It struck me that this is what really bothers me. My inability to reconcile the notions of karma with those of Nietzsche. Given that karma is a very vague form of causality, I will see no other way than to start a rant, as I can barely see what I’m starting at. I do believe that karma is possibly a very valid concept, but that the terms “bad karma” and “good karma” are quite arbitrary. To step beyond good and evil" is to step out of a certain wheel of suffering, and to enter another one, where one is more the cause of events than their substance (enduring, being-formed). I do not think that Napoleon acquired bad karma related to the deaths he was cause to. I do think that he created and acquired karma by it. Karma is said to be caused by intent, not by the effect of actions.
I understand this. The effect is always measured in a context which is relatively arbitrary. The intent is not measured by anything except the difference between the intent and its consequences.
It seems to me that the wheel of karma is equal to the will to power, “monster of energy” - “wheel of suffering and desire” - No?
Nirvana, or samhadi, is claimed to be the overcoming of the wheel, which would mean that the will overcomes its own will to power. This can only mean the attainment of un-challengable power - at least from the perspective of the one feeling it - a state of will that has nothing left to overcome, is constantly rejoicing in resistance-overcome.
From this height, a person could calmly observe the workings of action and reaction, of intent and the reflected reality.
"You can’t always get what you want,
but if you try sometime,
you just might get what you need. "
The author of these lyrics is surely some kind of Saint, someone who has mastered karma.
I am interested in the role of the great rockstars and their caprioles as teachers of the will to power as karmic. That means: one does not overcome simply by violence. In all cases of sweeping power-movement, what comes first is the inspiration, inspiring energy and mass to action – energizing.
Napoleon spoke of his electrifying voice and presence as the great instrument of his power. Strategy is secondary to the power to command energy. This energy has a certain quality, and a certain quantity. It seems that karma has been the “science” of the quantity of suffering rather than the philosophy pertaining to quality of the mastering forces that cause the suffering.
Do you have any preferences in your life? Do you get what you want? Do you fail to achieve long-term satisfaction? If so, you surely understand what good karma and bad karma mean. The causality of karma is about the kinds of actions (usually called “virtuous” actions or something similar) that lead to happiness and the opposite kinds of actions, which lead to dissatisfied states. It’s causality about quality of life. For comparison and maybe some insight into what karma means, enlightened beings (in Buddhism) are said to not be subject to karma at all, which I believe implies complete equanimity in the face of life’s ups and downs. Whether up or down, it’s all “good”. So if you think you’ve got bad karma because you’ve got some disease or something, a Buddha could have the same disease but in that case it’s not bad karma at all.
Is yours a classic Hindu exposition? I’m just curious because although Buddhism also places a lot of emphasis on intention (intention is considered the most important aspect of a karmic act), it wouldn’t make the claim that it is the only thing that matters. Intelligence matters!
I think that perhaps you meant Vedanta by Hinduism.
There is no difference between the concept of Karma in all thoughts of Hinduism and that includes Buddhism too.
[u]At the end of the day, karma is simply karma. It is neither good nor bad.
Good karmas are those which would give pleasing rewards in the future. In the same way, bad karmas are those, which would attract unpleasing rewards in the future. But, both have to be faced. That means that, even if you lead a very virtuous life by intent, you still have to come again next time to enjoy the pleasing rewards[/u].
So, the wheel continues and that is real issue.
Bad karmas are like Iron-chain, while good karmas are chain of gold, but, these are still a chain and one has to abide by it.
Here, Abrahamic religions (except Sufism) differ from Hinduism, because, their ultimate aim is to secure a place in the haven. While, Hinduism says that even haven is useless, because one can stay there only until his good karmas allows him. Then it would have to incarnate again.
When Buddhism and other Hindu schools thoughts talk about ignorance or intelligence, they are referring to the understanding of this subtle concept. Their aim is go beyond both types of karmas, not only bad one. Otherwise, soul would have to come again and again and would never to able to cross over.
Here, once again, there is a difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. Buddhism says that there is no final destinaton, thus, it does not make any difference whether a soul stays at human realm or in haven, because, there is nowhere else to go or attain.
The realization of this fact is enlightenment in Buddhism. This is to say that Buddhism is Process Ontology.
Vedanta and Sufism go one step further.They postulate that it is possible to attain such a stage, where soul can leave this process forever. IN other words, these are Destination Ontologies.
But sanjay, doesent an absolutely attained Nirvana palce no limit to the lenghjt of stay there? With return as avatar/teacher an optional/voluntary act of kindness?
The absolutaley Nirvana is not meant or used as infinite sourse of karma, though, technically it is. All sufferings are caused by different types of desires as consciousness falls for it because of will. When all wills are left behind and only a will to exist is left, then it is Nirvana.
Yes, rebirth is optional for an Avatar. But again, once entered in the regime of the karma, even an Avatar or a Prophet cannot completely escape from the rules of it, though, more often than not, they get a special treatment.
