What is rational about belief in karma?
Dene Bebbington
in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
to the evidence for karma?
--
Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
John McGuirk
Dene Bebbington wrote in message ...
>A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>to the evidence for karma?
I don't think there's any physical evidence Dene - it's a belief ... it's
personal and powerful, and in this case a belief in Karma,
I belief in it, and I don't require any physical evidence. Life examples are
good enough for me, and it makes sense to me. As I said, it's personal - do
or don't, believe, disbelieve - it's up to the individual to accept it or
reject it,
Love and Peace,
John
Judy Stein
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
> in karma are not superstition.
For the record, what I said was that it's bigotry to call belief
in karma "superstitious."
> If that is so then can anyone out there explain what the rational
> basis for such a belief in karma is, and point to the evidence
> for karma?
Despite appearances, this is really a rhetorical question; or
rather, it's a statement Dene is unwilling to make explicitly.
Dene's subject heading makes this a bit clearer.
I think we need to ask Dene to define a number of his terms
before we begin to explore the issue.
Dene, please tell us what *you* mean by:
o karma
o superstition
o rational
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dene Bebbington
>In article <PsePtQA2...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>,
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>> in karma are not superstition.
>
>For the record, what I said was that it's bigotry to call belief
>in karma "superstitious."
Okay, I took that as implying you think a belief in karma is not
superstitious.
>> If that is so then can anyone out there explain what the rational
>> basis for such a belief in karma is, and point to the evidence
>> for karma?
>
>Despite appearances, this is really a rhetorical question; or
>rather, it's a statement Dene is unwilling to make explicitly.
Again Judy professes to read minds, she just can't stop herself from
making this kind of arrogant statement. It's actually a genuine question
because I'm not very clear on what MMY's beliefs about karma are, so I
want to know what is rational about them.
>Dene's subject heading makes this a bit clearer.
>
>I think we need to ask Dene to define a number of his terms
>before we begin to explore the issue.
>
>Dene, please tell us what *you* mean by:
>
> o karma
Why are you asking me to define the term you used?
> o superstition
The meaning I had in mind was an irrational belief.
> o rational
Why don't you look it up in that thing you keep calling "Mr Dictionary"
when responding to Avital.
Rhianna
<de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>to the evidence for karma?
Karma is a belief which originated within the Hindu religion.
Many religions have elements within them that are believed because
of Faith. Would it be a fair assumption to say that both the Judaic
and Christian religions share a belief in the First Book of Moses
which is known as Genesis? The Hindus believed/believe that
the divine will is expressed in the Laws of Manu.
Whether someone believes in The Old Testament of The Holy Bible
or in the "principle of universal order" set by The Laws of Manu is
an act of Faith. Faith is a belief system which does not always have
a rational basis. Within the Laws of Manu there is an interdependence
between "the essential nature of man (Dharma)" and "his deeds
(Karma)" which is seen as a reciprocal correlation with a person's
deeds affecting his/her outcome and "essential nature."
The phrases about the Laws of Manu within quotes have
been taken from the ideas expressed within the book,
"Principles of Water Law and Administration: National
and International" by Dante Augusto Caponera on page
12.
>--
>Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
>
>"Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the lilies
>stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A wind
>just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
~Cheers~
Rhianna
http://www.pipeline.com/~rhianna/index.htm
Zodiac, groovy fortunetelling, mystical fun stuff
alt.astrology Cahooter #29
Loren A. King
> Dene Bebbington:
>> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>> in karma are not superstition.
> For the record, what I said was that it's bigotry to call belief
> in karma "superstitious."
>> If that is so then can anyone out there explain what the rational
>> basis for such a belief in karma is, and point to the evidence
>> for karma?
>... I think we need to ask Dene to define a number of his terms
> before we begin to explore the issue. Dene, please tell us what
> *you* mean by:
> o karma
> o superstition
> o rational
Fair enough. But I'm also curious to know what you mean by
"superstition", and what counts as bigotry and why.
