collective karma

Post by fife
Collective karma is something that everyone seems to believe exists, but believes it either instinctively or intuitively. People use the term but no one seems to have a good definition of it.
https://kleong54.medium.com/our-collective-karma-4cf13c42695b

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.

The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!

I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

Henosis Sage

2022-05-24 07:31:44 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

Some people tt, say the most ludicrous untrue things. hyperbole / extreme generalizations for effect.

Henosis Sage

2022-05-24 12:19:40 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

Some people tt, say the most ludicrous untrue things. hyperbole / extreme generalizations for effect.

everyone?
either/or?
no one?

isn't that speaking for others?

I think it is. but imho i could be wrong.

what do you think? :)

Tisra Til

2022-05-24 17:52:30 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

Some people tt, say the most ludicrous untrue things. hyperbole / extreme generalizations for effect.

everyone?
either/or?
no one?
isn't that speaking for others?
I think it is. but imho i could be wrong.
what do you think? :)

Evam.

Henosis Sage

2022-05-25 04:16:49 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

Some people tt, say the most ludicrous untrue things. hyperbole / extreme generalizations for effect.

everyone?
either/or?
no one?
isn't that speaking for others?
I think it is. but imho i could be wrong.
what do you think? :)

Evam.

evam?

“Ending Violence Against Migrants”
E-Vam Institute – Ethics, Concentration, Wisdom
Evam is a leading provider of next generation customer engagement paradigms, tools and systems to connect enterprises to their customers

? :)

fife

2022-05-24 19:22:57 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.

"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

fife

2022-05-24 19:42:54 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

The quote is from a long, boring lecture on the probability of collective karma if anyone reading this wants to know its source
https://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/Lecture10.pdf

Tisra Til

2022-05-25 00:55:44 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

Oh, okay. Gotcha. I had not heard of Wilhelm Halbfass before. He might have a unique perspective to look into from where he was coming from. Thanks for clearing that up. ✌️

Henosis Sage

2022-05-25 04:26:18 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

Sounds great. Why not say so as clearly in the first place?

"to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma (in my opinion, that I am aware of)) but I think there should be. "

is not the same meaning/s in my opinion as typing

"Collective karma is something that everyone seems to believe exists, but believes it either instinctively or intuitively. People use the term but no one seems to have a good definition of it. "

https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=collective+karma&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0

karma is karma ... "... whatsoever a man soweth, that! shall he also reap,"

individual or collective there is no difference.

except how one deals with it. :)

So what's his name?

Has the cat got your tongue yet again fife?

"Seems" to .....

fife

2022-05-25 18:55:40 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

Sounds great. Why not say so as clearly in the first place?
"to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma (in my opinion, that I am aware of)) but I think there should be. "
is not the same meaning/s in my opinion as typing
"Collective karma is something that everyone seems to believe exists, but believes it either instinctively or intuitively. People use the term but no one seems to have a good definition of it. '
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=collective+karma&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0
karma is karma ... "... whatsoever a man soweth, that! shall he also reap,"
individual or collective there is no difference.
except how one deals with it. :)
So what's his name?
Has the cat got your tongue yet again fife?
"Seems" to .....

🙂 Okay. "Seems" is the right word, because I can't find a definition for "collective karma" anywhere. No one has anything definitive to say about it. They just use the term.

What it seems to boil down to is whether there is actually any such thing as "collective karma" at all. Or is it just an idea coming out of the "new thought" movement of the 19th century? Without the backing of a mental activity or formation that can be described succinctly in a few short words. Is it just a sensational notion that goes forward because of its appeal as a sensational notion?

If no one can actually put their finger no it to say what it is (and how it works) that seems to be the case.

Henosis Sage

2022-05-26 09:21:27 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

Sounds great. Why not say so as clearly in the first place?
"to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma (in my opinion, that I am aware of)) but I think there should be. "
is not the same meaning/s in my opinion as typing
"Collective karma is something that everyone seems to believe exists, but believes it either instinctively or intuitively. People use the term but no one seems to have a good definition of it. '
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=collective+karma&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0
karma is karma ... "... whatsoever a man soweth, that! shall he also reap,"
individual or collective there is no difference.
except how one deals with it. :)
So what's his name?
Has the cat got your tongue yet again fife?
"Seems" to .....

