Ambarsaria ji,
From falsehoods emanate false conjectures. Hence the title of this thread.
Let us find out what the denial of Karma emanates from, falsehood and false conjectures or an understanding of the Truth.
There is "NO LAW OF KARMA" to start with.
What then is the Truth against which this Law is judged as false?
Creation deals with the good and bad as and when necessary without rigid laws governing the same.
*This* is conjecture.
To start with, what has necessitated the idea of things been created and therefore a creator? The concept of good vs. evil comes from the very fact that two different experiences in our lives have different characteristics, functions and manifestations and that these cause different reactions in people. What they truly are and what are the causes and conditions for their arising, this we are ignorant of, hence the speculations.
Understanding would have it that the law of moral cause and effect is inherent in the very nature of good and evil states (precisely the mental factor of intention). This however, is being overlooked due to being drawn in by the speculative idea of creator / creation against which moral states are then seen as subjected to an arbitrary law, re: the will of the creator. Is this not a case of the individual projecting his own ignorance?
Of course humans have laws of reward and retribution but these probably have no significance or standing in the greater expanse of the universe.
Are you referring to societal rules?
Here again, instead of asking the right questions such as that, “why is it that killing, stealing, lying, malicious speech, gossiping, ill-will for example, are considered bad, and generosity, moral restraint, kindness, compassion and so on are considered good, by all people of all times?”, and perhaps come to consider that in fact these are real phenomena with distinct characteristics, knowable when experienced. Instead, having been drawn by the idea of “greater expanse” you make them inconsequential and unworthy of consideration. Yet the fact remains that you will continue to be driven by these same realities not only till the end of this life but also beyond, while forever remaining ignorant of what they really are.
Compare it to the "Law of Gravity", "Law of Conservation of Energy", and so on which are real observed, experimented and proven.
Do you know the truth of the law of conservation of energy other than by being convinced through reason? Do you take reasoning using different concepts, as determinative of the Truth? But of course I am guessing that five hundred years ago, when the law of conservation of energy was still unknown, you'd have accepted it in principle due to a materialist / eternalist view influencing your thoughts.
The law of gravity and conservation of energy are conventional manifestations of underlying laws between physical realities about which science does not and will never have a clue. It is with similar cluelessness that you approach the question of birth, life and death under the influence of speculative theories where certain concepts are made to appear valid through use of reason, and no understanding of the here and now is ever involved.
“The world! The world!” is the saying, lord. Pray, how far, lord, does this saying go?
What is transitory by nature, Ånanda, is called “the world” in the Ariyan discipline. And what, Ånanda, is transitory by nature? The eye, Ånanda, is transitory by nature…objects…tongue…mind is transitory by nature, mind-states, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, whatsoever pleasant feeling or unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling arises owing to mind-contact, that also is transitory by nature. What is thus transitory, Ånanda, is called “the world” in the Ariyan discipline."
Compare it to so called law of Karma where certain misfortunes may be assigned to actions taken from generations ago.
If a rock slides down the hill and hits me, the rock sliding down is solely due to a series of physical phenomena, including gravity. My being there and hit is due to several causes and conditions, some physical and some mental. The intensity of injury depends on many factors including the weight and angle of the rock and which part of the body is hit. The bodily pain how much or little, being a mental phenomena, is the result of another mental phenomena in the past, namely karma, and this, not only one, but many of them, one after another.
Is this how you conceive of the concept? I doubt it. If you want to argue against karma, try to do so based on this particular understanding and not what you in your own misunderstanding, make of it.
Of course there are impacts of forefathers on our lives but these are not one to one mapped as to one bad deed generating a corresponding bad fortune and so on.
“Impacts of forefathers”!? Show me how this is not a case of asserting to be true what in fact is purely the product of imagination.
But you are correct, it must be a case of imagination too to insist on making a connection between one past deed with a particular situation of bad / good fortune in the present. The law of karma is to be understood and not speculated upon.
For example, the Hinduism merchants (pandits, Brahmins) walk in to exploit such vulnerabilities by promising to help you break such curses or omens. However this is no different than exploiting the vulnerable of their wealth and enslave so gullible.
People who intend to exploit will use any number of ideas to do so, the concept of God included. Why do you use this fact to prove invalid the concept of karma?
The same gross exploitation that our Guru ji tried to free the masses of the region from.
Free from the misunderstanding by pointing to the motives of those pundits or from the concept of karma itself?
Unfortunately many learned, including Sikhs out there and here on this forum, continue to not follow teachings of our Guru ji and keep falling back into the abyss that our Guru ji pulled their forefathers and mothers out of.
Ah, forefathers!!?
So the forefather's influence didn't pass down did it?
Fundamentally a gross insult to the teachings of Guru ji's and others as penned into Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji.
But what if Guru Nanak did not in fact reject karma, would that not make you the one insulting his teachings?
According to me, denial of karma or moral cause and effect is one of the worst attitudes to go by.