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Steve Benjamin
Karma, as defined by MasterPath, is as follows:
Action; the law of cause and effect; action and reaction; the debits and
credits resulting from our deeds, which bring us back to the worlds in
future lives to reap their fruits. There are four types of karma:
Original karma - karma of the beginning; not earned by the individual, but
established by The Creator in the beginning.
Fate karma - past actions that re responsible for our present conditions;
that portion of our karma which is allotted to this life and is responsible
for our present existence.
Present karma - the result of actions during the present life.
Stored karma - the balance of unpaid karmas from all our past lives; the
store of karma located in the causal plane to be worked off or to bear fruit
in future incarnations.
Baraka Bashad,
Steve
htp://www.masterpath.org
Dene Bebbington wrote:
> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
> in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
> to the evidence for karma?
>
Avital Pilpel
> Why don't you look it up in that thing you keep calling "Mr Dictionary"
> when responding to Avital.
You forget that Judy's rules apply to other people, not to Judy. She is
like Ed Wollman and other kooks in this way.
When *Judy* uses a word, then any criticism on its use in a misleading or
obviously wrong way (e.g. "Yogic Flying") is wrong. You see, she has a
right to use words in any way she wishes, to mean anything she wishes. And
those who criticize here just DON'T UNDERSTAND what she REALLY means.
But when *someone else* uses a common word in a way that, god forbid, does
not fit EXACTLY with what Webster's dictionary says...
Legion
There is no rational basis for karma. What is very rational is to
inculcate a belief in karma. In particular a govenment or priesthood is
rational to introduce some variation on karma into the core belief
system of a culture. It enables the
organization to extend it's control beyond it's reach. It also helps
that the controlling organization is able to define *good karma* in
order to further it's goals - i.e. it is bad karma to foment revolt or
heresy.
In western culture there are many, many variations on the phrase - "what
goes around, comes around" - that amount to the concept of karma.
Phrases such as this enable one to tolerate injustices, etc. Phrases
such as - "bread upon the water" - are used to promote positive actions
that bring no immediate reward.
The concept that karma extends beyond one's lifetime was introduced to
get around the obvious fact that not everyone gets what they deserve,
good or bad, in their lifetime.
Why eastern cultures found it necessary to postulate karma rather
blatantly, and western cultures used a more subtle approach, would be an
interesting question.
Now as to Judy's claim that Yogi's "beliefs in karma are not
superstition". As Avital has pointed out, this statement turns on
Judy's use of Mr. Dictionary. If Judy is using Mr. Dictionary to sit
on, and so elevate her diminutive self above the rest of us, words mean
one thing. If Judy wants to use Mr. Dictionary to squash someone, words
mean something else.
Judy has, in the past as here, tried to assert that religious beliefs
are not superstition, and that to claim otherwise is bigotry. Nonsense.
There is very little difference between many, but not all, religious
claims and superstition. One can respect the beliefs of others and not
denigrate them, and still call a spade a spade.
Most superstitions are intended to help individuals get thru the day and
deal with the stresses of daily existence. This is exactly the
*rational* basis for the use of the karma concept that I elaborated
above. Karma may be a comforting superstition but it is a superstition
nontheless.
My *Mistress Dictionary* defines superstition as "1. a belief or
notion, not based on reason or knowledge..." If Judy wishes to offer
some TM validated reasons or knowledge that would change karma from a
superstition to a reality, we will hold our, er, breath.
Karma, like heaven and hell, is a superstitious belief that is,
nontheless, central to one of the major cultures of our planet.
An albatross (another western synonym for karma),
Legion
Lawson English
>A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>to the evidence for karma?
>
First, you must ask: "What is 'karma' according to MMY?"
THEN you can ask whether or not his beliefs about it are rational or
superstition.
As it happens, MMY's earliest writings in the USA carefully define the term
when he first starts using it.
Now, you can claim that MMY's definition of karma is non-standard, and/or
that his interpretation of the Sanskrit is non-standard, but until you know
what HE means by the term, you can't legitimately discuss whether or not
his beliefs are rational
What does the word "karma" mean to you and what do you think that it means
when MMY uses it?
