The Ajivikas were based

Karma has to do with mind and morality, acting unskillfully has results, its self evident..

It is not self evident. Doing good things does not necessarily produce good results, and vice versa.

>I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

DUDE HARDWORK LMFAO

Again, in Buddhism mind is central, its not materialistic, the law of karma in principle isn't saying that objective 'good things will happen', its saying that 'your experience will be better'.

Even that is still not necessarily true. Random chance exists. If you mean it as a general rule then sure but that's definitely not the typical use of karma.

I thought karma is every action manifesting itself on a universal scale. Committing an evil act does not come back to hurt you through karma, committing an an evil act creates evil karma, leading to more evil acts and thoughts in the greater world. The same with acts of good. You must be what you want in the world. Treat others how you want to be treated. Secretly killing some one to then be murder yourself or watch your loved ones be murdered is the result of karma, but only by extreme divine coincidence. In most cases that murder will just lead to more murders throughout the world, or similar evil act's. Doesn't necessarily have to effect one specific act in a long chain of building evil karma. Don't see it as a force of punishment. Only that it's in everybodys best interest not to commit evil acts. The ambiguous, non immediate, consequence of bad karma explains why it's so difficult, if impossible, to ever get rid of it, given the nature of humanity. OH well

Attached: Tacuin_Fenouil_13.jpg (405x446, 99K)

Karma is just one kind of conditionality, random chance exists, a meteor could hit you, it would probably have nothing to do directly with your karma.

The doctrine of karma, and how its used are two different things, the exposition of karma is clear in the original form.

It does manifest on the individual scale, and so in the sum of individuals creating negative karma, there will be higher sum negative karma...obviously, the social emerges from the interactive.

Karma literally just says, 'what you do has effects'. The origins and mechanisms of conditionality are obviously too complex to describe, but you can say 'I act like this, its easier. I act like this, its worse.'

Shoehorning an archaic term to fit your insufficient definition of social change
It’s almost like you are too stupid to understand ethics and sociology so you generalize everything to a single meaningless term

>Karma exists, but it is an evil dark force
OP here. You are much more derailed than me.

These guys are quite fun. This is now an Indic philosophy thread, give more interesting heterodox Indian philosophical schools.

No shoehorning, just applying, don't be so triggered.

The problem that I have with karma is that it implies the existence of good and evil. Your good/evil actions will come back to you as good/bad experiences.

But what if you don't believe in good and evil? Or if you think of them as relative to the situation? Are they interchangeable with pleasant and unpleasant? Do you really think the universe works in such a way that it equilibrates the pleasure levels of a bunch of monkeys on a rock?

based
However remember that Western exoticism is also a millenia old tradition

>what if you don't believe in good and evil?
your beliefs don't decide what reality is

>equilibrates the pleasure levels of a bunch of monkeys on a rock
c'mon bro, how do i even respond to statements like this

do any of you guys here personally believe very very very strongly in morality, and seek to be moral for moral's sake? i do, and it makes me sad when people tell me that they don't believe morality has any reality to itself :( even though they say that, i will never harm another person, and i will always be as ethical as i can be, i am not selfish and don't let my ego get in the way of the Good

My position is that good and evil do not exist as objective elements. The illusion we have of them is ultimately based on feelings of pleasure and pain. Thus, believing the universe has a karma system where you get "what you deserve" is too egocentric, since reality does not owe you any particular feelings.

also what do i do about people who don't believe in morality? they make me sad and i have basic arguments against them but i don't think i can ever change their mind. how can people be made moral in the first place?

make a case for moral realism, then ill bother listening to ethical platitudes.

>atomism
"Si l’on prend le mot « atome » dans son sens propre, celui d’« indivisible », ce que ne font plus les physiciens modernes, mais ce qu’il faut faire ici, on peut dire qu’un atome, devant être sans parties, doit être aussi sans étendue ; or une somme d’éléments sans étendue ne formera jamais une étendue ; si les atomes sont ce qu’ils doivent être par définition, il est donc impossible qu’ils arrivent à former les corps. À ce raisonnement bien connu, et d’ailleurs décisif, nous joindrons encore celui-ci, que Shankarâchârya emploie pour réfuter l’atomisme (1) : deux choses peuvent entrer en contact par une partie d’elles-mêmes ou par leur totalité ; pour les atomes, qui n’ont pas de parties, la première hypothèse est impossible ; il ne reste donc que la seconde, ce qui revient à dire que le contact ou l’agrégation de deux atomes ne peut être réalisé que par leur coïncidence pure et simple, d’où il résulte manifestement que deux atomes réunis ne sont pas plus, quant à l’étendue, qu’un seul atome, et ainsi de suite indéfiniment ; donc, comme précédemment, des atomes en nombre quelconque ne formeront jamais un corps. Ainsi, l’atomisme ne représente bien qu’une impossibilité, comme nous l’avions indiqué en précisant le sens où doit être entendue l’hétérodoxie ; mais, l’atomisme étant mis à part, le point de vue du Vaishêshika, réduit alors à ce qu’il a d’essentiel, est parfaitement légitime, et l’exposé qui précède en détermine suffisamment la portée et la signification."

René Guénon , Introduction générale à l'étude des doctrines Hindoues

I don't know if I exactly believe in "karma" or how it would specifically function, but where do the concepts of "good" even come to us from in the first place, if not the universe? You seem heavily aligned to scientific doctrines, which posit a nonsensical separation between "a species" and "the universe", forgetting that the former did not create itself, and can only be what it is because of the latter. You might believe that "pain" and "pleasure" came to us over time through "evolution", but you have to believe every dimension or ourselves is the same - thoughts, dreams, reflections, sentiments, dance, poetry, love, emotions, self-identity, and everything else that you are is entirely made out of the universe's elements. You did not create any of your nature, nature has to have, and you are now merely partaking in it. Now if you're a pantheist like me, you don't personally believe in evolution and perceive this to be an eternal cosmic dream. That said, the narratives you seemingly subscribe to regarding karma are ones that could be true: there might not be any such system. But to posit a separation between "species" and "universe", whereby the latter does not "care for" the former and therefore encompass us in a moral system, is not a tenable argument against it.

Ohh it's another atheist trying to find new ways of saying he's an atheist without actually saying it

Sorry but this was a miss.

Attached: 1485804519226.jpg (236x236, 12K)

That's an effective refutation of ancient Greek and Indian atomism but doesn't really apply to the modern scheme, where atomism is sort of an outer-layer placeholder for the smaller stuff, which physicists are unsure of and are still debating and offering various proposed theories to model.

then your interpretation of these events will be better, karma is always experiential feedback, internal, and not "external" feedback like winning a 1,000 dollar scratch ticket you fucking retard

>ce que ne font plus les physiciens modernes
OP is referring to the old concept of atomism. (He's not. He's too dumb to know there is a difference)

Not good and evil, but health and pathology you fucking retard

Being infatuated with oriental mysticism isn't cool or hip. Maybe 200 years ago it was but now you just seem like basedsucking wannabe.

so tired of these wannabe cold reader posts.

A MULTIPLE CEL

Ajivikas weren't materialist and OP seems misinformed. They believed in souls and reincarnation, but they thought karma would be worked out by itself, and that it couldn't be removed by spiritual practices. They're usually characterised as fatalist for this reason.