There is no way to proof that Karma exists...

a reply to: icyboy771z

There is no way to prove that we exist or reality for that matter ether.

It could all just be a dream, possibly holographic by nature.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: icyboy771z

There is no way to prove that we exist

Descartes said I think therefore I am, and I'd have to agree. Sure some of us may be on auto-pilot in varying degrees, but I am certain that my current consciousness exists.

a reply to: cooperton

Im certain that water appears to be wet but the only because my senses tell me so.

As to consciousness we are only just beginning to learn where consciousness resides in our brain never mind how it functions with regards to the rest of reality.

We could all quite possibly share a group consciousness and be connected in ways we have yet to imagine.

The real question seems to be are we greater than the sum of our parts if you ask me.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

it's just something everyone should live by regardless.

And your basis for imposing your world view as to how others should live?

a reply to: Wandering Scribe

Karma is about gradually, over numerous lifetimes, purging yourself of sin and corruption.

That is not karma. That is sin and atonement. Christian ideas that have nothing to do with karna.

The OP's understanding is not at fault.

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Karma means cause and effect, so when viewed that way it most certainly can be prooven. Throw a rock through a glass window and film it and there you have both sides of karma on camera.

Even the concept of "cause and effect" cannot be proven definitively. In your example, throwing a rock (cause) through a glass window and experiencing the shattering (effect) that occurs does not demonstrate a direct connection between the two.

To clarify: what specifically is the "cause" in your example? The rock itself? The act of throwing the rock? Why was the rock thought of being thrown in the first place? What was the initial cause? We do not know definitively. We only think we do.

a reply to: cooperton

I admit that the "I think, therefore I am" concept is a very significant one in philosophy. However, it is a somewhat problematic concept for the following reasons:
a. We know that people can live/exist even when they are: dreaming, in a coma, mentally deranged/delusional etc.
b. How do we define thinking? Is it just neurons rearranging? What is the biological difference between thinking and being on auto-pilot?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: cooperton

a. We know that people can live/exist even when they are: dreaming, in a coma, mentally deranged/delusional etc.

In my opinion, whether you are dreaming or delusional, you are still existing in an alternate state of being.

b. How do we define thinking? Is it just neurons rearranging? What is the biological difference between thinking and being on auto-pilot?

The way I look at it, the brain is a tool of expression for consciousness. Just like a TV is a tool of expression for cinematographers - the wiring in a TV isn't what is creating the creative content, it is merely the device by which the cinematographer can express his work.

Auto-pilot is very common for those who stop inputting new things in their lives - to continue the metaphor, they've allowed re-runs of the Brady Bunch to play for the rest of their life, never inputting new conscious thought that might liberate them from their sleepwalking.

Of course there is no way to prove the existence of:-

- Unicorns
- Pixies
- Vampires
- Society
- Dragons
- Khama

...as they are all imaginery.

a reply to: cooperton

Descartes said I think therefore I am, and I'd have to agree.

How do you know it is you that thinks? Thoughts usually come to mind unbidden.

What about things that don't think? Do they exist?

Dark Ghost's criticisms are also valid.

Descartes's formulation has long since been proven invalid by other philosophers. No-one in the field accepts it as a reliable premise any more.

It doesn't matter if we are living in a holographic nature or not. If I pinch you, you feel pain. The feeling is
very real so therefore it can be classified as real.

a reply to: Wandering Scribe

Who taught to you that this Yama deity is real? Did you see him yourself?
It could be real or it may not exist, there is no definite way to prove it unless you have first hand observed it.

This karma theory might have been created as a sort of defense mechanism for humanity, or wishful thinking
for the the unsuccessful or poor. Who likes to hear a story of an evil unscrupulous person living an opulent life? The average Joe
would be disgusted and say that he will have his "just desserts", and when something does happen he can validate
his theory. But if the evil person continues living a long and healthy life, the karma theory has a backup where "something"
will happen in his next life. Vice versa, a rich wealthy person would feel a need to do charity to give back to society.
This creates a sort of equilibrium where people like to think at the end life would be much rather fair to everyone, even
though it may not be the case as such. We have all heard of the old adage, life is not fair!

I´d like to out point out if you guys loose the "positive / negative" thinking karma works out beautifully.
Just take them in as equals but yet not the same.
It's all experience for you to observe and learn, not judge. If u fail the class u repeat the lesson.



At the end of the day you go to sleep and next morning ur a different person and won´t probably even recollect that "bad" experience.

a reply to: icyboy771z

Just like there's no way to prove it doesn't.

A Rhetorical Question.


And.. Pain is just a Sensation. Nothing more.