it derives from direct experience. Conjectures are a waste of time.

 

Of course, you don't have to believe it. But it's no use misrepresenting an idea and then arguing against it.

 

I feel that you wildly underestimate the intelligence and honesty of the people who investigate these things, as well as failing to read what they say. This a bit weird since you clearly have a real interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

If Karma is based on no free will, that destroys the purpose of the teaching, to cause one to attempt to be good. If you can not choose to "progress", then what is the point?

 

At least, with an understanding that free will is operationally true, one can take the teachings of Karma and reincarnation, as figurative guidance. Without free will however, "being good" has no meaning.

 

Regards, TAR

 

Nice post Peter!

 

Let’s talk about Karma, Reincarnation and Destiny.

 

http://freethoughtblogs.com/yemmynisting/2014/02/17/of-karma-reincarnation-and-destiny/

· Are you blaming Karma for the calamities in your life?

· Do you wish you had known about Karma so that you could have averted the calamities?

· Do you believe the Karma you accumulated in your previous life is why your life is a mess?

So tell me,

· Was it bad Karma that got 3 million Jews gassed?

· Is bad Karma responsible for the death of millions of African children from preventable diseases?

· Is Karma the reason many African children go to bed hungry or starve to death?

· Do you seriously think accumulated bad Karma is why a gay person is born into a homophobic society?

 

If we are to go by the definition of Karma, it is rational to conclude that dictatorship, bad governance, homophobia and poverty are all necessary wheels of Karma, and therefore they are important to life and/or karmic circle.

 

Now, if bad governance, corruption, greed, poverty are all integral to keeping the wheel of Karma rolling, why do we bother to fight these menaces? Are they even menaces considering that they are needed for people to get their ‘Just Karma’?

 

It is sad and ridiculous that Karma seems to be widely accepted as a fact. I have come across some freethinkers who are quick to say ‘Karma is a bitch’ and basically endorse the concept. Karma is just another made up %##@*&.

 

And like religion, Karma is also hurts innocent people.

The belief in Karma has caused and is still causing much pain to many. If you believe people are in a bad situation because of some bad things they did in a past life, then you will be less inclined to help them.

 

Visually impaired people where and in some places still treated as the scum of the earth because in some societies, it is believed that blindness is caused by bad karma.

Reincarnation works with a belief in Karma. The new concept or rather the western concept of Karma, which often manifests in the saying “Karma is a bitch”, deals more with the belief that people get the repercussions of their actions through cause and effect, brought on by the belief that there is a natural law/order that decreed bad people would get their bad Karma on earth.

We know this is not the case, especially since there are more people lamenting Why do bad things always happen to good people” than people giving a thumbs up to Karma, yelling “Yeah, karma is a bitch, he got his Karma!

 

Waiting around hoping the cause and effect law of Karma would catch up with a rapist, burglar, or murderer is indeed stupid. For any semblance of justice to be done, the necessary structures must be in place. This includes:

· A law and order society that is not at war

· A law against the crime

· A body that can enforce the law

· A system that is not partial

· And you have to do your bit by reporting the case to the appropriate authority for investigation.

 

If you were the victim of a crime and you reported the criminal to a security officer, but the officer tells you “Karma is a bitch, just wait around, Karma is dealing with it”, you will no doubt be angry at such nonsense. The angry reaction says a lot. It tells me you also know that Karma is nothing but wishful thinking.

 

Now, aside this consoling, lazy, wishful western Karma, there is the Eastern concept of Karma which dates far back. The Eastern concept of Karma is very much linked to reincarnation.

 

Although there are variations in the eastern version of Karma, for example some belief it has to do with a God, and some think you can achieve a state of Dharma or a state of Nirvana, when you work off all your bad Karma, however one belief that is central to them all is that people are reborn. Souls are reborn in new bodies.

 

Now, it is only rational to ask, what are souls?

 

Is soul the alternative word for consciousness?

 

Is it another word for brain activities?

 

Is my soul my personality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

I guess I am a bit wierd. There are whole areas of human beliefs and human endeavor, that I have already made judgment on. Maybe a little reading and a little discussion comes first, but there are things that people say and do that I can only parse through my own experiences of what are possible things, and what are fantasies.

 

It seem wierd to me however that you use mysticism and research in the same sentence.

 

They seem to me like contradictory terms.