[note that this is a technical term in the Vedic lexicon and that MMY has
stated explicitly that virtually the entire interpretation of the Vedic
tradition in India has been wrong for a VERY long time, so you can't merely
claim that he is redefining terms to suit himself -in one sense he is, but
he makes it VERY clear that he is doing this -it is the core of what he
considers the revival of the Vedic tradition: reinterpreting terms
properly]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English. Squeak, snore, etc.
Check out <http://www.squeak.org>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English
>I think we need to ask Dene to define a number of his terms
>before we begin to explore the issue.
>
>Dene, please tell us what *you* mean by:
>
> o karma
> o superstition
> o rational
Also, does MMY's interpretation of "karma" differ in any way from Dene's?
Lawson English
"Karma" may now be a common word in English, but it is a technical word
when used by a Vedic scholar/practitioner.
The common-place definition may have no relationship to the original
definition (as interpreted by the scholar/practitioner) or it may have the
precise same meaning OR it may have the same meaning at one superficial
level, but have different nuances, depending on context.
In other words, call "karma" a common word may not be valid in the context
of discussing a radical, renegade-reform Yogic monk's use of the term. You
simply MUST go back to what HE says is the meaning and significance and not
draw it out of a standard English/American-mystical dictionary and say
"see, told you."
If you do this, you may or may not reach the conclusion that belief in
karma is superstition, but at least you'll have made an honest attempt to
understand what MMY is saying.
Lawson English
>
>My *Mistress Dictionary* defines superstition as "1. a belief or
>notion, not based on reason or knowledge..." If Judy wishes to offer
>some TM validated reasons or knowledge that would change karma from a
>superstition to a reality, we will hold our, er, breath.
>
>Karma, like heaven and hell, is a superstitious belief that is,
>nontheless, central to one of the major cultures of our planet.
What is "karma" according to YOU?
Lawson English
>On Sat, 11 Sep 1999 16:09:42 +0100, Dene Bebbington
><de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>>to the evidence for karma?
>
> Karma is a belief which originated within the Hindu religion.
>Many religions have elements within them that are believed because
>of Faith. Would it be a fair assumption to say that both the Judaic
>and Christian religions share a belief in the First Book of Moses
>which is known as Genesis? The Hindus believed/believe that
>the divine will is expressed in the Laws of Manu.
>
>Whether someone believes in The Old Testament of The Holy Bible
>or in the "principle of universal order" set by The Laws of Manu is
>an act of Faith. Faith is a belief system which does not always have
>a rational basis. Within the Laws of Manu there is an interdependence
>between "the essential nature of man (Dharma)" and "his deeds
>(Karma)" which is seen as a reciprocal correlation with a person's
>deeds affecting his/her outcome and "essential nature."
>
>The phrases about the Laws of Manu within quotes have
>been taken from the ideas expressed within the book,
>"Principles of Water Law and Administration: National
>and International" by Dante Augusto Caponera on page
Lots of different gurus put slightly different slants on various Sanskrit
terms.
MMY, in many ways, does this more than virtually any other living person
that I am aware of.
The definition of "karma" that you find in one dictionary may not fit MMY's
term precisely or even remotely.
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> >
> > Why don't you look it up in that thing you keep calling "Mr Dictionary"
> > when responding to Avital.
>
> You forget that Judy's rules apply to other people, not to Judy. She is
> like Ed Wollman and other kooks in this way.
Actually, she's more like the Queen of Hearts and Humpty
Dumpty all rolled into one crazy, bellowing, threatening,
self-centered, arrogant Monster of Wonderland. See below.
> When *Judy* uses a word, then any criticism on its use in a misleading or
> obviously wrong way (e.g. "Yogic Flying") is wrong. You see, she has a
> right to use words in any way she wishes, to mean anything she wishes. And
> those who criticize here just DON'T UNDERSTAND what she REALLY means.
