Theory of Karma

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

sravna, such declarative statements have no value in a discussion. Compassion and love are experienced by everyone, it is not an emotion predicated upon whether the person is a theist or atheist.

Wait sravna, you are letting your imagination loose. I don't recall anybody saying, "people who believe in spiritual values are blamed for lack of compassion or empathy..."

My contention is this, (i) we don't need religion or spirituality to lead a good life of love and compassion, and (ii) it takes religion or spirituality to make an otherwise good, loving and compassionate person to sometimes act in abominable ways.

sravna, I have stated my position above. It can be seen to be true like the back of the palm on your hand. Any inconsistency you may see is nothing more than illusion.

Once again, go back and read my response above. Human values by definition are of this physical/material realm. Spirituality by definition is non-human resulting in many inhuman consequences.

Haven't you heard of ancient atheists from good old Bharatavarsha? About the same time the Greeks were at it too. Atheism is as old as theism itself.

What in the world are you implying here, "perception of moral impunity"? Shucks, you are now making me mad.

It is this materialistic inclination that you scoff at that has ushered in benefits that were unimaginable even 50 years ago. It is modern materialistic inclinations that make it possible for people from across the globe to respond to natural disasters that take place half way around the world. It is materialistic inclinations that has given relief to countless poor people suffering from a whole host of problems.

On the other hand, it is the spiritual people who tell these wretched people that they deserve all their misfortune because of some poorva-janma karma, or to convert before helping, or it is a way god loves them -- nonsense.

In my considered opinion, the peddlers of poorva-janma karma, grace/good work, submission, are the most immoral people to inhabit this earth, for they bring misery to people when they are alive, with a promise of reward after they are dead.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

I am not making a declarative statement. If you understand the definition of materialism and the definition of compassion, you will understand what I mean. Again spirituality by definition places emphasis on good values and if some people have failed to live up to what they profess, you do not blame the system. Again spiritual people do not bring misery to others by saying that they suffer because of karma.

The theory of karma is used to actually provide solace to the baffled and good people who otherwise do not understand why they sometimes suffer. It, in the very least, serves to keep them from giving up their values in frustration. On the other hand the wicked have a reason to fear and it keeps them under check.

I agree science made many positive contributions. But most if not all only addresses the aspect of physical comfort and convenience which I think is irrelevant when you cannot possess mental peace. The greater of the comforts is addressed by spirituality.

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara.

Firstly, I need to remind you that you as a believer in the ultimate physical reality advocated by science, said the other day that there is nothing except brain and its neural fireworks to consciousness.

Recently, you saw in another thread an intense debate (between me and Yamaka) on this cerebro-neural reality of the brain as the ultimate of human consciousness, which culminated in his being unable to answer in the same scientific concepts, the question 'who is the observer?'

• If consciousness itself is just physical, love, compassion, justice and other concepts, emotions and feelings can only be the play of harmones. If you bring DNA into the picture, then Sangom's query in post #11 as to why there are inequalities in DNA at birth is not satisfactorily answered. You can't just get away with the idea that it is an anamoly in Nature, whether man or beast or plant.

• Two children born of the same parents (are often seen to) have the type of inequality that Sangom spoke about, right from birth. How come their DNAs obtained from the same parents evolved differently (to give the children different personality traits of good and bad)?

• Why shouldn't it mean that the specific vAsanas--impressions, that make a human personality were already dormant elsewhere, other than in the DNA obtained from the parents who did not possess those traits?

• If as you said, "Some who act in cruel way or in an antisocial way do so also because of DNA" (post #19), how come this person's children are often seen to be normal, specially when they derive their own DNA partly from this person?

• If a man jumps into a well to save a child because of his instinct born out of his DNA, how come another bystander witnessing the incident of the child falling into the well does not have that instinct, although that individual is a very normal person?

No, Sir, DNA is not a convincing answer to the instinctive, mental and emotional traits of human personality. To believe it is, is another type of superstition--மூட நம்பிக்கை. Your just saying that it is not so in this case (of DNA) whereas it is so in the other case (of karma) is nothing more than your opinion.

• The other day I was watching an episode in 'Season 1' of the TV Serial 'The Shield'. A police detective tells a suspect during interrogation that male homosexuality (being gay) was thought as an aberration by the religion until the day science said it is alright because it is in the individual's DNA. The detective told the suspect who was interrogated for raping minor girls, that some day science perhaps might say that this aberration is also in the DNA of the individual.

• See the connection? If science says that people are also the products of science, then people and science cannot hold themselves apart and disown each other. Where a human being is nothing more than a supremely sophisticated biological system of physical matter and physical energy, the mind, emotions and feelings of the human being cannot transcend the limits of science. That is, they might (some day) be(come) controllable by science. So, it is not a mistake to ask as to why science has not been able to make humans compassionate, loving and just, specially when it is offering all they need.

