• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Theory of Karma

Status
Not open for further replies.
....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?
Yes, there is no contradiction. There are brain functions that go on involuntarily all the time, and while we are asleep in deep sushupti. So, the brain need not be in the state of I-consciousness for it carry on with other vital functions.

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?
Dear Sangom sir, IMO, all of the above reinforces my contention that I-awareness is nothing but a brain state.

The brain function is not limited only to I-awareness, it is a parallel processor, with different sections of the brain performing different functions at the same time.

The DNA produces a baby with a brain that is already fully functional in certain respects, like crying for milk, responding to pain, etc. But it is not at a stage of development in which I-A arises. Over the years, as the baby grows, the brain develops, accumulates more information about the external world, becomes able to differentiate and contrast. After a certain critical mass of this knowledge and ability is achieved, the I-awareness develops as well. If the I-awareness is an independent entity, then babies must be fully self-aware like an adult when they are born.

The orderly growth of foetus is controlled through DNA.

Cloning results in another entity of the same DNA, not the same person. This cloned entity will have all the organs necessary to develop a separate I-awareness. We siamese twins, they have two distinct I-awareness, one for each brain even though they share one body. But, people with one head but additional limbs have only one I-awarness. All this point to the inescapable conclusion that I-awareness is nothing more than a state of the brain.

Cheers!
 
AS PER SCIENCE (as per the discussions here)- The "I" consciousness disappears in sleeping state and returns when the brain wakes up (as a temporary shut down of a computer sysem) and thus it is nothing but a brainy stuff and not to be associated with the concept of existence of Soul.

Even in Spiritual/religious terms, my maternal grandfather used to tell us some what similar thing without excluding the concept of Soul, as - The "I" conscious aka Soul/Mind/Subconscious Mind is considered to be out of the body (leaving the body functioning mechanism in order), vibrating outside the phsycal body (as sookshma body). Thus in our dreams too we could well recognize ourself as ourself with our "I" consciousness". Thus a person who wakes up considered to be returned from the state of dead with many a possibility of refined/redefined thoughts and mental clarity.

IMO, these mental changes thus can not be axpected to take place in a person/patient who gains consciousness after been put into the state of unconsciousness artificially by anesthesia or after been into coma state. During such state even the sub conscious mind/soul ceases to vibrate for a stipulated period of time. Beyond a time limit the person dies.

Soul is a vibrating energy that transcends beyond body and any other positive and negative energies/vibrations. Genes are just like seed of a plant and as such helps developing a physical body. Soul/Mind/Subconscious Mid has nothing to do with Genes and thus the very individuality/qualities/skills etc tend to differ between parents and children. And thus a soul possessing a deformed body need not to have corrupt mentality/qualities and a soul possessing a well formed healthy body need not necessarily to have pure/refined mentality/qualities.

Shri Sarvana,

Please correct me where ever I am wrong in my above statements. It would be my pleasure to get corrected and gain more correct knowledge..



 
Last edited:
The DNA produces a baby with a brain that is already fully functional in certain respects, like crying for milk, responding to pain, etc. But it is not at a stage of development in which I-A arises. Over the years, as the baby grows, the brain develops, accumulates more information about the external world, becomes able to differentiate and contrast. After a certain critical mass of this knowledge and ability is achieved, the I-awareness develops as well. If the I-awareness is an independent entity, then babies must be fully self-aware like an adult when they are born.

Cheers!


Shri Nara,

Pardon me, if I am am wrong. Kindly consider my post as an effort to understand the topic in a different angle as per my belief and to look into it with more clarity.

------------------
We should not relate "I" consciousness with the intelligence that the brain develops over a period of time through learning process.

Babies do have "I" consciousness in its purest sense of selflessness". Just because we can not identify the "I" consciousness of a baby, this existing consciousness in the baby can not be simply ruled out.

This "I" consciousness/Soul/Mind/Subconscious mind is the one that enables baby to develop some traits in mother's womb, before taking birth.

Siamese twins are assumed to have two distinct I-awareness. But that is not the case. It is similar to see split personality in a single person. The only thing is the split personality of a single person does not possess two physical brains. Similarly the I-awarness of siamese twins is the split energies of a single soul possessing two brains

Correct me if you please..


Thank you.


 
Last edited:
Hi All:

I am reading here with absolute delight all the discussions under the topic "The Theory of Karma".