>
> But when *someone else* uses a common word in a way that, god forbid, does
> not fit EXACTLY with what Webster's dictionary says...
I could almost believe that Lewis Carroll had Judy Stein in
mind when he wrote this:
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a
rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it
to mean--neither more nor less.
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can
make words mean different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is
to be master--that's all."
Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after
a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.
"They've a temper, some of them--particularly verbs,
they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything
with, but not verbs--however, I can manage the
whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"
"Would you tell me, please," said Alice, "what that
means ?"
"Now you talk like a reasonable child," said Humpty
Dumpty, looking very much pleased. "I meant by
"impenetrability' that we've had enough of that
subject, and it would be just as well if you'd
mention
what you meant to do next, as I suppose you don't
intend to stop here all the rest of your life."
"That's a great deal to make one word mean," Alice
said in a thoughtful tone.
"When I make a word do a lot of work like that,"
said Humpty Dumpty," I always pay it extra."
If you don't like it when Judy uses a word to mean anything
she wants it to mean, better not tell her. Like the Queen of
Hearts, she'll try to take your head off.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog
Dene Bebbington
>Judy Stein <jst...@panix.com>
>
>>I think we need to ask Dene to define a number of his terms
>>before we begin to explore the issue.
>>
>>Dene, please tell us what *you* mean by:
>>
>> o karma
>> o superstition
>> o rational
>
>
>
>Also, does MMY's interpretation of "karma" differ in any way from Dene's?
I know what the vernacular usage of karma means, but I was asking about
what MMY's belief in karma is. Goodness knows why Judy was asking me to
define a word she used and I was asking about in that context.
Dene Bebbington
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>>A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>>to the evidence for karma?
>>
>
That was implicit since I was referring to Judy's comment in the context
of MMY that calling a belief in karma "superstitious" is bigotry. I want
to ascertain the basis on which she makes this claim of bigotry.
>THEN you can ask whether or not his beliefs about it are rational or
>superstition.
Well done Lawson, you've finally caught up.
>As it happens, MMY's earliest writings in the USA carefully define the term
>when he first starts using it.
>
>Now, you can claim that MMY's definition of karma is non-standard, and/or
>that his interpretation of the Sanskrit is non-standard, but until you know
>what HE means by the term, you can't legitimately discuss whether or not
>his beliefs are rational
Right, one of the things I'm wanting to know is what MMY's belief in
karma is - ie. what to him does karma mean?
>What does the word "karma" mean to you and what do you think that it means
>when MMY uses it?
That's irrelevant, I'm asking about MMY's belief in karma not what I
think the word means. In fact I was pretty sure that MMY's concept of
karma is not exactly the same as the vernacular usage of the word, hence
my question.
I'm unclear as to why you seem to be playing Judy's trick of asking
someone to define a word that she used, and they are asking a question
about.
>[note that this is a technical term in the Vedic lexicon and that MMY has
>stated explicitly that virtually the entire interpretation of the Vedic
>tradition in India has been wrong for a VERY long time, so you can't merely
>claim that he is redefining terms to suit himself -in one sense he is, but
>he makes it VERY clear that he is doing this -it is the core of what he
>considers the revival of the Vedic tradition: reinterpreting terms
>properly]
So, what is his interpretation? Why the coyness in telling us?
Andrew A. Skolnick
Because Judy and Lawson are playing yet another of their
word games, Dene. And look where the last one got Lawson.
Sheesh! Doesn't he ever learn?
You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
c_ar...@my-deja.com
asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
> demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
> chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
Let me use another example: "How can anyone cope with
being referred to as a 'journalist' in today's world
without hanging themselves?"
Given your statement above, I am certain you have no
problem with MY implied definition, right? After all,
it is a word that I am using, and for anyone to ask
YOU to define it would be chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dene Bebbington
>In article <37DDA222...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
> asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
>> You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
>> demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
>> chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>
>Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
>started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
>justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
>negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
Actually, I said this:
"A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
to the evidence for karma?"