 

I look for the explanations that make sense to me. I would not get anything out of a book that I have already determined is baseless on general principle. On the general principle that if you have a belief that something is true, that has no mechanism, and cannot be witnessed by others and peer reviewed, then it is a private thought you are having and has no reality associated with it, that others can embrace with a straight face and a sober mind.

 

In other words, I have already determined that reincarnation is not possible, not workable, and not sensible. Reading another book that talks about birthmarks at the site of a deadly wound of someone that lived in town and died, being proof of reincarnation is just not the kind of research that I think is required to investigate the claims. I have a much better test. If such claims happen all the time in some far Eastern country where reincarnation is part of the religion, and the same claims are really really rare in a society who does not have those religious beliefs, then reincarnation is likely a religious belief, and not an actual fact of life.

 

Regards, TAR


for instance Moslems have the belief that if you do good you will be rewarded with rivers of honey, among other things, but researchers listening to the stories of people whose hands were sticky and tasted sweet after loved ones died, would not prove either that rivers of honey are real rewards, or that their loved one was good

 

(i made that up, no one that I know of ever claimed such a thing)

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar - I think it is sad that you close yourself off from one entire area of life and study by pre-judging the issues. I really do think it's better to grasp an idea and then dismiss it, if it has to be dismissed, rather than the other way around. But then you do say you're a bit weird in this respect. I would not say weird but anti-intellectual. You just don't want to think about these things. Not weird at all but bang in line with the current fashion for adopting metaphysical views with no examination.

 

If you cannot see why I would use the words 'mysticism' and 'research' in the same sentence then this explains a lot about your views. I expect you believe they are 'scientific' even though they are plucked out of thin air.

 

I don't want to argue with you because you've made up your mind, but I would want to point out that you don't have the slightest idea of whether there is any truth in karma, rebirth or more generally the perennial philosophy. You have simply decided that the books aren't worth reading and the practice would be useless. This makes any comments I might make equally useless.

 

But why? Why would you not bother to find out what you're opposing before opposing it? A science forum member would surely be expected to be interested in these things, not to simply waive them away. Do you think that I am mad? I suppose you must. Decades of research, dissertations, proofs and formal arguments and I've got it all wrong, no research at all and little thought and you've got it all right! What are the chances?

 

Don't you ever wonder why stereotypically 'western' philosophers cannot make any progress in metaphysics? Compete stagnation for twenty centuries. How would you explain this? Blind stupidity? Or is it possible that they are missing something because they have pre-judged the issues?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Faced with this fait accompli there's little I can say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

So what do you figure, that reincarnation does not work, but rebirth does?

 

There are many teachings that people go by that are real to me, in their figurative context but not real in their literal claims.

 

You figure the Eastern religions have it right and metaphysics in the West has not progressed since the Greeks. This discounts Kant's work in the area, which is rather closeminded on your part.

 

But even if Western takes are wrong, and Eastern takes are right, you additionally favor rebirth over reincarnation, which indicates to me that there are some Eastern ideas that are shortsighted and suspect, in relationship to the particular teachings you have vetted as reasonable. Why would you doubt the research and findings of anybody in the area of mystic stuff? Metaphysics is not mystacism. Mistic things are magic things that only live in people's minds. They are arrangements of the world made by a mind onto the world. This direction is not the proper one, in my estimation. That is why I find it somewhat fruitless, to read religious texts, that base truth on what has come from someone's mind in a meditative, or drugged or otherwise altered state. Anything true, would be accessible to me, without reading the book, where I to make my own investigation.

 

There is a difference between making the world fit your model, and having your model fit the world.

 

If I am to believe one sage, I must believe them all. And the only way do to this is to carefully separate what is the real world internize in a human mind, and what is the human mind projected onto the world.

 

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Tar. Occasionally I have a go at changing your mind but you always know too much already. You seem determined to misunderstand mysticism even if it means never reading anything, If this sounds rude I'm sorry but from here it seems to be the case.

 

I won't labour the point here since I talk it to death on my blog. It can be demonstrated that only one metaphysical solution works, but not everyone wants it to work and it is ignored. So round and round we go getting nowhere. I don't want to play that pointless game for another thousand years.

 

You sum up your view so, "Mystic things are magic things that only live in people's minds."