• When you ask, "The proposition that there is a final reality beyond the physical is baseless, no evidence to support it", I should return the question, "Is there enough scientific evidence today to support the proposition that physical reality is the ultimate?" If the evidence to support is absent in both propositions, in which way is the one well-based and the other baseless?

• "Science tells us that love and compassion are as much part of human nature as purely self-interest." How come the 'love, compassion and self-interest' are beyond the neurological explanations offered by science as to the ultimate physical nature of humans and their personality?

• It is easy to say that some people are just and compassionate, some bad and cruel, some bother to help others while some others do not and so on, are all nothing more than the play of their DNA. The anomalies of DNA in Nature doesn't help much the cause of science being the supreme knowledge, right?

• "BTW, if everyone dissolves a small amount of asafoetida in the ocean, believe me, you will see the effect."--So it is more than a mathematical probability that individual karmas can make the whole world more and more bad and less and less good eventually?

Thus the fate of humanity hangs in balance because of the anomalies of Nature, in spite of desperately continued attempts by science to save it.

 

[C RAVI]

Dear all,

Kindly go through the article -

Scientific Proof of Reincarnation
Dr. Ian Stevenson's Life Work

Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.

Dr. Stevenson's credentials are impeccable. He is a medical doctor and had many scholarly papers to his credit before he began paranormal research. He is the former head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, and now is Director of the Division of Personality Studies at the University of Virginia.


Scientific Proof of Reincarnation: Dr. Ian Stevenson

"The idea that some children of ages three to five not only remember a previous existence, but can identify loved ones from it, strikes most Westerners as so bizarre that it compels disbelief. Perhaps this is why the world's foremost investigator of the phenomenon, Dr. Ian Stevenson, has attracted so little attention."


Dear Members, kindly go through the Omini Magazine Interview with Dr.Ian Stevenson, in the article in detail with all the questions and answeres towards the positive and negative side of his research work and it's outcome.



The below is just a small extract of the printed interview-


Omni: You've found children with intense interests in subjects having no relation to anything in their family background or up-bringing. And you’ve directly linked the phobias and addictions of children to traumas that transpired in the lives of people these children claim to have been. Are you talking about aspects of their personalities that heredity does not explain?

Stevenson: That's right. It's easy to see environmental influences, say, with such composers as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, all of whose fathers were fine musicians. But what about George Frederic Handel? His family had no discernible interest in music; his father even sternly discouraged it. Or take the cases of Elizabeth Fry, the prison reformer, and Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. Both had to fight for their chosen callings from childhood onward. One can find endless examples that are difficult to explain given our current theories. But if one accepts the possibility of reincarnation, one can entertain the idea that these children are demonstrating strong likes, dislikes, skills, and even genius that are the logical results of previous experiences. I have found some children with skills that seem to be carried over from a previous life.

Omni: What about cases of childhood mental illness?

Stevenson: There again you will find cases of children acting as if they did not belong in their families. They treat parents and siblings with indifference, even hostility. This phenomenon is usually thought to have been caused by infantile trauma. Some theorists even try to explain it as the result of parents rejecting the child--before it has been born. Researchers look to the parents for the first cause. Comparatively little attention is given to the child, even though there is evidence that some children reject their parents before the parents have a chance to reject them. I suggest that such behavior could result from unhappy experiences in a previous life.

 

[Nara]

.... Again spirituality by definition places emphasis on good values and if some people have failed to live up to what they profess, you do not blame the system.

sravna, you can say whatever you want, but reality is different. What you say as some people are in fact the overwhelming majority. I am yet to come across one who truly believes in this spirituality, it is all convenient talk.

The theory of karma is used to actually provide solace to the baffled and good people who otherwise do not understand why they sometimes suffer.

The theory of karma encourages people to accept their state and continue to suffer and endure oppression.

Spirituality is an IPU used to keep people in ignorance.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Shri Yamaka,

Belief in science doesn't have to preclude belief in soul or spirituality. As you say there are still a number of things that cannot be scientifically explained and so why do you summarily dismiss the knowledge gained through spiritual methods? Just as technology aims at making people's life physically comfortable, spirituality aims at making people's mental life comfortable. To me the knowledge responsible for the latter is more real and useful. I trust such knowledge much more than the former.

Why do you think that theologists have to mislead people? What you say is more in tune with a materialist's mentality. Hinduism especially is all about guiding you towards moksha or liberation and is in no way designed for keeping people under its control

Hello Sravna:

1. I try always to be open minded... but from the knowledge already accumulated I can categorically say

a. No rebirth of life or soul of "that particular individual". Therefore, the idea of moksha or liberation is a myth.
b. The idea of people's separate "Physical life" and "Mental life" is totally unnecessary... the Organism tries to get a "comfortable life"... that's all, it does not for some reason like pain or sorrow.

To me all Religions and their Gods create CONFLICT and chaos!

Cheers.

 

[Nara]

...• If consciousness itself is just physical, love, compassion, justice and other concepts, emotions and feelings can only be the play of harmones.