In the past several years I have attended many discourses and discussions on this very topic and when I left each of these discussions I was only more confused than where I began!! To me it is very abstract and not sure if anyone can fully justify its presence or absence. Through these discussions, I have only asked myself more questions, some very simple and some futuristic: If anyone can through some light, I would be very appreciative.

1. Is the Karmic theory solely defined only in Hinduism? Is there a similar belief in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc?
2. If it is defined in other religions, what may be the prime differences? Particularly I would very much like to see the similarities/dissimilarities on this theory between Hinduism and Islam, if any.
3. If it is NOT defined in other religions, does it show those religions do not believe in rebirth or karma?
4. If the Karmic theory is reality (assuming it exists!) does "my" karma have any impact on others now in my present life?
5. If it is true that my karma will have an impact on someone else in the future, say my child suffers in this life, does that act of suffering establish a connection between me and my child in this life during the past, or does it signify that my child is repaying his/her own past karma?

Putting all these discussions aside, does anyone see any practical use or value of karmic theory in the present day? I liked Mr. Nara's remark that just being compassionate and kind to each other will return the same values to us!! Is there any more practical use for it?

Thanks
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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? - Saidevo post #42.

When I shared my 23 chromosomes with 23 chromosomes of my wife, these chromosomes undergo what's called genetic recombination in the DIPLOID (2N) fertilized egg..This is a very complex process and finally what comes out of it is what determines my first kid (I had my daughter when I was 33; likewise separate recombination occurs when I decided to have my son when I was 38). How much of my "character and personality" my daughter or son gets versus how much from my wife or their grand parents and great grand parents etc etc are determined during this genetic recombination process.

One may ask what force or who is determining this complex process? Well.. it is the laws of genetics and not ALLAH of Muslims or Ishwara of Hindus, as explained in their Holy Books or Vedas/Puranas.

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? - Saidevo asked

This goes back to the question of what's the Free Will in an individual? I answered before that about 40% of MY Personality (my I-ness, if you call it) is in my DNA and the rest is the FREE WILL... out of this FREE WILL I choose to be a Good Samaritan or a Mass Murderer.. and the Society or my Environment has collectively decided to praise me for the Good Samaritan in me or hang me for the Mass Murderer in me...this is the logic of Crime & Punishment in Liberal Democracies.

More later... Stay tuned.

ps. "40% of My Personality is in my DNA" is a crude guess work... my personal opinion... Members may debate on this if they have a better handle... proposing or planning an Experiment to verify this % is nearly impossible with the current state of knowledge of Free Will and the techniques available, IMO.
 
Last edited:
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? _Saidevo post #42.

For sure, the Individual with his unique I-ness has ONLY one life time.

During the 33 years of my life I gained "unique experiences" - a very tiny portion of it is perhaps imprinted in my DNA before I passed it on to my daughter - likewise, during the 38 years whatever I gained as "unique" is perhaps imprinted in my DNA before I passed on it to my son.

Thus, the DNA has the imprinted "memory" of the entire ancestry over millions of years...this DNA is very unique to individuals, I believe...

I ask my friends in Genomics "Can you sequence my DNA and that of my own son and tell me the DIFFERENCE in the nucleotide sequence?"

They say, "Yes.. it is possible and that's the basis of Individualized Medicine that's exploding now".

In my own research I am trying to find a way to make ALL students "learn" class material at the SAME high rate of the smartest kid in the class! Whether it is feasible or not in X years, is an open question.

But Genetic Engineers are at work to tinker with the individual human genome and make "everyone" altruistic and moral!!

Wait & watch.

ps. I repeat I reject the Super Natural Power of ALLAH and the Ishwar and the Karmic Theory of Hindus... these Concepts create mayhem in the world as I cited before.

I strongly believe that Science and Scientific Process and Thinking will slowly meander along and find "Solutions" for all the mysteries in Nature..... Nature is the Force and thus I am a Naturalist! Lol
 
Hi All:

I am reading here with absolute delight all the discussions under the topic "The Theory of Karma".

In the past several years I have attended many discourses and discussions on this very topic and when I left each of these discussions I was only more confused than where I began!! To me it is very abstract and not sure if anyone can fully justify its presence or absence. Through these discussions, I have only asked myself more questions, some very simple and some futuristic: If anyone can through some light, I would be very appreciative.