 

And you expect to be taken seriously? Not by me. This sort of approach is what I call anti-intellectualism. Unless you mean that everything is in our mind, which I could go along with. Then everything is 'mystic'. But in fact you seem to be muddling up the different meanings of the word.

 

No matter. I know when I'm beat.

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

Do you draw a distinction between mysticism and metaphysics?

 

I have not read your blog, but I think I have heard your "only one way metaphysics works" and your demonstration of it did not convince me, nor did I see its logic. I thought you were wrong, and your logic did not force your conclusion.

 

I did not like, nor did I agree with your one way metaphysics works.

 

Years ago I had an insight about the way we internalize the world in the folds of our brains. Like the reflection on a lake, all folded up. The world actually exists, and the reflection actually exists, and the surface of the lake actually exists. One does not discount the others, they all are exactly what they are.

 

But this idea extends to the idea of a model, and the idea of the thing being modeled and the idea of the thing doing the modeling.

 

Any discussion of the human mind, and human thought, that does not include these three components, to where I can parse the discussion into these components, is missing something in my estimation.

 

When I talk of magic, I am speaking of considering something that is happening in the folds of the brain, that does not have an analog in the real world. You can imagine yourself sitting on the moon in a bathing suit, eating bon bons, but its not likely to actually happen this afternoon, to where I can see it happening.

 

If the senses, our senses bring an analog version of the world into the folds of our brains, that is one thing...but the folds in our brains do not affect the world back, without a mechanism to do so. We can build the patterns that exist in our minds back onto the world, but we only have a certain reach. Beyond that reach is the realm of mysticism. But metaphysics deal exactly with those things within that reach we have of transferring the patterns in our brains onto the world.

 

I don't wish to close out any thought about the way things work. I just like making a distinction between those ideas that work, and those ideas that do not work.

 

Regards, TAR


In other words, don't tell me figurative stuff and tell me it is literally true. Show me the literal mechanism by which Sally's reflection of the world leaves Sally's brain and enters Billy's baby brain. Show me that research, that follows the mechanisms and the cause and effect through. In other than a figurative manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's no use asking me to show you the research when it's all out there and you don't want to read it. And if you had read my blog (or a dictionary) you'd know that metaphysics and mysticism are utterly different things.

 

I've made no attempt to convince you. btw., I'm just pointing out that your view takes no account of the facts.

 

How would you explain the utter failure of western philosophy? Do you not think it might be something to do with looking at things in the wrong way? Do you want to see another two millennia of failure? Do you not find it all completely boring and pointless? The modern academic philosopher is so useless that some scientists are calling for the abolition of philosophy. This the state it is in. Yet you buy into it hook line and sinker. As an ex-CEO I have no time for this everlasting doodling about. Get the problems solved and move on would be my approach.

 

As for the idea that we should stick to ideas that work, this is the approach I'm recommending in the face of your determination to endorse ideas that never have worked.

 

I feel that the neuroscientists have taken you in. Best to ignore their nonsense unless you want to be stuck in the same rut going nowhere.

 

But this is all a bit daft. If you are going to reject ideas on the basis of assumptions and absent any attempt to grasp what they actually are then we'd best leave this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

Well wait. We can't leave this, you have described the last 2000 years of Western Civilization as a failure.

 

What are your parameters that would describe success?

 

We have, at least in my country, quality of life, riches, technology, medicine, neighborhood, and friendship and coordination that absolutely works to cause millions of people to exist and procreate and enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in peace and security, with respect for each other and respect for the law. This nation of mine was built on the back of Judeo/Christian values and the philosophies of the Greeks.

 

You think caste systems in India are somehow more of a success than this?

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's no use asking me to show you the research when it's all out there and you don't want to read it. And if you had read my blog (or a dictionary) you'd know that metaphysics and mysticism are utterly different things.

 

I've made no attempt to convince you. btw., I'm just pointing out that your view takes no account of the facts.

 

How would you explain the utter failure of western philosophy? Do you not think it might be something to do with looking at things in the wrong way? Do you want to see another two millennia of failure? Do you not find it all completely boring and pointless? The modern academic philosopher is so useless that some scientists are calling for the abolition of philosophy. This the state it is in. Yet you buy into it hook line and sinker. As an ex-CEO I have no time for this everlasting doodling about. Get the problems solved and move on would be my approach.

 

As for the idea that we should stick to ideas that work, this is the approach I'm recommending in the face of your determination to endorse ideas that never have worked.