Saidevo, all these points have been discussed many times, no need to rehash them again.

I will leave you and others with this -- there is lot of scientific research, repeatable and verifiable research, on DNA and its role in various aspects of human life. There are many questions that have been definitely answered. Many remain a mystery right now.

As the space of the unknown and mysterious shrinks, the space where the idea of god and soul retreats is also shrinking. There may never come a time when there is no space at all, not even a sliver of crack where this idea of god and soul cannot hide.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Sangom sir, I think it is a fallacy to think there must be an explanation for this. It is all part of nature. If we take fruits of a tree we see that not all are perfectly formed, some are deformed, crooked, some are fused together, etc. We see the same thing among animals. The same is true for humans as well, being part of the animal kingdom.

We as humans can't expect justifications and explanations for our anomalies any more than that for fruits of a tree. If these anomalies bestow survival and reproductive advantage, and if its prevalence reaches critical mass, then it becomes the norm. If not, they perish.

To look for supernatural meaning can be summed up with this line from a popular Tamil song: "இருக்கும் இடத்தைவிட்டு இல்லாத இடம் தேடி அலைகின்றாய் ஞானத்தங்கமே".

This is my considered opinion.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

I believe that the feeling of "I" cannot be traced to neural networks and attributed to it. Comatose patients (wrongly diagnosed but behaving as if they are comatose) also seem to have consciousness even though their neural network, and the reticular formation might be not functioning. Pl. see here. Moreover, the very fact that comatose patients get back to normalcy will need the admission that whatever gave the feeling of "I"ness, continued in the body of the supposedly comatose person. So, this I-ness imo is something which is not born out of the bodily functions but separate from it.

I am also fascinated by how the sperm and ovum join in an orderly manner, divide and form into different organs of a new physical body, and stops the division and growth at the correct point of time. While scientific research may be able to say "phenomenon X causes effect Y" and so on, I do not think science has yet discovered the basic trigger mechanism underlying fertilization and growth of the foetus to a full body.


Because of such unexplained things I tend to believe that there must be some fundamental power, force, or trigger underlying what we experience as "LIFE". That I call God. But I differ from the theists in the belief that this God can be known or experienced by following any religion and its prescriptions.

I am therefore prone to subscribe to the Karma concept but not in the manner in which Shri Sravna puts it. All our actions, both good to the society (others) and bad to them, shape a Karmic layer around our physical body. This layer survives the body on its death and attaches itself to another body as soon as fertilization occurs. Thus the new body inherits the balance-sheet of some past person's life and is destined to experience the good and bad results arising therefrom. This in brief is my concept of Karma.

 

[Yamaka]

"• Why shouldn't it mean that the specific vAsanas--impressions, that make a human personality were already dormant elsewhere, other than in the DNA obtained from the parents who did not possess those traits?"

Dear Saidevo:

Tell me more about that specific Impressions - your vAsanas (in your beloved Sanskrit!) and of "dormant elsewhere"... where?

Here I want you to know some of what's already delineated by Science and scientific thinking -

1. Yes, DNA, RNA, Protein and small organic and inorganic molecules form the structural basis of LIFE... but the FUNCTIONAL majesty of LIFE is derived from the "interplay of these molecules" and the unique properties that collectively the PROTOPLASM endows to the Organism via cellular differentiation.

2. Biological Evolution is the driving force over millions of years that steered the Organism to acquire awesome complexity.

3. Self preservation, species propagation and other attributes (like wanting to be "comfortable" and shunning "pain and sorrow" and being "nice, kind and compassionate" to others etc etc) are learned thru Biological Evolution.

One need not invent supernatural GODs and Religions which only bring conflict and chaos here, IMO.

Wait & watch.

ps. What have GODs and Religions done to the world?:

Continuing conflicts between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, between Muslims and Hindus in India, between Wahabi Islamist and the West... the list goes on.

Can't we get along without these negative forces of GODs and Religions?

 

[Nara]

...., and the reticular formation might be not functioning. Pl. see here.

Dear Sangom sir, I would like to highlight one sentence from this news report:

"But three years ago, new hi-tech scans showed his brain was still functioning almost completely normally."

​

This patient's brain was functioning almost normally. This should give us a clue for the rest of the reported events. More a little later.
​

... So, this I-ness imo is something which is not born out of the bodily functions but separate from it.

What you are suggesting is similar to the duality proposed by Rene Descartes. According to him, the body is like a machine and the mind is separate from body, non-material. If so, i.e., mind is separate from body, where does it reside? How does this mind receive and send stimuli from/to the body? Does this mind have another set of sense organs to receive the signals sent by the brain? If so, does this mind have a deeper mind that takes in these signals and interprets them? If so, how does this deeper mind receive signals and soon we are down the path of infinite regress. At this point, one may be tempted to say the mind simply perceives the signals received by bodily organs, but that is like magic, does not explain anything.