I said this because "superstitious" usually refers to an unfounded or
irrational belief. It was Andrew who originally used the word
"superstitious" and has confirmed to me that the meaning he had in mind
is an irrational belief. Now, since Judy has said it is bigotry to call
a belief in karma superstitious this implies she thinks such a belief
isn't superstitious - hence not irrational. Thus I'm asking what the
evidence is for MMY's belief in karma and why it is a rational belief.
To anybody who has got their thinking cap on it should be obvious that
what I think karma means is irrelevant since I'm asking about MMY's
belief in it.
Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
meaning she did have in mind.
Regarding karma, Lawson was playing one of Judy's tricks of asking me to
define a word that Judy used and is being questioned about.
[...]
c_ar...@my-deja.com
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> c_ar...@my-deja.com writes:
> >In article <37DDA222...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
> > asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> >> You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
> >> demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
> >> chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
> >
> >Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
> >started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
> >justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
> >negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
>
> Actually, I said this:
>
> "A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's
beliefs
> in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and
point
> to the evidence for karma?"
>
> I said this because "superstitious" usually refers to an unfounded or
> irrational belief. It was Andrew who originally used the word
> "superstitious" and has confirmed to me that the meaning he had in
mind
> is an irrational belief.
My apologies.
> Now, since Judy has said it is bigotry to call
> a belief in karma superstitious this implies she thinks such a belief
> isn't superstitious - hence not irrational.
But if you don't mind my pointing out the obvious, didn't you
just equate the two terms yourself in your summary of what
Judy said? Seems to me that this is the whole point of the
discussion. WHOEVER said it first, why do you associate
'irrational' -- which in MY definition only means something
that is not based on traditional Western linear thought and
the assumption of the validity of the scientific method as
a given -- with 'superstition?'
> Thus I'm asking what the
> evidence is for MMY's belief in karma and why it is a rational belief.
I would love to see someone address the subject without falling
into squabbling mode, but you really have to admit, don't you,
that NO ONE can properly address that question without knowing
how YOU define these two terms (karma and rational) in your mind.
Then and only then can they compare them to what they understand
of Maharishi's beliefs and do a "compare and contrast." By casting
the original question in a negative light and then being too wimpy
to say why, you hold all the cards.
> To anybody who has got their thinking cap on it should be obvious that
> what I think karma means is irrelevant since I'm asking about MMY's
> belief in it.
C'mon, man. I am not a TMer, and have no interest in defending
Maharishi's position on anything. But you wouldn't have asked
the question in the first place if there wasn't something in
your definition of 'karma' that seemed to make it incompatible
with your definition of 'rational.' If you can explain to me
why you seem to feel they are incompatible, I will take a shot
at saying why I think they aren't.
> Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
> unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
> meaning she did have in mind.
Show some balls, man, and tell us your definitions of these two
terms, and then we will have some basis for a discussion. Until
then, as far as I am concerned, you are just jacking off in public.
And one more teaser question: Do you believe that the statement,
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is
either irrational or superstitious?
c_ar...@my-deja.com
asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> c_ar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Let me use another example: "How can anyone cope with
> > being referred to as a 'journalist' in today's world
> > without hanging themselves?"
> >
> > Given your statement above, I am certain you have no
> > problem with MY implied definition, right? After all,
> > it is a word that I am using, and for anyone to ask
> > YOU to define it would be chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>
> and accurate one such as:
> "How can anyone possibly justify being a journalist?"
>
> Had you posted that, you would have been a hell of a lot
> more accurate and fair.
Ok, given the current state of journalism, how can
anyone justify being a journalist? This will become
a more interesting question for you a little further
down.
> Belief in karma is a superstitious belief, as it is defined
> by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
> the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
> mirror.
Andrew, I defy you to show me a dictionary definition that
defines karma as a "superstitious belief." I'll bet
you can't find one, and that you made your statement above
up to support your case.
> Dene is right to question how any rational person could
> justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
> dictionaries.
