Is Karma the same as Cause and Effect?
- Thread starter onyxfemme
- Start date
Karma is what goes around comes around!
Yeah, Karma was the representation of the cause, and your deeds are manifestations of the past, present and future of everybody.
"Everything that we have ever thought, spoken, done or caused is Karma; as is also that which we think, speak or do this very moment. After death we lose Kriya Shakti (ability to act) and do karma. Actions performed consciously are weighted more heavily than those done unconsciously. But just as poison affects us if taken unknowingly, suffering caused unintentionally will also give appropriate karmic effect. We are in position to do something about our destiny by doing the right thing at the right time. Through positive actions, pure thoughts, prayer, mantra and meditation, we can resolve the influence of the karma in present life and turn the destiny for the better. A spiritual master knowing the sequence in which our Karma will bear fruit, can help us. As humans, we have the opportunity to speed up our spiritual progress with practice of good Karma. We produce negative karma because we lack knowledge and clarity."
-Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda , The hidden power in humans,
"Everything that we have ever thought, spoken, done or caused is Karma; as is also that which we think, speak or do this very moment. After death we lose Kriya Shakti (ability to act) and do karma. Actions performed consciously are weighted more heavily than those done unconsciously. But just as poison affects us if taken unknowingly, suffering caused unintentionally will also give appropriate karmic effect. We are in position to do something about our destiny by doing the right thing at the right time. Through positive actions, pure thoughts, prayer, mantra and meditation, we can resolve the influence of the karma in present life and turn the destiny for the better. A spiritual master knowing the sequence in which our Karma will bear fruit, can help us. As humans, we have the opportunity to speed up our spiritual progress with practice of good Karma. We produce negative karma because we lack knowledge and clarity."
-Paramhans Swami Maheshwarananda , The hidden power in humans,
You believe in karma as a spiritual entity, Shawn?
Hmmmm...
Okay, let's reason...
The nuance of moral consequence separates karma from cause and effect, as that phrase usually applies to very objective and empirical(at times...trying to tread lightly here) scientific observations. When person speaks about cause and effect, they usually name a specific cause for a specific effect, and attempt to prove that something occurred because these particular situations led to it. Karma is spoken of different.
"I lost my wallet, damn, I must have bad Karma! I should have just given that guy on the corner a dollar, and I wouldn't have lost my wallet!" When in fact, if I had remembered I left it on the counter at the last store I was at, or even possibly drop the wallet when I thought I had slid it in my back pocket, I wouldn't be crying about unconnected events, from one perspective anyway.
That's Newton's law of motion, I don't think this is what she is referring to.
It is a belief (by some) the good things you do will come back to you. An the evil you do will also come back at you. Hence terms like, "chances go around" and "payback is a bitch."
Nope. Modern physics isn't simply reduced to causality.
In your own words ... duhhh.
How is Karma "spoken" of differently?
How is this not cause and effect?
Cause: Not giving the guy on the corner $1
Effect: Losing wallet
Or are you saying Karma is different from causality because of the moral component?
no. due to the fact that ppl doing good don't always have good come thier way.
many times over history selfless acts and fighting for others have led to persecution
and assassination.
while those who do bad may eventually succumb to laws of the land or the rules of
the game, but they tend to reap the luxuries of the bad life they live.
many times over history selfless acts and fighting for others have led to persecution
and assassination.
while those who do bad may eventually succumb to laws of the land or the rules of
the game, but they tend to reap the luxuries of the bad life they live.
Nope. Modern physics isn't simply reduced to causality.
In your own words ... duhhh.
How is Karma "spoken" of differently?
How is this not cause and effect?
Cause: Not giving the guy on the corner $1
Effect: Losing wallet
Or are you saying Karma is different from causality because of the moral component?
If my son asks me how water got on the outside of a cup with water in it, and it wasn't spilled, the common answer, in most settings is to say condensation, not karma.