So, the Cartesian duality, a sort of ghost in the machine theory, simply compounds the problem. Today, it is hard to find any neuroscientist or philosopher supporting this duality.

Before we proceed any further, we need to have a working definition of what consciousness is. This is a very difficult enterprise, but for the purpose of our analysis, we can tentatively say it is this I-awareness.

Then we can easily see that we loose and regain this I-awareness often, this happens every 24 hours unless one is an insomniac. When we reach the state of deep sleep, sushupti of Vedantins, we are completely unaware of ourselves and our environment. There is no I-awareness during this period. When we come out of this deep sleep state, the awareness returns.

Obviously, the brain continues to perform all the normal functions by which the body lives. The I-awareness goes away when the brain goes into this deep sleep state, and when it comes out of that state, the I-awareness returns. From this we can reasonably theorize that the I-awareness is nothing but a state of our brain.

Our theist friends may protest this is only a theory, why can't there be a jIva that goes into these states. Then, we return to the already discredited Cartesian duality. Further, the principle of Occam's razor demands us not complicate a problem unnecessarily. Adding a jIva to the equation does just that, it makes the problem more complex without giving any serious answers.

Returning to the coma patient, the brain was not in the deep sleep state, yet it had lost the ability to fire the necessary neurons to make the muscles to move and express his consciousness.

One more medical condition in which we loose our consciousness is when we are put under general anesthesia for surgery.

Because of such unexplained things I tend to believe that there must be some fundamental power, force, or trigger underlying what we experience as "LIFE". That I call God.

Well, if we have some unexplained phenomenon, I would like to call it just that, unexplained phenomenon. The moment we associate the word "god" to it, we are off on a magical mystery tour, and sooner or later, somebody or other will start seeing invisible pink unicorns at every corner and demand everybody also to see them, or else you are immoral and worse.

All our actions, both good to the society (others) and bad to them, shape a Karmic layer around our physical body. This layer survives the body on its death and attaches itself to another body as soon as fertilization occurs

Sorry, this to me is no less fantastic than poorva-janma karma. To theorize personalized karma balance to be transmitted upon death, there must be some plausible way for this transmission to take place. This leads to complicating the problem. This is unacceptable to me.

There is lot of research available on consciousness. We as humans have come a long way, yet there is a long way to go as well. There are no ready-made handed-down answers in the journey. The unanswered questions on consciousness are (i) the exact mechanism by which it takes place in the brain -- this is considered easy problem, not because it is easy, but considered easy compared to the second problem (ii) why does it occur in the first place. The how and why problems.

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

athma aka soul,is like a wireless network for a mobile device.the body is the device.transmigration of souls occur constantly to another body.freewill creates destiny.karma is the most plausible explanation ever given to humanity by ancestors of another era.

 

[Yamaka]

Dear all,

Kindly go through the article -

Scientific Proof of Reincarnation
Dr. Ian Stevenson's Life Work

Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation.

Dr. Stevenson's credentials are impeccable. He is a medical doctor and had many scholarly papers to his credit before he began paranormal research. He is the former head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Virginia, and now is Director of the Division of Personality Studies at the University of Virginia.


Scientific Proof of Reincarnation: Dr. Ian Stevenson

"The idea that some children of ages three to five not only remember a previous existence, but can identify loved ones from it, strikes most Westerners as so bizarre that it compels disbelief. Perhaps this is why the world's foremost investigator of the phenomenon, Dr. Ian Stevenson, has attracted so little attention."
Dear Members, kindly go through the Omini Magazine Interview with Dr.Ian Stevenson, in the article in detail with all the questions and answeres towards the positive and negative side of his research work and it's outcome.



The below is just a small extract of the printed interview-


Omni: You've found children with intense interests in subjects having no relation to anything in their family background or up-bringing. And you’ve directly linked the phobias and addictions of children to traumas that transpired in the lives of people these children claim to have been. Are you talking about aspects of their personalities that heredity does not explain?

Stevenson: That's right. It's easy to see environmental influences, say, with such composers as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven, all of whose fathers were fine musicians. But what about George Frederic Handel? His family had no discernible interest in music; his father even sternly discouraged it. Or take the cases of Elizabeth Fry, the prison reformer, and Florence Nightingale, the founder of modern nursing. Both had to fight for their chosen callings from childhood onward. One can find endless examples that are difficult to explain given our current theories. But if one accepts the possibility of reincarnation, one can entertain the idea that these children are demonstrating strong likes, dislikes, skills, and even genius that are the logical results of previous experiences. I have found some children with skills that seem to be carried over from a previous life.

Omni: What about cases of childhood mental illness?

Stevenson: There again you will find cases of children acting as if they did not belong in their families. They treat parents and siblings with indifference, even hostility. This phenomenon is usually thought to have been caused by infantile trauma. Some theorists even try to explain it as the result of parents rejecting the child--before it has been born. Researchers look to the parents for the first cause. Comparatively little attention is given to the child, even though there is evidence that some children reject their parents before the parents have a chance to reject them. I suggest that such behavior could result from unhappy experiences in a previous life.

