Samkhya Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 Hello, I would like to present an argument drawn from a book on the Vedanta, in which the author holds that karma is not really vedantic. The argument is that, according to karma, if I have a wretched life, it is because of my sins (bad deeds, if you prefer) in a previous life. But I have no recollection of this sinful life. But, for a punishment to be fair, he who is punished must have some recollection of what he has done, so that he can understand why he is punished. It is a necessary condition for someone to draw some benefit from his life. Therefore, karma implies recollections of previous lifes. But since there are no such recollections, we can infer that karma is at least partially false. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 your problem in the understanding of the karma law, is that you believe that karma law is to be a teaching a lesson but it is not so.. it is never stated in any vedic text.. karma simply gives you exactly what you deserve.. if you kill a man, the karma wants you to be killed, not that you are killed and learn your situation, this would be not exact to kill brings to be killed... not to be killed and saved or redempted for this reason god sends his messengers or he comes himself to give us the religions, because karma is not here to teach us or to make us increase our consciousness if karma were a school there was no need of religions, authomatically we were taught by karma and gradually we were automatically saved.. but we know that it does not happens like that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samkhya Posted March 21, 2005 Author Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 ««« your problem in the understanding of the karma law, is that you believe that karma law is to be a teaching a lesson »»» Ok. Therefore karma is a kind of natural law, like Newton's law of «action-reaction». ««« if karma were a school there was no need of religions, authomatically we were taught by karma and gradually we were automatically saved.. but we know that it does not happens like that »»» Of course, but it would have been safer than religions of which none is universal and which are often misunderstood or misinterpreted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2005 Report Share Posted March 21, 2005 if samkya is made to (re)connect us to the absolute, we can ethimologically call it a religion samkya means that in every atom there's the supreme lord.. paramatma add that the lord is also omnipervadent .. brahman and add also that the lord is a transcendental, satcitananda supreme individual person ... all together is the eternal philosophy of the living being... sanatana dharma (if you know religions that aren't universal they're not religions, if youknow someone who misinterpretes religion he's not religious... do not go to him or you will misunderstand everything) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.