Webster's defines it as:
kar·ma
Pronunciation: 'kär-m&
Function: noun
Etymology: Sanskrit karma fate, work
Date: 1827
1 often capitalized : the force generated by a person's
actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate
transmigration and in its ethical consequences to
determine the nature of the person's next existence.
My on-line encyclopedia isn't much better:
karma
[Skt., (= (action, work, or ritual], basic concept common
to HINDUISM, BUDDHISM, and JAINISM. The doctrine holds
that one's state in this life is the result of physical
and mental actions in past incarnations and that present
action can determine one's destiny in future incarnations.
Karma is a natural, impersonal law of moral cause and
effect; only those who have attained NIRVANA, or liberation
from rebirth, can transcend karma.
As it happens, in my personal definition, I only agree with
one word in either of these two definitions (action), but my
point (which relates STRONGLY to justifying one's existence
as a journalist) is that I think you made up the "superstition"
part. I would be willing to bet that the editors of diction-
aries have a greater sense of ethics (and legal liability)
than you have, and you cannot produce one VERIFIABLE dictionary
definition (name and edition of source, please) that says that
karma is a "superstitious belief."
Put up or shut up, Andrew. And if you can't, I don't think we
need dwell much longer on my "lack of understanding of the state
of journalism." I think we will have established a clear-cut
case of a noted journalist being willing to lie on a public
forum to make his case.
> But because Judy, Lawson, and other TMers like
> to play word games and substitute their meanings for words,
> he's right to wonder what Judy and Lawson claim are the
> Maharishi's beliefs about karma. Dene uses the standard
> definition for the word. You, Judy, and Lawson should look
> it up. If like the TM word "flying," it means something
> entirely else to Maharishi's followers, then tell us. Don't
> play your TM word games.
I am not a TMer. And I totally and completely agree with you
about TM's use of the term "flying." It is marketing bullshit,
pure and simple. But I remember enough of what Maharishi said
about karma to know that at its basis the theory is no more
complex nor mysterious than the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." The only
thing that the eastern view of karma adds to this statement is
a belief (and you are free to call *this* superstition if you
want, just not to claim that a dictionary does) that the reaction
is not limited to one lifetime.
c_ar...@my-deja.com
with a dictionary definition of karma that uses the words
"superstitious belief," I will be happy to apologize.
But if you can't, I suspect that given the damage that you
and you alone have just done to your reputation will teach
you a great deal more about the nature of karma than you
previously understood.
Bart Lidofsky
: A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
: in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
: explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
: to the evidence for karma?
It depends on your definition of karma, and the world-view in
which you look at it. Karma was, for centuries, (mis)used as a tool by
those in power ("if you are an untouchable, then you must have done
something in a previous life to make you DESERVE to be an untouchable).
But if one looks at how karma was originally envisioned in religious
writings, it is not a form of universal justice, but simple cause and
effect on a macro scale.
Just because you CAUSE something to happen does not mean that you
DESERVE it to happen. A lone camper in the woods is not watching where he
is going, falls into a ditch, and dies horribly of thirst. Did he cause
himself to die that way? Yes. Did he deserve to die that way? Not by the
thinking of the overwhelming majority of people. And that is all that
karma is really about; whenever you make an action (or fail to act),
consequences are created, and spread around the world and (and HERE is the
key part that needs to be proven or disproven) inevitably comes back to
you, in one form or another. While "good" acts do not necessarily bring
desireable results, and "bad" acts do not necessarily bring undesireable
results, acts that make the world a better place to live in have a better
chance of bring desireable effects.
The other part of karma is the concept of "reincarnation", which
can be as complex as one, when dying, forgetting one's "past life" and
being reborn into a new body, or it can be as simple as assuming
consciousness is as much a part of the universe as matter and energy, and
that it therefore can be neither created nor destroyed, so that it just
gets recycled into new bodies. But given either definition, or any in
between, it means that if one makes the world a better place to live in,
one will enjoy the effects, and if one makes the world a worse place to
live in, one will deal with the conseuquences.