While I observe the eagerness in the part of Theists to give Scientific Basis of Religion and its Concepts like Reincarnation, what's important to realize here is

Dr. Stevenson just can't get his work published in any main stream Scientific Journal like "Nature", "Science", "Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences", "JAMA" or the like...

Understanding of childhood mental illness is extremely complex....

Wait & watch.

ps. Many Clinicians observe so many "novel" things in their patients... a clear scientific explanation is hard to come by... in the meantime, some superstitious explanations will creep up ever so often!

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

If humans are without a mind and nothing more than machines then it is possible to totally control people just like you control machines . There would be no real identity or individuality in a person just as a machine has no individuality. The only difference would be he is made of flesh instead of silicon. Then what sense does it make to talk of the necessity to possess values like compassion, love etc. It is a much worse kind of situation and something similar to fatalism where it may not be possible to exercise free will. At least there is a good objective of elevating your mind in the case of the religions but when your body is under the control of sinister people you are really doomed.

Do you think we are really so mindless? And anyway a centralized control is necessary to coordinate the activities of various regions and that centralized thing also brings in the feeling of "I". That which makes us act and feel like a unit is in my view the soul. Saying that the feeling of "I" is just a brain state is a vague explanation.

 

[sravna]

Shri Nara,

If millions of years of biological evolution can produce only mechanical beings that cannot be in control of themselves, how intelligent can be that process and its product? You are seeing just the mechanisms but there is an underlying real intelligence to all that. Your knowledge may explain the workings and give a number of details but it cannot give you the big picture.

 

[kameshratnam]

You cannot escape Karma and until you have karma you will be born on this earth. For every action of ours we should leave the fruit to god. Sakalam krishna arpanam or narayanayeti samarpayami

Polla Vinaiyen

 

[Yamaka]

Shri Nara,

If millions of years of biological evolution can produce only mechanical beings that cannot be in control of themselves, how intelligent can be that process and its product? You are seeing just the mechanisms but there is an underlying real intelligence to all that. Your knowledge may explain the workings and give a number of details but it cannot give you the big picture.

Dear Sravna:

Embryologists say, "The ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which means during our human development we go through all most all stages of our evolutionary tree.

Which means biological evolution has produced a complex NOT a mechanical being, but a complete package of emotional very highly sophisticated intelligent being.

For example, ants show a community living.. and birds remember to feed their "kids".. and the sea turtles go where it is safe to lay eggs... birds and fishes migrate seasonally so on and so forth..

...love, compassion, hatred and bigotry all are part of those "feelings" and "bias and prejudice" that the organisms have learned over a long long time...

During biological evolution over millions of years, the PROTOPLASM (a word for the living cells which has all that's needed for life) has learned so much and is transmitted via the genetic material.. ask the Geneticist...

Our knowledge has given the Big Picture needed.. and is constantly expanding relentlessly every minute of everyday thanks to Science and Scientific Process & Thinking...

Thus, let me conclude

Man created Religions and Gods... and the same Man has started cloning himself (by human cloning) and he is cloning cross species, as we speak..

Peace be with you.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna:

Embryologists say, "The ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which means during our human development we go through all most all stages of our evolutionary tree.

Which means biological evolution has produced a complex NOT a mechanical being, but a complete package of emotional very highly sophisticated intelligent being.

For example, ants show a community living.. and birds remember to feed their "kids".. and the sea turtles go where it is safe to lay eggs... birds and fishes migrate seasonally so on and so forth..

...love, compassion, hatred and bigotry all are part of those "feelings" and "bias and prejudice" that the organisms have learned over a long long time...

During biological evolution over millions of years, the PROTOPLASM (a word for the living cells which has all that's needed for life) has learned so much and is transmitted via the genetic material.. ask the Geneticist...

Our knowledge has given the Big Picture needed.. and is constantly expanding relentlessly every minute of everyday thanks to Science and Scientific Process & Thinking...

Thus, let me conclude

Man created Religions and Gods... and the same Man has started cloning himself (by human cloning) and he is cloning cross species, as we speak..

Peace be with you.

Shri Yamaka,

You have misunderstood my argument. I was trying to rebut Shri Nara's contention human beings do not have a mind. This leads to the conclusion they are as physical as a machine, complex though in comparison to the state of the art AI, and hence nothing more than mechanical beings.

Given your statement that humans are intelligent beings and it is because the protoplasm has "learnt" a lot during the process of evolution and confer that intelligence, then it would have "learnt" purely by chance because according to Nara's and your stated position, there is nothing intelligent driving that learning. There is no real meaning to the feelings and emotions that were created out of that "evolution" and there is no purpose to life. Then, how come you are able to get the big picture?