The problem I have with the scenario I gave is that the cause is just way too separate from the effect. The simple mentioning of Hitler's name with a subjectively positive adjective in the sentence, causes heads to turn. Lincoln told his generals not to free the slaves in Missouri, but the first African-American president chooses to invoke his name in some sick ritual of rebirth and projection.Do we say karma as an explanation of the power of definition that comes with those who win wars, which would be more along the lines of a "cause and effect" explanation? No, we say karma as an explanation of the immorality of Hitler.
Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate...slightly, and the debate might be more semantic than actual, and cultural, to a degree. But to answer your question, yes. That is the exact difference between one and the other. In the scenario of the man losing the wallet, if it weren't for the moral component, karma wouldn't come into the picture. If asked to hypothesize from an objective empirical angle, karma wouldn't show up anywhere, nor that guy he passed up on the corner.
OK. Gotcha.
But ...
The physics of causality is reducible regardless of the separation (spatial of consequential) between the cause and the effect even if ... even if, the separation is seemingly large.
Are you familiar with Chaos Theory or the Butterfly Effect?
In a nut shell: the sensitivity of some deterministic (cause and effect) dynamical systems is such that small perturbations of the initial state can lead to big (exponential) differences in the final state through chain reaction. This gives the appearance that the system is behaving randomly. But it's not, it's behaving chaotically.
This kind of behavior can be observed in many every day systems like climate changes, electronics of the nervous system, population growth, molecular and fluid dynamic and the stock market.
A system can be deterministic and yet unpredictable.
That being said, the implicit moral justice in your definition of Karma can't be consistent because "bad things" happen to "good people", or at least neutral people, all the time. And I'd rather not open the can of worms otherwise known as morality (universal and/or local).
Wow...love the thoughts and views circulating in here.
This is my view based off of what was taught to me (not saying that it is accurate though).
Karma and Cause & Effect are two different things.
Karma is said to pick up momentum, meaning if a deed was done whether good or bad...when it returns, it's more than what it has originated from. Example: if a person was to do an evil act by the time that act returned it would be multiplied (like 3 folds). It is said that it will not return to you in the way you expect it or intend it to return.
Now Cause & Effect is similar to "Action & ReAction". For every cause...it is said that there's an equal effect.
Which is why I say...there's a difference. The initial input of Karma doesn't have an equal output (return)....however Cause and Effect does (so it is said).
Now, do I believe in Karma? (Answer: Yes)
Do I think that Karma and Cause & Effect are the same? (Answer: No)
This is my view based off of what was taught to me (not saying that it is accurate though).
Karma and Cause & Effect are two different things.
Karma is said to pick up momentum, meaning if a deed was done whether good or bad...when it returns, it's more than what it has originated from. Example: if a person was to do an evil act by the time that act returned it would be multiplied (like 3 folds). It is said that it will not return to you in the way you expect it or intend it to return.
Now Cause & Effect is similar to "Action & ReAction". For every cause...it is said that there's an equal effect.
Which is why I say...there's a difference. The initial input of Karma doesn't have an equal output (return)....however Cause and Effect does (so it is said).
Now, do I believe in Karma? (Answer: Yes)
Do I think that Karma and Cause & Effect are the same? (Answer: No)
It's funny you use this example...this is a perfect example of misinterpreting things and using an opinion as a fact.
The fact...lost wallet
The laziness of thinking...not retracing your steps to see if it was a mistake on your part (whether leaving it at a store or dropping it).
The pointing the finger/blame...God maybe punishing me for something I did.
The opinion of reasoning (why)...maybe I was selfish and being mean by not giving that guy a dollar on the corner that might have needed it.
The opinion becoming a fact...that was Karma
Often done by many people, but never understood...just point the finger in the direction of what/who to blame, then keep it moving. But the true fact is...it might not have been karma at all or it may have been. That person wouldn't know because they never made an effect to rule out their own negligence.
Right on, Shawn, I understood the concept of chaos theory, just didn't know that was what it was being called.
All the definitions of karma are subject to one's interpretation. Why is Lincoln the hero, when he was complicit with the murder and enslavement on American soil of thousands, if not millions? I don't look at him much different than Hitler, in fact if I were to do a historical analysis, seeking for inhumanities committed under each man's reign, I'm sure based on size and time alone, Lincoln would come out with more blood on his hand. The inconsistencies aren't mine, they come with the usage of the term karma; they come with the explanation of events based on moral judgments and decisions. Which I'm not dismissing by the way, it just get very complicated.