1. Is the Karmic theory solely defined only in Hinduism? Is there a similar belief in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc?
2. If it is defined in other religions, what may be the prime differences? Particularly I would very much like to see the similarities/dissimilarities on this theory between Hinduism and Islam, if any.
3. If it is NOT defined in other religions, does it show those religions do not believe in rebirth or karma?
4. If the Karmic theory is reality (assuming it exists!) does "my" karma have any impact on others now in my present life?
5. If it is true that my karma will have an impact on someone else in the future, say my child suffers in this life, does that act of suffering establish a connection between me and my child in this life during the past, or does it signify that my child is repaying his/her own past karma?

Putting all these discussions aside, does anyone see any practical use or value of karmic theory in the present day? I liked Mr. Nara's remark that just being compassionate and kind to each other will return the same values to us!! Is there any more practical use for it?

Thanks

Hello Servall:

1. I believe the Karmic Theory (Janma Poorva Karma) is very unique to Hinduism... whether the very closely related Buddhism and Jainism subscribe to it, I am not sure... maybe they do.

For sure Islam and Christianity (of Abrahams Gods) do NOT subscribe to Karmic Theory.

Islam believes in the Judgment Day - when Allah the Most Merciful listens to the Angels who take record of each individuals activities in the world and pronounces a Judgement whether the person's soul (and his virtual body) suffers in Hell or enjoys residence in Heaven. There is the END of this person.

No rebirth at all. (Islam also forbids Idol Worship - Visual Abstraction is the key - Muslims should not even see the picture of Prophet Mohammed, their Last Messenger - here also Islam is quite different from Hinduism)

Christianity is very close to Islam..(which in fact accepts Prophets Jesus and Moses and other earlier Prophets in Biblical history - hence their Patriarch is Prophet Abraham)

Other Qns can be addressed by Believers of Hinduism and the Karmic Theory... I am an Atheist.. a Naturalist.... rejecting Janma Poorva Karma to the core! Lol

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
"Cloning results in another entity of the same DNA, not the same person." - Nara said in post 51

Dear ALL:

This is a very important statement, which needs to be Experimentally tested by human cloning...

This is doable once the Federal Ban on Human Cloning is lifted, which I believe will happen sooner or later.. if not at least the Chinese will do the Experiment...lol

I want to clone Steve Jobs or Bill Gates (or myself, if my kids allow it, LOL) or someone whose behavioral history is known to most people (and probably fund the Foundation, for the sake of Science and New Knowledge!)

Here is the already known and well tested methodology from cloning of other mammals in the past 15-20 years:

1. Donor somatic cells are cultured and de-differentiated completely to totipotent or pluripotent cells in vitro (in the petri dish).

2. Here the donor gives his 46 chromosomes (diploid, 2N) in his nucleus... which is injected into a woman's egg whose nucleus is totally very carefully removed...

3. Then the egg with donor nucleus is activated by electric shock or other proven method to divide... the mass of embryonic cells can be genetically tested for the authenticity of the donor DNA without any doubt whatsoever.

4. Then the totipotent cells can be divided into 2 or 4 or 8 fractions and each can be implanted in the womb of surrogate mothers. Wait for about 9 months taking full care of the expectant mothers.

5. These cloned donor children can be raised in various environments (villages/cities or countries) to know how they develop and grow to be what...all activities can be fully documented and videotaped for permanent records.

This Experiment is a long term project covering probably 50 years; therefore, we need to first form a Foundation to take care of legal and financial ramifications.

The Result of the interesting Experiment will shed enormous light into the contribution of DNA and the Environment on the development of individuals, their behavior, their moral aptitudes and intellectual acumen etc etc.

The question of I-ness can be answered with some certainty... IMO.

Wait & watch.
 
... Kindly consider my post as an effort to understand the topic in a different angle as per my belief and to look into it with more clarity.
Ravi, unfortunately, many people think whatever the Indian rishees said 3000 years ago contains all the wisdom about human existence. Any new way of thinking is viewed with suspicion, and if it is from western sources it is immediately rejected as unworthy. IMO, this is Ostrich kind of behavior.

If you truly want to approach this topic with an open mind for the purpose of gaining a better understanding, then I would recommend two books, (i) How Mind Words by Steven Pinker and (ii) Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.