 

I feel that the neuroscientists have taken you in. Best to ignore their nonsense unless you want to be stuck in the same rut going nowhere.

 

But this is all a bit daft. If you are going to reject ideas on the basis of assumptions and absent any attempt to grasp what they actually are then we'd best leave this.

 

How about this essay explaining what a mystic really is?

 

 

A mystic is one who, above all else in life, desires to know, not in the intellectual sense of knowing, the deepest Truth of existence. A mystic is one who senses more to life than making a living or being of service in the world although these things are both necessary and good. The mystic, however, is looking beyond an exclusive or preoccupied focus on these survival or self-actualization to something more.

 

He is looking to discover the deepest truth of our being as incarnate souls; to understand our greatest potential as reflections of God; to realize our wholeness within the ground of all. The primary interest in life for the mystic is to discover truth, to know God; to see into man's whole nature. The mystic sees all of life as an abundant opportunity to discover, realize, and express the Divine.

 

Mysticism springs from an insatiable curiosity for understanding the essential questions of life: matters of God, creation, the infinite and the human potential for knowing truth. The mystic is in reality the ultimate scientist who, looking beyond the apparent or obvious in all matters, asks, "Is this that I am seeing reality or the illusions that stem from fear?" "What existed before this sense of reality?"

 

"What existed before my mental constructs, my beliefs, my self identity?" "Who is this that observes and is self-reflecting?" "What is at life's very source?"

 

Mysticism: Why it’s so often misunderstood

 

Mysticism is terrifically misunderstood by mainstream culture. It always has been. Many people incorrectly think mysticism is some kind of odd occult or a mystic someone who studies magic or renounces life and goes off to live in a cave. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

The reason this has often been confused though is not so surprising. The mystic is one who undergoes a radical shift in conscious understanding and that often looks, sounds, or seems very mysterious to our accustomed ways of thinking and being.

 

The mystic consciously enters into the sacred journey that all the world's great religions speak of in various ways. Some call it becoming awakened, enlightened, or born again.

 

It is an inner journey that requires a deconstruction of the conditioned illusions of separation so that the true freedom of living can emerge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice one Alan.

 

Tar - Please be careful with the words. I did not say that the last 2000 years of western civilisation was a failure. It is the western approach to philosophy that has always failed.

 

Mind you. when Ghandi was asked what he thought of western civilisation he replied, "Yes, that would be a good idea".

 

 

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

"As for the idea that we should stick to ideas that work, this is the approach I'm recommending in the face of your determination to endorse ideas that never have worked."

 

 

The ideas promoted by the Greeks and the Western Philosophers, through the enlightenment and the industrial revolution... the technological advances spurred on by adherence to the scientific method, are all ideas that have worked. Worked to bring Western Civilization to where it is. You cannot say both that Western Civilization is a good, workable idea, AND that the ideas it is based on are a complete failure.

 

Alan,

 

Why must one consider reality an illusion, when it is so obviously real? Why else would we be calling it reality? You require another plane of exisistence for the soul to occupy. Heaven is not a far cry from the progressing soul of the believers in reincarnation. This is your thread, figuring that Karma and reincarnation are illogical. Yet you hold to the mystical, illogical tenants of your own religion. PeterJ decries the illogic of the believers in reincarnation, because it does not work, but accepts instead that his soul is operating under specific logical rules of rebirth, dictated by the universe.

 

Exactly how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?

 

According to Alan.

According to PeterJ.

 

Regards, TAR


Why is TAR's mysticism and feeling of belonging to the universe incorrect and Alan's way and PeterJ's way is correct, because someone wrote their imaginings, down, Alan and PeterJ read them, and decided that is the way it must be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

tar and Peter J

 

tar you quoted the following below,

 

tar

Why must one consider reality an illusion, when it is so obviously real? Why else would we be calling it reality? You require another plane of exisistence for the soul to occupy. Heaven is not a far cry from the progressing soul of the believers in reincarnation. This is your thread, figuring that Karma and reincarnation are illogical. Yet you hold to the mystical, illogical tenants of your own religion. PeterJ decries the illogic of the believers in reincarnation, because it does not work, but accepts instead that his soul is operating under specific logical rules of rebirth, dictated by the universe.

 

 

 

 

 

The question then begs, What is the real world and what is not?