RIGHT!!And once again, I'm not dismissing whatever definition we want to give karma, or how we use it, but most people speak of Karma like they speak of the Holy Ghost/Spirit, or hell, splitting poles, that "spook" god mentality...like you said lazy thinking. i don't want to offend anybody, I don't know, maybe not giving someone a dollar could cause some electro-magnetic occurrence pulling one's wallet out of their pocket, or even possibly a subconscious, maybe Freud would say super conscious, reaction causing you to forget your wallet, I don't know. But I do know, most people that I've heard speak of karma, aren't thinking about causation, chaotic or otherwise.
OK. But I don't see what Lincoln has to do with this. LOL.
And however you (people that believe in Karma) chose to define it; quasi-causal moral justice (Owl) or cumulative cyclical justice (wutdadeal3), whatever the case, it remains a question of faith.
Faith ...
http://www.bgol.us/board/showpost.php?p=7239156&postcount=1
Read the article, made a lot of sense.
Um, just an example of why I don't completely support Karma as cause and effect, well, an inconsistency. Sort of goes back to the why do bad things happen to morally neutral or good people, well, why do good things happen to bad people...so to speak.
And that's why I invoked chaos theory. Perhaps the so called "bad thing happening to the good person" that doesn't appear to fit into the Karmic causal chain of events and is perceived as random may actually not be. Maybe it's just an infinitesimal perturbations of initial conditions of a very sensitive deterministic event that exponentially evolves and manifests as a random event and although we think it's a violation of Karmic causality, it actually just an event in a chaotic system... so to speak.
Oh and for the record:
Karma (Sanskrit: कर्म kárma, kárman- "act, action, performance"; Pali: kamma) in Indian religions is the concept of "action" or "deed", understood as that which causes the entire cycle of cause and effect (i.e., the cycle called saṃsāra) originating in ancient India and treated in Hindu, Jain, Sikh and Buddhist philosophies.
Source: The Manual of Life - Karma,Parvesh Singla, section 1
In Buddhism:
Karma (Pāli kamma) is strictly distinguished from vipāka, meaning "fruit" or "result". Karma is categorized within the group or groups of cause (Pāli hetu) in the chain of cause and effect, where it comprises the elements of "volitional activities" (Pali sankhara) and "action" (Pali bhava).
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma#Buddhism
Last edited:
Damn, I remembered this thread from over a year and a half ago thanks to Onyx's Random Thoughts post. Red it again with some updated comments:
Also, the effect of a cause is not always equivalent (in whatever metric you chose) to the cause. It's more nuanced. You can have a very large effect from a very small cause. Perturbation/Chaos Theory. It's all about reducibility of the physics of interactions. Owl was right.
And Owl, I actually understand where you're coming from with the Lincoln/Hitler example. I agree 100%.
You're doing the same shit you're accusing Owl of below. By what objective criteria did you arrive at the conclusion in large bold red above??
Also, the effect of a cause is not always equivalent (in whatever metric you chose) to the cause. It's more nuanced. You can have a very large effect from a very small cause. Perturbation/Chaos Theory. It's all about reducibility of the physics of interactions. Owl was right.
And Owl, I actually understand where you're coming from with the Lincoln/Hitler example. I agree 100%.
I agree with Sean69.
Cause and Effect require a direct connection. To prove causal inference, we have to be able to make an inferential leap from data or evidence to the claim.
With Karma, the inferential leap is a metaphysical one. It doesn't require proof or direct connections. One cannot prove that a reaction or effect is linked to good or bad karma.
With causation, you have to be able to prove through sound reasoning that two things are connected.
They aren't in-congruent terms. They are just on different levels of thought. Cause and Effect is a physical entity that can be proven through science, reasoning, etc, Karma is a metaphysical entity. It requires belief in the metaphysical.