Nirvana simply means to move beyond the time zone; Be eternal. So, there is no limit to stay there.
Yes, return as Avatar of Prophet is an optional act of Kindness.
So what would implicate master slave morality in terms of karma? That slaves can not attain Nirvana,since Nirvana is a consequence of Karmic cause and effect, and it is not a concern of a pre morality?
But wouldn't intention have to play into such a scheme, hence kindness. A relevant concept?
Heidegger's lectures on Nietzche, included a will to knowledge, art and power co-incidental. Could there be co-relevance among the terms?
It seems that knowledge of the intent, if there is correspondence between the vedic and western traditions, would bridge somewhat of a parlance from the Vedic pre moral to the moral?
Is there a stretch to go from Schpenhauer's Buddhism to Heidegger's interpretation of the will to know? (As an intentional-willful-act?)
Sorry, obe, but I can hardly understand a word you’re saying. In general. However, I suspect it may help you to know that Wikipedia is wrong about master—slave morality when it says: “Master morality weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences unlike slave morality which weighs actions on a scale of good or evil intentions.” Herd morality, which originally was the only morality, weighs actions on a scale of good or bad consequences (though these are often enough only imagined consequences, as in the superstition that breaking a mirror causes bad luck). This morality in combination with the master faith “I am good” then gave rise to a new morality, master morality, which weighs actions on a scale of good or bad intentions. Slave morality arose when the Jews reconceived good as “evil” and bad as “good”. The extra-moral period comes about by way of the Judeo-Christian commandment “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour”, understood as saying “It is good to intend truth and evil to intend falsehood”. The truthfulness thus commanded made people see that the intention is actually not the origin of an action, but something quite superficial; actions are now weighed on a scale of good or bad actual origins.
Sorry about the convulsions sauwellos, but it seems like what you are describing as a moral process, is itself difficult to follow in spite if your clear description.
But the idea I was trying to convey was that there may have been some relation, inherent or actual that may have shown coincidental similarities between Vedantas and nietzche’s views, as far intention is concerned.
The intention to be subservient, nice is something that the slave morality infers, however it is also hinted in the Heidegger lectures on Nietzche, c.1939$
Is entertaining a tie in here, too big of a stretch?
The whole argument is tenuous, to be sure, but I am just thinking,that Nietzche may have been aware of Schopenhauer's Buddhism.
I see karma as, proposition; sun goes supernova, samsara ends, we all end, there is no more reincarnation nor rebirth [at least one earth, and I’d say anywhere else would kill the relevance]. Causal line ends, it never meant anything because it has left nothing. Good and bad will die equally.
On the other hand that’s way off in the future, karma is about what is us now, we are receiving and creating informations. We are not authors of some of that, much of it even, but the spirit is at least capable of ‘recording’ ~ simply because reality does that, and information would entirely work if it didn’t IMHO. So its how we deal with what we are presented with that counts ~ or our disposition towards that, if say we died before completion. Perhaps karma relates to ones potential as to what and who we are [the recording and our present and former nature].
Trouble is that beyond mere words I always end up thinking there is nothing, no reason to make souls make amends for a former life much of which they were not the author of. Or that there is anything out there that would wish to.
You have to have a point to karma e.g. reincarnated lives ultimately arrive at something comparable with divinity/emptiness.
Why; emptiness, life/lives, then emptiness?
Don’t new flowers grow in the meadow every year, cant they just be what they are for as long as they are, and that is all that is required of them, indeed there are surely no requirements?
Karma, like God, and other religious ideas, has reflected mundane biases, often political ones.
How reassuring that other people deserve what they get, even a whipping from me for spilling my tea.
After all I worked my way up chain of being and if they did as well as me, I wouldn’t be here whipping them.
This does not mean I do not believe in Karma, I just think it is a lot more complicated that the religions have gotten it so far.
Daddy never makes a mistake and has never had anything to learn.
Everything is really perfect the way it is, so if you think there is a problem, you are the problem.
And a whole set of other beliefs have secular parallels, and really I hope, are finally being challenged, at least by the main mass of living essence, after all these years of having these things rain down on us like the sky was taking a diarhettic dump.
I believe karma is on a level that is incalculable within defined perimeters’ such as from a certain point of view. That is is an “invented concept” doesn’t take away from it’s truth, or, validity, as far as I grasp it.
Karma is just like everything else in the universe. It’s seeming randomness would be decoded by the ubermench, for the simple fact that he would be good enough to decode it. He would have adhered to whatever he’d adhered to, and done whatever he’d done, then blah blah blah…will to power…and boom, you got yourself some good karma coming. There’s some complex math there in the middle that only an ubermench would understand. They’re not gonna bother to teach it to us. We’d just piss the knowledge away like dumb slaves in a herd.
