Page 1 of 1

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 7:43 am
by gardener
Mr. Li Hongzhi said: "Why do people have health problems? The root cause of their problem and all their misfortune is karma." — Zhuan Falun

"I've told you that when we cultivators feel uncomfortable somewhere in our bodies it isn't sickness." — Teaching the Fa in New York City (March 23, 1997)

"For us cultivators, other than the karma Master has eliminated, we still have to pay a portion ourselves. You will thus feel physically uncomfortable, as if you were suffering from sickness. Cultivation practice is to cleanse you from your life's origin." — Zhuan Falun (Volume II)

"Birth, old age, illness, and death exist as such for ordinary people. Due to karma resulting from past wrongdoing, one has illnesses or tribulations; suffering is repaying a karmic debt, and thus nobody can casually change this. Changing it means that one would not have to repay the debt after being in debt, and this cannot be done at will. Doing otherwise is the same as committing a bad deed." — Zhuan Falun

Truth on Falun Gong | How do the Falun Gong practitioners think of illness?


What is karma? Maybe nobody can tell it clearly. In the old times, when the science is no as developed as it is now, people can not explain some reasons why the disease comes and how to cure it, they say that is was just because of the karma. But now, with the develop of the medical science, it is very rediculious to endure the illness just because the patients think it is just because they should suffer the karma.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 8:31 am
by koan
I think more people chalk up their illness to "the drink" or "the accident" or, perhaps "the one night stand"

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:56 am
by jones jones
In their pocket guide, Karma and Reincarnation: Transcending Your Past, Transforming Your Future, Elizabeth Clare Prophet and Patricia Spadaro have this take on it: "Karma picks up where the golden rule leaves off. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - because someday it will be done unto you."

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:16 pm
by spot
jones jones;1371272 wrote: "Karma picks up where the golden rule leaves off. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - because someday it will be done unto you."Except that's a perversion of any reasonable ethical guideline. Doing the right thing doesn't need a personal benefit, delayed or otherwise, to make it worth doing. What actually happens obviously has nothing to do with Karma. Karma is a religious invention with no real-world counterpart. It's on a par with non-existent heaven as a theorised balance for the blatant and visible inequalities in life. Neither Karma or heaven help anyone's understanding of their situation. Ethics, on the other hand, does. Doing right for the sake of doing right is all that's needed.

Leigh Hunt makes much the same case.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:41 pm
by theia
My thoughts on this are that if, at a certain level, we are all part of the whole, then anything you might do or say to another, is actually done or said to yourself...surt-uv.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:55 pm
by spot
I'd agree with that entirely theia. I think people tend to cite Karma - a rather large and extensive component of Hinduism for the last several thousand years - when they're only referring to a smaller aspect of it, the "you get what you sow" bit. You get what you sow is vilely untrue to everyone's experience and knowledge but they still bang it out as a truism, I've never understood why. What you do to others you do to yourself, or words like it, is far more meaningful. The person you end up being is moulded by your behaviour might be another.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:26 pm
by Oscar Namechange
I surt-uv noticed that people In my life who have tried to cause me grief have met a horrible end or lost their job or some other nasty. Just co-Incidence surt-uv of course.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Sep 28, 2011 3:37 pm
by spot
How distressing for you oscar. The implications for your own future would no doubt terrify you if you were to find the coincidence meaningful.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 10:59 pm
by gaveIn
I believe it’s just the equivalent of our every action; if we do good well it’ll be back to you and vice versa, some call it Bad and Good Karma.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 10:54 am
by spot
gaveIn;1391449 wrote: I believe it’s just the equivalent of our every action; if we do good well it’ll be back to you and vice versa, some call it Bad and Good Karma.And you think this describes reality, do you?

Does it require an afterlife in order to balance the books?

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 1:33 pm
by Saint_
spot;1371302 wrote: . You get what you sow is vilely untrue to everyone's experience and knowledge but they still bang it out as a truism, I've never understood why. .


I'd disagree. My experience is that "comes around, goes around" is not only true, it's in the psychology textbooks under "self-fulfilling prophecy." When you are mean to everyone around you, you have a higher probability of losing jobs, getting divorces, or even ending up in prison. The reverse is true as well, people who are nice to others seem to get breaks, opportunities, and good "luck" far exceeding what probability should demand.

I've seen it over and over again in my own life as well as other's.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 4:27 pm
by spot
So - let's get this right - those who acquire a lifelong debilitating injury or disease have brought it on themselves? Parkinsons and Alzheimers and MS sufferers should have been nicer to people and thereby avoided their fate?

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 6:47 am
by Saint_
spot;1391634 wrote: So - let's get this right - those who acquire a lifelong debilitating injury or disease have brought it on themselves? Parkinsons and Alzheimers and MS sufferers should have been nicer to people and thereby avoided their fate?


I don't remember talking about physical disease. I was referring specifically to human behavior. Disease is God's domain.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 7:59 am
by spot
Saint_;1391676 wrote: I don't remember talking about physical disease. I was referring specifically to human behavior. Disease is God's domain.


So, karma excludes aspects of life like poverty or war or epidemics or tidal waves or illness? That's not the sort of karma I was told about.

Or is "God's Domain" the pie in the sky after you die get-out clause to balance the notional books?

At root, you're blaming unfortunate people for their own bad fortune and saying they brought it on their own head. It's a sickening attitude.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:05 am
by Snooz
spot;1371302 wrote: I'd agree with that entirely theia. I think people tend to cite Karma - a rather large and extensive component of Hinduism for the last several thousand years - when they're only referring to a smaller aspect of it, the "you get what you sow" bit. You get what you sow is vilely untrue to everyone's experience and knowledge but they still bang it out as a truism...


I kept reading that as "female pig" and it was terribly confusing.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:10 am
by spot
SnoozeAgain;1391690 wrote: I kept reading that as "female pig" and it was terribly confusing.


It's from the bible, Snooze. Changing the words would step away from the source. "Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows".

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:14 am
by Saint_
spot;1391686 wrote: So, karma excludes aspects of life like poverty or war or epidemics or tidal waves or illness?


That's correct, acts of God are just that, acts of God. His plan is far too complex to second guess.

That's not the sort of karma I was told about.


I'm sure you use "karma" as a literal translation of Buhddist concepts, the actual definition. To me, karma is the man-on-the-street definition of "comes around, goes around" meaning that you will be treated by people as you treat them. I'm sure you agree with that.

Or is "God's Domain" the pie in the sky after you die get-out clause to balance the notional books?


You're too smart for your own good, Spot.

At root, you're blaming unfortunate people for their own bad fortune and saying they brought it on their own head. It's a sickening attitude.


Nope, you're over-analyzing as usual, spot. ;)

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:15 am
by Snooz
Nope, still reading it as female pig and now the sentence looks like some kind of endorsement for bestiality.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:17 am
by spot
SnoozeAgain;1391695 wrote: Nope, still reading it as female pig and now the sentence looks like some kind of endorsement for bestiality.


The fault lies either with the translation committee of the New English Version or with your inattention during English lessons at school. Everyone ready? Press your red button if you think it's Snooze that's messed up, press your green button if you think it's the translation committee.

Should people really suffer the so called Karma?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:21 am
by theia
SnoozeAgain;1391695 wrote: Nope, still reading it as female pig and now the sentence looks like some kind of endorsement for bestiality.


Please stop making me laugh, Snooze. I have pulled a muscle, or twenty, in my chest from coughing and laughing hurts like hell.