Cause and Effect require a direct connection. To prove causal inference, we have to be able to make an inferential leap from data or evidence to the claim.
With Karma, the inferential leap is a metaphysical one. It doesn't require proof or direct connections. One cannot prove that a reaction or effect is linked to good or bad karma.
With causation, you have to be able to prove through sound reasoning that two things are connected.
They aren't in-congruent terms. They are just on different levels of thought. Cause and Effect is a physical entity that can be proven through science, reasoning, etc, Karma is a metaphysical entity. It requires belief in the metaphysical.
Cause and effect are related in a more practical, or maybe logical is a better word, way.
While Karma deals with a philosophy which is based on ethics and/or morals.
Now that I've settled that (feels good to be a 'know-it-all'), to answer the OP... Yes, I believe in Karma.
I believe there is a 'Score keeper' above me and I should do what's in my best interest for said 'score keeper' to look upon me favorably.
Tangent: MY problem seems to be that I have a problem with my 'score keeper' concerning shit that's thrown my way and put on my plate for me to eat. I don't feel like my actions warrant my eating of others' shit, or of the shit that's tossed to/on me.
While Karma deals with a philosophy which is based on ethics and/or morals.
Now that I've settled that (feels good to be a 'know-it-all'), to answer the OP... Yes, I believe in Karma.
I believe there is a 'Score keeper' above me and I should do what's in my best interest for said 'score keeper' to look upon me favorably.
Tangent: MY problem seems to be that I have a problem with my 'score keeper' concerning shit that's thrown my way and put on my plate for me to eat. I don't feel like my actions warrant my eating of others' shit, or of the shit that's tossed to/on me.
Cause and effect is the more she sucks, the faster I lick!
When you think about it, the term "cause and effect" is pretty ambiguous. Deterministic; A --> B, where B can be precisely predicted based on the knowledge of the nature of A. The difference between a chaos (appears to be random, but has underlying order/structure) and a randomness is that a random system has no describable deterministic pattern. It's random as far as the underlying order is a mystery.
By the most fundamental level, according to the most powerful predictive theory in physics (as we know today) events are purely random. Causality only comes into play as you add more stuff to the system -- more interacting things. Which makes you think. Since we can never truly be alone or completely isolated from our environment, every fucking thing we do is part of a web of interlinked deterministic interactions with everyone and thing else.
Just because we can't figure out the underlying rules using physics suggests to me that perhaps a combination physics and a meta-physics could be the complete answer.
/ramble
precisely.
The scientific paradigm is an interesting case indeed. We have priveleged science for so long that we think an experiment constitutes causality. There are always factors at play beyond our control, whether you believe in the metaphysical or not.
I do think the simple answer is Karma is a metaphysical explanation of cause and effect. But it isn't the simplistic cause and effect we are thinking of. It is a much more complex theory.
Fun thread.
One of the mathematical methods that physics uses to understand the mechanics of complex system is called Perturbation Theory. It starts with simplified model of the complex system, solves it, adds "correction factors" to get closer to the original complex problem, solves it again and keeps going on approaching the real representation of the system. aka, the "truth". This is a very simplified explanation but again, just clever math engineering tool. Math that's limited by the bivalent logic. True or false.
Think about it. You have a complex chaotic problem made of many interacting parts, to figure it out, you simplify to smaller interacting parts, then start adding "what if's" in between to solve it.
Now imagine if you have only two things interacting (the cause) and the outcome (the effect) is too complex to understand. So you reduce it to one thing and then what?
Last edited:
While there are areas of overlap where there is general concensus, good and evil are arbituary concepts, so what you consider good another person may not.
In answer to the OP's question, no I don't believe in Karma.
And cause and effect is not the same as Karma as Karma is a spiritual concept whereas cause and affect can be proven one way or another.
In mechanics and electronics it is called 'feedback'. The technique is used in an electronic circuit called Phase Lock Loop (PLL). A set point is established and any error from that set point is measured in phase difference. The appropriate compensation is used to hold the set point.
Energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only be converted from one form to another.
Thermodynamics first law
Makes sense.
Similar threads