You may also view this TED talk by Dennette Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com


Babies do have "I" consciousness in its purest sense of selflessness". Just because we can not identify the "I" consciousness of a baby, this existing consciousness in the baby can not be simply ruled out.
We have all been babies, but nobody has any recollection of those early days. If we try hard enough we can think back and remember some specific event when we were 3 or 4, but not any further back.

Now, when we try to explain what is going on with our own theories, we need to do this in as simple a way as possible. This is called the principle of Occam's razor. The brain state theory makes very few assumptions. The spiritual entity theory starts with a big assumption that there is a ghost in the machine, which throws open a slew of new questions. To answer these questions, the spiritual entity theory relies on more assumptions like poorva-janma karma, etc., which in turn opens up further question like how a record of this poorva-janma karma is kept, how it is transmitted, and so on.

Siamese twins are assumed to have two distinct I-awareness. But that is not the case.
There have been several siamese twins who lived full lives. The two-distinct I-A is not an assumption, but fact. Google siamese twins if you don't believe me.


It is similar to see split personality in a single person.
The psychology of split personality is also a brain anomaly, nothing to do with life force.

Cheers!
 
...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.

[...]

The ideas in summary that emerge out of these key statements are:
Saidevo, your summary of my points are inaccurate in many details. Correcting those inaccuracies will need another long rayasam. So I will skip it and go straight to some of the points you have raised. It will be easier to have a meaningful discussion if you cite my exact words and respond, instead of coming up with your own summary and then responding to that summary, possibly for future exchanges?


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?
There is no sudden disarray, or any disarray for that matter. Each of us hold some portion of the DNA of our two parents, four grandparents, 8 great grand parents and so on. The degree to which these affect us is very well laid out in Richard Dawkin's book The Selfish Gene. So, one parent being a cruel SOB does not mean the child will necessarily be one as well. Besides, this is irrelevant to the main thesis that I-awareness is a brain state.

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?
Why? Even so, what is the significance.

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?
This is a common misunderstanding of what evolution is. Fittest does not mean physically strong.

Evolution in a nut shell is, random mutations in genes bestow unique traits to the offspring. If that unique trait bestows survival advantage, like longer neck of giraffes, it would survive and be more likely to mate and produce off springs. If the unique trait becomes more common from generation to generation, what happens after that is a function of many natural factors. The ones with the new trait may become a new species, in which the case the ones lacking the trait may continue. Another possibility is those without the trait suffer survival and reproductive disadvantage with respect to the other members of the species, and slowly die out and ultimately vanish.

This unique trait is not always physical strength, it may be smaller size giving the advantage of running away from predator and hiding.

Also, your statement, "man is the ultimate biological form of that fitness" is not true. There are many life forms that are biologically much fitter than 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?
It is not absent in our DNA, it is very well present. To protect and nurture children comes from our DNA, not anywhere else. Science does offer many means to maximize our survival and reproduction advantages. This is one of the plain truths that can be seen like the back of one's own palm.

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?
Some do, some don't. Many rich people give away most of their riches for the benefit of humanity. The most recent examples are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

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?
I don't know what you mean by horizontal evolution, one that you say is present in other animals, but not in humans. Whatever it is, human behavior is not very dissimilar to our closest primate cousins.

Cheers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The day Medical Science is able to detect and acknowledge the Subtle Body understanding the human body will much easier.
During study at medical college this doubt always came to me that we only studied the tip of the ice berg merely the physical body and nothing more.

If there is only the Physical Body and no Karma in life..I guess we would all be a bunch of Crash Test Dummies.

I guess I should write a book "Karma for Dummies..Medical Point of View"
 
my fav paranormal,karma fascination was beautifully woven in this clip ghost - YouTube demi and patrick at their best .yes there is life after death of physical body.you do get recycled or reincarnated into another body.the law of karma is similiar to law of gravity.
 
...For sure Islam and Christianity (of Abrahams Gods) do NOT subscribe to Karmic Theory.
Y, often we are not precise in our terminologies because this is a casual discussion forum, but this impreciseness sometimes leads to confusion.

What the Abrahamic religions do not believe in is poorva-janma karma. They do believe one's karma in the one and only life people get, this is what will determine their fate after they are dead. Come judgement day, it is one's karma that will determine whether hell or heaven is one's eternal abode.