You are just mistaking what you are able to physically observe as the reality when some inferencing would strongly suggest otherwise.

 

[saidevo]

namste everyone.

I have collected the key statements that form the scientific and general contentions of our friends Yamaka and Nara against the metaphysical, religious and spiritual implications of the Theory of Karma. I have also summarized and tried to point out why they are unaccetable as final knowledge. Members who believe in the metaphysical reality might add more insight against individual statements of contentions, quoting just this post and statement numbers.

01. if Karma means ACTION happening in this world...by the activities of individuals, and individuals will reap the consequences of their ACTION... I understand this, and largely agree without any hesitation...--Yamaka, post #9.

02. Y, even in this realm of pure materialism, the consequence of our actions is not definitive as a mathematical equation. This is true only in the aggregate, a sort of statistical probability. All we can say is if one is loving and compassionate, he/she is more likely to receive love and compassion in return.--Nara, post #10

My view is, for individual action, the result is not totally deterministic, like in a mathematical equation. For example, the adage what goes around comes around, can only be most probably true, no ironclad guarantee.--Nara, post #19

03. We as humans can't expect justifications and explanations for our anomalies any more than that for fruits of a tree. If these anomalies bestow survival and reproductive advantage, and if its prevalence reaches critical mass, then it becomes the norm. If not, they perish.--Nara, post #12

03a. To expect science to make all of us loving and compassionate is a mistake. They come from human nature, fine tuned by eons of evolution.--Nara, post #19

04. When a child falls into a well, The bystander instinctively jumps in to save the child because that is what is in our DNA, we can't help it.

Some who act in cruel way or in an antisocial way do so also because of DNA. But we have secular laws to discourage such conduct, and punish if the laws do not deter, just as much as we heap adulation upon the bystander jumping in to save the child.

Why bother, because we can't help it but to bother, it is in our DNA. We don't need man-made religions to tell us to be good.--Nara, post #19

05. My contention is once the person is dead and gone, everything sets to zero (no possible reaction to the action happened in his life time)..he or his soul NEVER ever gets reborn..

06. Soul is the property collectively acquired by the Sensory Neural Circuits (this is a very unique property similar to what a Forest gains not exhibited in the individual trees)... this Soul disappears once the Sensory Neurons of the Circuitry die...it just can't exist after neuronal death, period.

As life has no rebirth, Soul has no rebirth, period.--Yamaka, post #22

06a. The idea of people's separate "Physical life" and "Mental life" is totally unnecessary... the Organism tries to get a "comfortable life"... that's all, it does not for some reason like pain or sorrow.--Yamaka, post #30

07. My contention is this, (i) we don't need religion or spirituality to lead a good life of love and compassion, and (ii) it takes religion or spirituality to make an otherwise good, loving and compassionate person to sometimes act in abominable ways.--Nara, post #24

08. Human values by definition are of this physical/material realm. Spirituality by definition is non-human resulting in many inhuman consequences.--Nara, post #24

09. there is lot of scientific research, repeatable and verifiable research, on DNA and its role in various aspects of human life. There are many questions that have been definitely answered. Many remain a mystery right now.

As the space of the unknown and mysterious shrinks, the space where the idea of god and soul retreats is also shrinking. There may never come a time when there is no space at all, not even a sliver of crack where this idea of god and soul cannot hide.--Nara, post #31

10. 1. Yes, DNA, RNA, Protein and small organic and inorganic molecules form the structural basis of LIFE... but the FUNCTIONAL majesty of LIFE is derived from the "interplay of these molecules" and the unique properties that collectively the PROTOPLASM endows to the Organism via cellular differentiation.

2. Biological Evolution is the driving force over millions of years that steered the Organism to acquire awesome complexity.

3. Self preservation, species propagation and other attributes (like wanting to be "comfortable" and shunning "pain and sorrow" and being "nice, kind and compassionate" to others etc etc) are learned thru Biological Evolution.--Yamaka, post #33

11. ...love, compassion, hatred and bigotry all are part of those "feelings" and "bias and prejudice" that the organisms have learned over a long long time...

During biological evolution over millions of years, the PROTOPLASM (a word for the living cells which has all that's needed for life) has learned so much and is transmitted via the genetic material.. ask the Geneticist...--Yamaka, post #40.

*****

The ideas in summary that emerge out of these key statements are:

01. The answer to the problems of mental and emotional inquality of mankind lies in the individual DNAs. The positive and negative traits of human personality are the results of a long chain of learning process in Nature's scheme of evolution over millennia in the realm of time.

02. Science does (and can only) discover the details of this scheme of evolution and try to pinpoint where the inequality problems lie, which is, squarely in the DNA of every individual.

03. At the same time, so far as science as pure knowledge is concerned, everything is the play of quantum energy and subatomic particles in the insentient universe; and everything is the play of the brain's neural network in the human kingdom, as also in the animal and vegetable kingdoms of life where the insentience is lesser.