As far as reality is concerned, it has been scientifically proven that our human sensory capacity is extremely limited.

 

Below is an excerpt of an article I wrote on sensory perception.

 

However, the capacity of human sensory organs such as, the eye for sight, ear for sound, nose for smell, skin for touch, tongue pallet/nose for taste, are very limited and can easily be fooled. It is true that we humans are the most highly intelligent sentient beings on our planet and due of our relatively huge brains, were able to invent and perfect many artificial means and methods of increasing the range and sensitivity of our five senses, far beyond the barriers of the average capacity.

 

What we perceive is not always a true reflection of reality. In fact, the brain makes best guesses about the outside world from surprisingly limited source of information. Research shows the brain reconstructs the rich tapestry of what we sense and experience from bits of scattered input data. However, much of it is just an illusion of the real world we construct in our brains to limit confusion.

 

The reality we perceive us is a but a tiny fraction of the entire environment surrounding us, because God or evolution has designed us to only react or act only to very specific impulses, which are essential to sustain us as a viable and successful species on planet earth.

 

In this we are not special and these limitations of evolution effect other animal species as well.

 

We are internally programmed to perceive only within a narrow band and very limited range what truly surrounds us. Due to these embedded limiting sensory capacities and ingrained factors, we only respond to sensory signals, that are essential for our continued survival, as a viable sentient species on planet earth.

 

As an comparison with the above paragraph. Let's examine the life of a frog, although its eye sends host of visual messages to the cortex of its brain, its brain ignores most of them as redundant, because just in the manner of humans, it is likewise programmed to react only to the movement or vibration of its food source, which is mostly insects.

 

The frog is not concerned with the detail of stationary objects of the world around it. He will starve to death surrounded by food if it is not moving. :blink: His choice of food is determined only by size and movement.

 

Another example of this is the security metal detector gate found in most airports, it will only beep when it senses metal and let any other object pass through.

 

We miss a great deal of reality and cannot normally perceive exactly all that is really happening around us, because nature has created us dismiss much of what the brain takes in, as extraneous, irrelevant or redundant garbage.

 

We have been programmed over the ages to only perceive that which is necessary for our survival as a viable species on planet earth. Our brains fill in the gaps and limitations of our sensory organs by creating a false picture of reality, to keep us comfortable.

 

The brain assists us in determining what we see, as can be demonstrated by trying to read while moving your head or while tapping the corner of one closed eye Try it and you will notice what I mean. Your brain receives information from sensory receptors that inform it about body position and movement.

 

Look at the Ames Room test on Youtube and you will be amazed how easily we can be fooled even though we know the two people in the Ames Room are nearly the same height and stature. Various other optical illusions have been invented to test perceptions and how the brain organizes the information it receives.

 

It is thought that this organizing ability is partly genetically determined and activated by an individual’s early visual experience. Two special abilities of humans, which appear to be tied to our social evolution, are good face recognition and an ability to read the emotions of others.

Edited by Alan McDougall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar - I cannot penetrate your defences. There's not even a crack to let the light shine in. You say that western philosophy is a success despite the fact that it has made no progress in two thousand years, so I must assume you are happy with simply not having a clue about it. Fair enough. Not everybody is curious. But I have nothing of any interest to say in this situation. I've never seen such a head in the sand approach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tar may seem to have his head in the sand but at least he is trying to understand; maybe you should ‘try’ to understand him before dismissing his approach; he is, after all, just a product of his culture, a culture that perceives money/power as a means to alleviate fear, much like mysticism does in yours. You can’t control what is understood by others but you can guide them to what you understand to be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate what you're saying. dimreeper, but I can't just force myself on Tar. We've spoken many time before. He shows no interest and I don't feel any need to start an argument. Starting arguments used to be my tactic for generating interest but it's too tiring.

 

For a person to be interested in a solution they first have the realise that there's a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

Progress toward what?

 

If you are aware of the end game, why are you not there already? What are you doing hanging around here in your mortal shell?

 

Regards, TAR


Or did you just come back to pick up stragglers?