What karma will give you a place in heaven is laid down in their respective scriptures. For Muslims these are laid down in Kuran/Hadith (sharia?).

For Christians it is Biblical way of life, in whatever way it gets interpreted -- Catholics say just living a biblical moral life will ensure a place in heaven, a life style that is filled with "good works". For protestants one has to accept Jesus as your savior, the details may vary from one denomination to the next in how this should get accomplished.

These are specific karmas (actions). So, I would argue, they also believe in a Karma Theory, different from that of Hinduism only in the sense Hindusism allows for many attempts in repeated births, but Abrahamic religions allow only one attempt, that is the crux of the difference. Even though this is an important difference, I don't want to minimize the significance of this difference, in other ways, these religions are all same as well, they believe in their own version of Karma theory.

Christianity is very close to Islam..(which in fact accepts Prophets Jesus and Moses and other earlier Prophets in Biblical history - hence their Patriarch is Prophet Abraham)
Christianity is similar to Islam only in the sense they also believe in one attempt at salvation, miss it, you are condemned for eternity. In other respects, Christianity is similar to Hinduism.

Catholics put emphasis on good works, a kinds of dharma hindus love. Protestants put emphasis on grace and surrender, something Vaishnavas of all stripes emphasize. So, IMO, Christianity may have some superficial similarity with Islam, but it has more in common with Hinduism.

Cheers!
 
wonder what the chapter of revealationthen talks about second coming of christ?if this is not reincarnation wonder what it is then?nirguna brahman is what we preached aka formless god.identically in arabic language its called al lah!!
 
wonder what the chapter of revealationthen talks about second coming of christ?if this is not reincarnation wonder what it is then?nirguna brahman is what we preached aka formless god.identically in arabic language its called al lah!!

Yes dear Nachi,

you are correct..at least we Hindus dont go around believing that the same Physical Body will rise on judgement day.
We Hindus know that Physical Body is subject to change and finally gets reduced to the 5 elements.

Actually Non Hindus are a confused lot..they say Ashes to Ashes Dust to Dust but still think the Physical Body will rise.They have no idea that its the Subtle Body that lives on.

Anyway Nachi please check out a song I had put for you in the Hindi Songs thread that will make you want to reincarnate into a young man right now!!!

Ashes to Ashes Dust to Dust better see that now before anything Rusts!!
 
Last edited:
namaste Yamaka.

This is with reference to your posts #55 and #56.

01. In a practical situation that is readily seen in life, let us say the father is a highly cruel parent and the mother is also cruel although not as much as the father. This means that the child born to them must have at birth, as per your DNA theory, enough chromosomes to develop as a cruel person but this does not often/usually happen, and the child developes to be a normal person, although it is reared by the parents all the time. If the laws of genetics are infallible, this cannot happen, and yet we see this happen.

As against his, is the case of a child born to normal parents and the child is discovered to be inherently cruel as seen from its behaviour of killing helpless creatures like butterflies, frogs, etc.

So, your DNA theory does not account for such situations which are not abnormal or rare, but normal and seen often. This means that the child must have independently acquired its traits from elsewhere. The question is, if this elsewhere is only physical or beyond.

02. You are bringing in the concept of Freewill suddenly without giving a scientific explanation of it. You need to first explain Freewill and how it is connected to the DNA of a person.

04. You say: "In my own research I am trying to find a way to make ALL students "learn" class material at the SAME high rate of the smartest kid in the class! Whether it is feasible or not in X years, is an open question."

Are you trying to make ALL students equal externally, i.e., by trying to teach them personally and intensively, or internally, trying to change their DNA, brain or whatever, by your so-called 'individualized medicine'? Remember that the former is nothing but what religion does and the latter is against the Freewill of a student who is by nature inclined to be dull!

Watching for more input from you...
 
The orderly growth of foetus is controlled through DNA.

Whether Genetics has now reached a stage at which it can manipulate the gene structure in order to get desired alterations in foetus, like, say six integers, heart on the right side, etc?

In other words, though we may brush off any questions with "controlled through DNA" have we (science) completely/partly understood how exactly the DNA controls the orderly growth of the foetus?
 
namaste Nara and others.

This is with reference to your post #60.

Since the summary (in my post #42) is in my own words, I have quoted above it, the exact words used by you and Yamaka.