04. All this play ends with the death of the individual being in the biological kingdom but continue in the insentient material kingdom of the universe.

05. Any other unknown facts that seem to transcend the ultimate physical reality are as of now not discovered by science but will surely be explained within the limits of physical reality in course of time.

These ideas are strikingly similar to the Theory of Karma, with the only difference that individual human traits are carried over in successive incarnations of the individual soul. Although from the viewpoint of the individual, the inequalities resulting out of it appears unfair and unjust in the present lifetime, from the viewpoint of the One Cosmic Intelligence (The Nature, of science) is all its lIlA--play and sport.

• So what is the problem with the belief of science that the DNA as the seed and evolution as its nourishment is behind all the sport of biological activity, and Nature with its insentient laws is behind all the sport of the insentient material universe?

• After all, we cannot know anything for certain about an afterlife until we die. So, why not accept the words of science as the ultimate truth?

The problem with the above summary ideas of science, IMO, are the glaring inconsistencies that are too elementary and obvious to ignore:

01. If humans evolve by sharing the DNA of their parents, how come such evolution is suddenly in disarray in the chain of immediate parents and children? As I have already pointed out, in practical life, there is no guarantee by DNA that the children of cruel parent would continue to have that trait in their genes. How does science account for this sudden change, which is a basic fact of life?

02. When a serial killer commits murders of innocent people and that trait of cruelty is in his DNA, the trait of of the victims--staying helpless--is also in their DNA?

03. Why has the DNAs of humans picked up both good and bad traits in the long chain of evolution? If evolution is for the survival of the fittest, and man is the ultimate biological form of that fitness as has been witnessed over millennia, why should the DNAs of the humans alone be so erratic and random to give some people mostly good, some mostly bad and others a mixture of good and bad traits?

Compared to the human kingdom, it seems that the DNAs of animals have evolved better! They kill only for food, mate only for procreation, and are in other ways fairly uniformly normal, unlike the humans.

04. If there is only one lifetime, why is the initiative to make everyone survive with best basic comforts absent in the DNA of humans? With the material facities offered by science, it should be much more easy for humans to learn and implement it? Why don't the powerful and mighty who are much advanced in their material life and are supposed to be more civilized, have at least some trait of altruism in their DNA that can make the world a better place to live, and give science its due credit as supreme knowledge?

05. In other words, when vertical evolution has led to the establishment of man as the best surviving species, why is the corresponding horizontal evolution that is readily found in the lesser kingdoms of life is totally absent in the human kingdom?

 

[sangom]

Before we proceed any further, we need to have a working definition of what consciousness is. This is a very difficult enterprise, but for the purpose of our analysis, we can tentatively say it is this I-awareness.

Then we can easily see that we loose and regain this I-awareness often, this happens every 24 hours unless one is an insomniac. When we reach the state of deep sleep, sushupti of Vedantins, we are completely unaware of ourselves and our environment. There is no I-awareness during this period. When we come out of this deep sleep state, the awareness returns.

Obviously, the brain continues to perform all the normal functions by which the body lives. The I-awareness goes away when the brain goes into this deep sleep state, and when it comes out of that state, the I-awareness returns. From this we can reasonably theorize that the I-awareness is nothing but a state of our brain.

Dear Shri Nara,

My post is not with the intention of countering yours but since we hold different ideas on this topic of "I-awareness", I am trying to learn as much as I can, from you. (You see reading abstruse tomes has become quite taxing for my brain now.)

Doctors diagnose Coma when the body fails to respond to even powerful external stimulii of pain, light or sound, and does not initiate voluntary actions. In deep sleep this is not the case, I presume because a poke with a needle usually wakes up even a confirmed deep-sleeper . Hence, imo, in the state of "sushupti" or deep sleep, we may not be able to say that the "I-awareness" leaves the body but probably (according to my thinking) it is in a subordinated state because of the sleep being overpowering.

Hence, if it is posited that this "I-awareness" is a result of the brain-function, we have here the brain functioning alright but not being able to manifest in the normal mode. If we stick to "I-awareness" = brain functions, then we will have to concede that there is something somewhere in the physical body which can "cloud" this "I-awareness" temporarily at least; that is the body itself produces "I-awareness" and an antidote to it. If so, there ought to be some case among the billions of humans in which this antidote to "I-awareness" is predominant than the normal "I-awareness". Has such occurrence been found?

Returning to the coma patient, the brain was not in the deep sleep state, yet it had lost the ability to fire the necessary neurons to make the muscles to move and express his consciousness.

As you rightly say, the brain was not functioning properly but the "I-awareness" was there fully as brought out by the write-up. It shows, therefore, that this "I-awareness" does not depend upon the normal functioning of the brain and is present in a body even when the brain function is impaired. Hence the Cartesian duality seems unavoidable to me here at this stage. But I would like to know your side.

One more medical condition in which we loose our consciousness is when we are put under general anesthesia for surgery.