 

Sorry PeterJ, you said you did not wish to argue, so I will withdraw, if I am not helping here. I seem to be rather already decided on some of these issues, and therefore not much fun to talk to, about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha. Good question. If I believed you were interested I'd answer it. I used to think people were searching for answers but I have learnt that most people know them all already. Tar thinks that western philosophy is a success. What is one to say? If it's all sorted then no need for me to waste anybody's time. You guys just assume I'm talking nonsense and I doubt I'll ever convince you otherwise, so I'll be off. Metaphysics required careful logical analysis, not a lot of opinions wafted about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

So, regardless of my defense of Western thought, in reference to this thread, if Westerners commonly do not believe in reincarnation, are they being logical, or illogical? Does Karma and Reincarnation make sense, or is it nonsense. Are they a real fact of life, or are they religious beliefs. Is god a figurative thing, or a literal thing. Are the rules of reincarnation made up, or carefully researched and documented. Can anyone tell the past lives of an individual by some objective means? Or must one be a believer to believe it?

 

 

Regards, TAR


PeterJ,

 

You base your conclusion, that Western Philosophy is a failure, on a strawman argument. You find a question that has no answer, according to logic, and suggest Western Philosophy is a failure, because it can't answer the question.

 

I would say the contrary, that Western Philosophy has carefully and logically defined the difference between science and mysticism.

 

Regards, TAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh hell Tar. Do you not see that your comments are painfully naive?

 

It is quite easy to define the difference between science ands mysticism. Any good dictionary will show you how to do this.

 

As for all your questions, I'd suggest you try to answer them. All the information is available,

 

I haven't made a strawman argument because I haven't made an argument. I'm just trying to get you to admit this is a topic about which you know nothing. This would be a necessary precursor to learning something about it. But you don't want to do this, and this Is why it; would be daft for me to continue corresponding.

 

As I have said previously, it is no use trying to make sense of karma with no knowledge of the general theory within which it sits.

 

I have no interest in arguing for or against karma. I'm suggesting that you learn what the theory is before forming an opinion. It's called research, and it contrasts with plucking ones views out of a hat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ and Tar

 

It strikes me that you’re both as obdurate as each other and that you both are guilty of overcomplicating what seems to be a relatively simple concept.

 

For me karma begins and ends with its utility in enabling forgiveness.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PeterJ,

 

I am looking at a one page picture of the Divine Theme Chart IX by Meher Baba May 17, 1943, given to me by a woman (co-worker) from India, who I used to talk to about her beliefs.

 

I see the stone forms, metal forms, vegetable forms worm forms fish forms bird forms, and animal forms, that are part of the winding process, and the subtle world and mental world that are part of the unwinding process or the realization process that brings one to the god state as conscious of the gross world and the master's soul, both.

 

Being familiar with the theory does not make it literally true. All the components are actualities, but what of it is physical and what of it is metaphysical is rather obvious.

 

What of it is logical and real and meaningful is apparent. I can understand my version of the master's soul, without learning a darn thing from Meher Baba. I can tell the difference between what is logical and sensible, and what is illogical and nonsensical without knowing whether my sanskaras is decreasing or increasing.

 

I also have read the Koran twice. That does not mean I am not in favor of being good, in the eyes of Allah (figuratively) or that I think Mohammed was visited by Gabriel in the darkness of a cave, and told the real meaning of the Old Testament. There are some things that are literally true, and reincarnation is not one of those things. It makes no sense, and does not work. Something you agreed with, earlier in the thread.

 

I might not have the knowledge of the theory that you have, nor do I have the knowledge of the Koran, that a scholar who read it in the original Arabic might have.

 

I still can know that Mohammed could not have been spoken to, literally, by an angel...because there is no such literal thing. Angels are made up, figurative things, that stand for actual human consciousness.

 

Regards, TAR

 

I also have Kant's Critique of Pure Reason downstairs, and there is a bookmark in it about 1/3 the way through. I have not read a page in a long time, but I used to read it about a page or two at a time...and think about and integrate what I read, into my own understanding of the world and consciousness and metaphysics. I don't know nothing about this subject. Accusations of ignorance on my part are not true; you will have to come up with another argument.


Alan,

 

I joined this thread in support of your thesis. Now I am getting neg reps from you and PeterJ because of my snarky sarcastic comments pointing out the illogic of your mystical beliefs.

 

Deserved perhaps because the remarks were hurtful, but within the context of this thread, it would be more intellectually honest if you would cast the same suspicions of nonsensicality upon your own beliefs...if a belief of yours is as equally grounded as a belief of Meher Baba.

 

Regards, TAR

Edited by tar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.