01. I shall try to find time to read Dawkins' book. A cursory search for 'grandfather' in the book gives me the impression (correct me if I am wrong) that sharing the ancestor genes is from the paternal side, and no sharing from maternal grandfather who produced the mother of the child. If this is true, it would seem that Nature's selection in the family tree is partial like the manu smRti!

• My point is that if we trace mental traits through sharing of genes from our ancestors:

1) ultimately we descend from the primates, so aggressive behaviour is built in the genes of everyone;

2) at least one male parent in the chain of (untraceable) ancestory is more likely to be cruel or aggressive, which is most likely diluted in succession,

and yet when a child of normal parents is found to exhitbit cruel/aggressive behaviour right from childhood--and this is common--how does that child's genes suddenly acquire this trait in exclusion to the normal traits acquired in the ancestry chain for generations?

• Thus, as I said, there is sudden disarry in the chain of immediate parents, who in this case with normal ancestry genes, has produced a child with aggressive genes!

• How does science actually verify Dawkins' proposition of sharing genes from generations up in the ancestry chain? In fact I should ask, how does science empirically know from an examination of the genes when a child is born, that the child will have such and such traits?

• So, the commonly seen facts of an aggressive child in a chain of perfectly normal ancestors up some generations, or an autistic child, or a child born with physical deformities, are all IMO the results of pUrva janma karma and not ancestory genes.

"Besides, this is irrelevant to the main thesis that I-awareness is a brain state", you said. Well, this thread is more about karma than I-awareness.

02. The 'significance' of a serial killer and his helpless victim is that if the former's behaviour is in his genes, I asked if the latter's helplessness in falling a victim is also in the genes. If DNA can give murderous behaviour in one person, why can't the victim's DNA give their timid and helpless behaviour?

03. I did not mean physical fitness, but the evolution of consciousness, which, you will agree, is the most developed in man. This is man's vertical evolution from his primate cousins.

• The horizontal evolution is the mental behaviour which is not at all uniform in man as it is in animals. As I said, they hunt and kill only for food, mate only for procreation and behave normal in their other activities of life. For example, a cat does not kill a butterfly for the sake of it, whereas a human child does it just like that.

• If the horizontal evolution is thus aberrational in man, it should be due to his mind and desire and not his genes. This was my point. It is another issue, however, if this mind is purely physical or not.

04. I am not talking about protecting and nourishing one's one children, which might be in the DNA.

• What I asked was that if the initiative for the common good--at least in basic necessities of life--is absent in the human DNA and if it is not, why humans have not implemented it using the facilities of science and ensured this common good, and then seek to acquire the power and wealth that many people are made at.

• So the point is love and compassion are not traits inherited from the genes, but acquired in life using the mind through the resulting experiences. Surely, these traits will be carried over in the next birth of the person, rather than percolate down the ancestory chain.

The theory of acquisition of mental traits of a human personality via the genes is, only that, a theory like the karma theory. I doubt it can be verified and predicted empirically.
 
Ravi, unfortunately, many people think whatever the Indian rishees said 3000 years ago contains all the wisdom about human existence. Any new way of thinking is viewed with suspicion, and if it is from western sources it is immediately rejected as unworthy. IMO, this is Ostrich kind of behavior.

If you truly want to approach this topic with an open mind for the purpose of gaining a better understanding, then I would recommend two books, (i) How Mind Words by Steven Pinker and (ii) Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett.

You may also view this TED talk by Dennette Dan Dennett on our consciousness | Video on TED.com


We have all been babies, but nobody has any recollection of those early days. If we try hard enough we can think back and remember some specific event when we were 3 or 4, but not any further back.

Now, when we try to explain what is going on with our own theories, we need to do this in as simple a way as possible. This is called the principle of Occam's razor. The brain state theory makes very few assumptions. The spiritual entity theory starts with a big assumption that there is a ghost in the machine, which throws open a slew of new questions. To answer these questions, the spiritual entity theory relies on more assumptions like poorva-janma karma, etc., which in turn opens up further question like how a record of this poorva-janma karma is kept, how it is transmitted, and so on.

There have been several siamese twins who lived full lives. The two-distinct I-A is not an assumption, but fact. Google siamese twins if you don't believe me.