In my opinion this also necessitates the conclusion that the "I-awareness" is not a product of the bodily functions, because even when the brain function is abnormal during general anaesthesia, the "I-awareness" is there and it does not seem to become abnormal. (See"The Unholy Legacy of Abraham, Chapter XI - Palm Reynold's case.)

Well, if we have some unexplained phenomenon, I would like to call it just that, unexplained phenomenon. The moment we associate the word "god" to it, we are off on a magical mystery tour, and sooner or later, somebody or other will start seeing invisible pink unicorns at every corner and demand everybody also to see them, or else you are immoral and worse.

You like to say "unexplained phenomenon" while I abbreviate it as "God" and say God is unexplainable and unrealizable; are these very materially different?

The unanswered questions on consciousness are (i) the exact mechanism by which it takes place in the brain -- this is considered easy problem, not because it is easy, but considered easy compared to the second problem (ii) why does it occur in the first place. The how and why problems.

Cheers!

Exactly, the how and why of the "I-awareness" is what mankind has been pondering on and unable to decide. Why not call that "God" the unknowable and stop with that?

 

[Nara]

.... Hence, imo, in the state of "sushupti" or deep sleep, we may not be able to say that the "I-awareness" leaves the body but probably (according to my thinking) it is in a subordinated state because of the sleep being overpowering.

Shri Sangom sir, I-awareness leaving and entering means it is an entity. When it leaves, where does it go, how does it go, once it leaves how does it know when to come back. This theory opens up a whole big can of worms.

The coma patient and poking is not inconsistent with I-awareness is merely a state of the brain. The pain and muscle movements are controlled by the brain only. So, the conditions you have described need not necessitate Cartesian duality.

You like to say "unexplained phenomenon" while I abbreviate it as "God" and say God is unexplainable and unrealizable; are these very materially different?

Yes, "God" has a specific meaning, much different from "unexplained phenomenon". The former is the starting point of religions, the later is the starting point of further inquiry -- the two are diametrically different.

, the how and why of the "I-awareness" is what mankind has been pondering on and unable to decide. Why not call that "God" the unknowable and stop with that?

I have stated my reason above.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

One more of my doubts: a normal foetus' brain is not fully developed till about 6 months or so. Hence, it should not have I-consciousness till that time, but it seems it responds to stimulii. Will this mean that even without I-consciousness the body (including a corpse) will respond to stimulii?

Secondly, if the foetus does not have I-consciousness during the early stages of development, how is its (the foetus') orderly growth controlled — by what mechanism or principle? Is it in the mother's body or in the foetus itself? If so in which part of the foetus?

How do we explain "cloning" in mammals? How, when and whence does the new life (I-consciousness in the cloned animal)originate?

These are some of my doubts.

 

[Nara]

I was trying to rebut Shri Nara's contention human beings do not have a mind. .

This is emblematic of the asymmetry in the discussion. I don't know whether this is deliberate or unintentional, I don't want to get into that.

sravna, when did I say humans do not have a mind? To say humans do not have a mind would be absurd. I am not saying that at all. Please read my posts with little more care. (I am amused I am having to write this here, I have been e-mailing students all day on a project that must be easy if they read the instructions and class notes, and quite incomprehensible if they don't, and many choose the later method of jumping right in and hoping to wing it.)

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

This emblematic of the asymmetry in the discussion. I don't know whether this is deliberate or unintentional, I don't want to get into that.

sravna, when did I say humans do not have a mind? To say humans do not have a mind would be absurd. I am not saying that at all. Please read my posts with little more care. (I am amused I am having to write this here, I have been e-mailing students all day on a project that must be easy if they read the instructions and class notes, and quite incomprehensible if they don't, and many choose the later method of jumping right in and hoping to wing it.)

Cheers!

Dear Shri Nara,

I read it. I am now confused.If you say humans possess mind what is it? I think you deny it is non material. Can you elaborate the concept of mind?

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Shri Nara,

I read it. I am now confused.If you say humans possess mind what is it? I think you deny it is non material. Can you elaborate the concept of mind?

Shri Sravna

Good question to ask and get to know the fascinating answers in terms of scientific elaboration.

I humbly would request you to permit me to make it further, this way -

1) What is the concept of MIND? (in terms of sceince)
2) What is the concept of Sub Conscious Mind? (in terms of science)
3) What is the concept Intution? (in terms of science)

 

[sravna]

Shri Sravna

Good question to ask and get to know the fascinating answers in terms of scientific elaboration.

I humbly would request you to permit me to make it further, this way -

1) What is the concept of MIND? (in terms of sceince)
2) What is the concept of Sub Conscious Mind? (in terms of science)
3) What is the concept Intution? (in terms of science)

Sure, Would be interesting answers.

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri Nara,

I read it. I am now confused.If you say humans possess mind what is it? I think you deny it is non material. Can you elaborate the concept of mind?

sravna, please look at this post for more on my stand on mind.

Cheers!