🙂 Okay. "Seems" is the right word, because I can't find a definition for "collective karma" anywhere. No one has anything definitive to say about it. They just use the term.
What it seems to boil down to is whether there is actually any such thing as "collective karma" at all. Or is it just an idea coming out of the "new thought" movement of the 19th century? Without the backing of a mental activity or formation that can be described succinctly in a few short words. Is it just a sensational notion that goes forward because of its appeal as a sensational notion?
If no one can actually put their finger no it to say what it is (and how it works) that seems to be the case.

Congrats. A straight level headed response that makes basic sense in and of itself. (because whether viewers agree or nor, or see things differently etc is beside the point)

Tisra Til

2022-05-26 18:28:05 UTC

EVERYONE seems to believe? Individual karma, maybe. But it’s quite a big jump to collective karma. That’s a quantum leap to go from the little ego-driven personal dramas into a more inclusive reality where you are aware of a mind and self that you share in common with other minds and selves.
The author of that article who claims to be a Buddhist teacher claims the Buddha said there is no “self”. If he believes that, he is no Buddhist. If that were true, then there never would have been a Buddha to say that, and there never would have been this Buddhist “teacher” who made this claim, because HE doesn’t even exist. How could there be a teacher or teaching if neither the teacher or what claims to have taught didn’t even EXIST!
I “personally” like the Theosophical idea, which is basically the Vedantic Hindu idea, that Karma is the LAW of LAWS in the universe. No thing or individual acts solely on it’s own. Everything, everyone related. No one escapes that law. So collective karma is a given for them, and I concur. ☯️

T.T.
I was just posting to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma but I think there should be.
I know you're inti Theosophy and since you mentioned Theosophy and the Vedic religion you might be interested in this quote I came across looking for that good definition of collective karma which (in theory) has to be somewhere.
"According to Wilhelm Halbfass, this notion of collective karma is not part of traditional
Indian thought. The origin of the idea seems to be the doctrine of karma as taught by the
Theosophical Society, which was founded in 1875. Halbfass also notes that it was the
Theosophical Society that introduced the expression “the law of karma.” In traditional Hindu
and Buddhist texts, karma is never referred to as a law in any of the several senses of that
English word, although it is described in ways that naturally make Western people think of it
as being somewhat like other laws of nature, such as the law of gravity or the law of
diminishing returns."

Sounds great. Why not say so as clearly in the first place?
"to say there doesn't appear to be a good definition for collective karma (in my opinion, that I am aware of)) but I think there should be. "
is not the same meaning/s in my opinion as typing
"Collective karma is something that everyone seems to believe exists, but believes it either instinctively or intuitively. People use the term but no one seems to have a good definition of it. '
https://www.startpage.com/do/dsearch?query=collective+karma&cat=web&pl=ext-ff&language=english&extVersion=1.3.0
karma is karma ... "... whatsoever a man soweth, that! shall he also reap,"
individual or collective there is no difference.
except how one deals with it. :)
So what's his name?
Has the cat got your tongue yet again fife?
"Seems" to .....

🙂 Okay. "Seems" is the right word, because I can't find a definition for "collective karma" anywhere. No one has anything definitive to say about it. They just use the term.
What it seems to boil down to is whether there is actually any such thing as "collective karma" at all. Or is it just an idea coming out of the "new thought" movement of the 19th century? Without the backing of a mental activity or formation that can be described succinctly in a few short words. Is it just a sensational notion that goes forward because of its appeal as a sensational notion?
If no one can actually put their finger no it to say what it is (and how it works) that seems to be the case.

It’s just a logical notion that comes out of nondualist philosophy. In nondualism, there is no “thing” or phenomenon in the universe that exists alone, separate, in and by itself. From that perspective, cause and effect has existed forever, eternally. Can this be objectively validated? Proven to be a fact? Not really. It’s just taken on faith to be true based on a nondualist view of existence. Phenomena “appear” to be connected based on a higher awareness not connected to the 5 physical senses. The 6th sense, or intuition, can see connected patterns that point to an interconnecteded web, like Indra’s Net, I believe it is called. All parts of the web are connected, though it doesn’t look like it from only one vantage point in space.

fife

2022-05-26 22:18:41 UTC