The psychology of split personality is also a brain anomaly, nothing to do with life force.

Cheers!

Shri Nara,

Thank you very much for sparing your time and answering me, giving clarification as per science..

I shall for sure go through the references that you have offered me for a more better understanding. Its my pleasure to dwell deep into this subject and see what I could conclude for myself as per my limited knowledge.

Thank you once again Shri Nara...


 
Dear Nara,

I read the post. All you say is mind cannot be separate from the body and is not non-material. If you say the above and also say that humans possess mind, I find it difficult to understand what you mean by mind.
 
Dear Nara,

I read the post. All you say is mind cannot be separate from the body and is not non-material. If you say the above and also say that humans possess mind, I find it difficult to understand what you mean by mind.


Good question Sravna,

You know even the medical explanation for mind is so shallow.
 
Whether Genetics has now reached a stage at which it can manipulate the gene structure in order to get desired alterations in foetus, like, say six integers, heart on the right side, etc?
This can become a reality very soon - The First Genetically Modified Human Embryo: Advance or Abomination? | Wired Science | Wired.com Maybe we can have designer babies born with resistence to all kinds of cancers, diabetes and major illnesses. Transgenic animals obtained thru genetic manipulation is already a reality. Maybe not to the trivial extent of making heart on right side, etc; but things close to that are being done - Genetic modification: glow-in-the-dark lifesavers or mutant freaks? | Environment | The Observer -- i cannot understand why do these ppl waste resources making fluroscent trotters for pigs though..
 
Hi All:

I am reading here with absolute delight all the discussions under the topic "The Theory of Karma".

In the past several years I have attended many discourses and discussions on this very topic and when I left each of these discussions I was only more confused than where I began!! To me it is very abstract and not sure if anyone can fully justify its presence or absence. Through these discussions, I have only asked myself more questions, some very simple and some futuristic: If anyone can through some light, I would be very appreciative.

1. Is the Karmic theory solely defined only in Hinduism? Is there a similar belief in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity etc?
2. If it is defined in other religions, what may be the prime differences? Particularly I would very much like to see the similarities/dissimilarities on this theory between Hinduism and Islam, if any.
3. If it is NOT defined in other religions, does it show those religions do not believe in rebirth or karma?
4. If the Karmic theory is reality (assuming it exists!) does "my" karma have any impact on others now in my present life?
5. If it is true that my karma will have an impact on someone else in the future, say my child suffers in this life, does that act of suffering establish a connection between me and my child in this life during the past, or does it signify that my child is repaying his/her own past karma?

Putting all these discussions aside, does anyone see any practical use or value of karmic theory in the present day? I liked Mr. Nara's remark that just being compassionate and kind to each other will return the same values to us!! Is there any more practical use for it?

Thanks

Shri Sevall,

By now you may have come to know that I am an agnostic but I do hold the Karma as something of a necessary hypotheses at least, to explain many things observed in reality. With this short intro I give my views on your queries seriatim.

1. There is a book titled "paralokavuṃ punarjjanmavuṃ" (Other world and rebirth) in Malayalam by Shri ācārya narendra bhūṣaṇ-, who was a great scholar and authority on Hinduism in its various aspects. In that book Shri ācārya narendra bhūṣaṇ- states, incidentally, that he once gave a public lecture , under the aegis of the Marthoma Church and the subject matter was the Biblical sentences in Corinthians 2,5,10 which says—

"Whatever good or evil each man performs when he is inside his body, that he must receive the appropriate wages, and, therefor, all of us must appear before the seat of judgment of Christ." (A loose translation from Malayalam made by me.)

I referred to different versions of Bible but could not find anything of this meaning in Corinthians2,5,10, but since the author is a person of undisputed authority and stature, I feel there may be some typo or such a translation may be only in the Malayalam version followed by the Marthomites.

In any case Xianity does hold that each person is "judged" after death and awarded the appropriate recompense for his sins and good deeds. In this connection there is this also in the Bible:

the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23~King James Version)

I am not aware of the Koranic injunctions exactly but Islam also believes in each soul being judged by Allah who metes out the just rewards. Buddhism is rather ambiguous, as far as my limited knowledge about it goes, but it also emphasizes good karma for spiritual evolution and finally attaining Nirvana.

In Jain philosophy, karma not only encompasses the causality of transmigration, but is also conceived of as an extremely subtle matter, which infiltrates the soul—obscuring its natural, transparent and pure qualities. Karma is thought of as a kind of pollution, that taints the soul with various colours (leśyā). Based on its karma, a soul undergoes transmigration and reincarnates in various states of existence—like heavens or hells, or as humans or animals. (Karma in Jainism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

2. You will see that Hinduism and Jainism base their rebirth concept upon Karma while the Abrahamic religions which do not postulate rebirth, try to give a caveat to mortals through judgment by the Supreme Godhead and reward in the form of hell, purgatory and eternal happy life in heaven. Thus, good conduct of human beings is sought to be achieved by the dire threat of very undesirable future; hellish torment till eternity or hellish life in rebirths in this very world.

4. If the Karmic theory is reality (assuming it exists!) does "my" karma have any impact on others now in my present life?
The story of the hunter-robber Ratnaakaran turning into the sage Valmiki states unambiguously that others do not stand to reap the reward of one's karma, good or bad. Thus karma will appear to be completely one's own business. But there are other references and remarks which tend to show that one person's karma may taint another - wife, children, etc. - if they happen to benefit by or enjoy the results of that person's karma.

5. If it is true that my karma will have an impact on someone else in the future, say my child suffers in this life, does that act of suffering establish a connection between me and my child in this life during the past, or does it signify that my child is repaying his/her own past karma?

I have not found clear answers to this. Possibly knowledgeable persons like Saidevo will be able to answer more authentically. I believe that the karma works in such a way that it fits exactly like a jigsaw puzzle. Last week a 22-year old young man, son of my wife's paternal cousin, died. He had some incorrigible kidney malformation but when the baby was just 2 years old the Vellore hospital doctors only could find it out when it was on the operation table for a transplant from mother. The transplant was not done and all these twenty years he was undergoing dialysis once in two or three days and living without any liquid intake. According to the astrologers, this was due to the Karma of both the son and the parents and the astrologers hold the view that such abnormal births will happen only if the parents have been destined to suffer the grief arising from such an offspring.

Nearer home, I was told I had an uncle, elder to my mother. A brilliant student, he wrote matriculation exam in Nagercoil and was about to leave home (near Alleppey) for vacation when suddenly he had a fever and succumbed to it in a few days. My grandfather could not even see the body because it took 3 or 4 days to reach Nagercoil from Alleppey by boat and so the cremation was done by the uncle's grandfather. My grandfather did the usual "prasnam" and it seems that his karma did not allow proper funerary rites by the son, nor any help from son and there was putrasoka strongly indicated in his horoscope.

I therefore believe that our Karma works in accordance with some grand design or, some very intricately grand principles and this is the main cause for the many inequalities, suffering and pain in this world. And, according to my belief anything done to alleviate suffering in this world is a good deed or punya and anything which causes or increases such suffering is sin. Ultimately being compassionate is what it is all about but this works as a constant caveat for man not to swerve from the right path and also explains the inequalities.
 
Last edited:
I therefore believe that our Karma works in accordance with some grand design or, some very intricately grand principles and this is the main cause for the many inequalities, suffering and pain in this world. And, according to my belief anything done to alleviate suffering in this world is a good deed or punya and anything which causes or increases such suffering is sin. Ultimately being compassionate is what it is all about but this works as a constant caveat for man not to swerve from the right path and also explains the inequalities.
Sir, i have a doubt. I am sure many ages ago i was a monkey (not that am any less now). Please don't get me wrong, but i always felt strange affinity for ethiopian monkeys like lucy (australopithecus). All thru my soul journey i must have done good and bad things, like eating up other live animals (cannibalism), and saving some live animals (like taking care of pet dogs).

There must be a bit of heidelbergensis, then neanderthalensis, in me. Before that maybe erectus or ergaster. And before that dunno exactly what. The database of my karma must be massive, spanning over millions of years, with every single deed recorded in it. The same must be true for everyone. When there are so many good and bad things in our karma databank, then why do certain events happen to us only in this birth?
 
However, if you walk into the world of "Janma Poorva Karma" and its consequences...then I must stand up and shout

"It's all HOAX, designed to cheat innocent people".
Y, who knows maybe there is purvajanma karma but the concept got abused and misused by those who wanted to cheat innocent people...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest ads

Back
Top