So, if one does not believe in reincarnation, karma is simply the
concept that any action of reaction creates a chain of results. If one
does believe in reincarnation (which is currently unprovable), then one
can add that these reactions will eventually coalesce around the person
who created the karma in the first place.
Bart Lidofsky
Dene Bebbington
>c_ar...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <37DDA222...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
>> asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
>> > You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
>> > demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
>> > chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>>
>> Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
>> started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
>> justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
>> negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
>>
>> being referred to as a 'journalist' in today's world
>> without hanging themselves?"
>>
>> Given your statement above, I am certain you have no
>> problem with MY implied definition, right? After all,
>> it is a word that I am using, and for anyone to ask
>> YOU to define it would be chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>
>Please, if you're going to offer an analogy, offer a fair
>and accurate one such as:
>"How can anyone possibly justify being a journalist?"
>
>Had you posted that, you would have been a hell of a lot
>more accurate and fair.
His analogy was not only unfair but irrelevant. I perhaps should have
phrased the question more straightforwardly:
Why is it bigotry to describe MMY's belief in karma as superstitious?
>No, I have no problem with your statement other than finding
>it a twisted analogy. However, it does show more about your
>lack of understanding than it does about the state of
>American journalism.
>
>Belief in karma is a superstitious belief, as it is defined
>by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
>the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
>mirror.
The point isn't what your dictionaries say but what MMY thinks karma is.
>Dene is right to question how any rational person could
>justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
>dictionaries.
Nope, I'm trying to find out what MMY's belief in karma is, I don't know
whether it is the same as the meaning found in dictionaries.
> But because Judy, Lawson, and other TMers like
>to play word games and substitute their meanings for words,
>he's right to wonder what Judy and Lawson claim are the
>Maharishi's beliefs about karma. Dene uses the standard
>definition for the word. You, Judy, and Lawson should look
>it up. If like the TM word "flying," it means something
>entirely else to Maharishi's followers, then tell us. Don't
>play your TM word games.
I know what the common meaning of karma is (which I do think is a
superstitious belief, btw) but I don't know for sure what MMY's
conception of karma is. What I'd like to find out is what his belief in
karma is so that we can judge whether or not it is bigotry to call that
belief superstitious.
B. Mullquist
says...
>
>
>Dene is right to question how any rational person could
>justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
>dictionaries.
Could you give some examples of the dictionary definitions?
And do you know what is the literal meaning of 'karma'?
Dene Bebbington
>> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> > c_ar...@my-deja.com writes:
>> > > asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
>> > >> You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
>> > >> demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
>> > >> chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>> > >
>> > >Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
>> > >started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
>> > >justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
>> > >negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
>> >
>> >
>> > "A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's
>> beliefs
>> > in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>> > explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and
>> point
>> > to the evidence for karma?"
>> >
>> > irrational belief. It was Andrew who originally used the word
>> > "superstitious" and has confirmed to me that the meaning he had in
>> mind
>> > is an irrational belief.
>>
>> My apologies.
>>
>> > Now, since Judy has said it is bigotry to call
>> > a belief in karma superstitious this implies she thinks such a belief
>> > isn't superstitious - hence not irrational.
>>
>> But if you don't mind my pointing out the obvious, didn't you
>> just equate the two terms yourself in your summary of what
>> Judy said? Seems to me that this is the whole point of the
>> discussion. WHOEVER said it first, why do you associate
>> 'irrational' -- which in MY definition only means something
>> that is not based on traditional Western linear thought and
>> a given -- with 'superstition?'
>>
>
>You can chose to define a word anyway you want. But that
>doesn't mean I or anyone else will agree with you. And I
>certainly don't agree with you that "rational" means
>"traditional Western linear thought." Rational thinking is
>not a province of any continent or country or culture.
>
>My dictionary defines "irrational" as "contrary to reason."
>It is irrational to believe the earth is flat or that the
>earth is stationary or that you will have 7 years bad luck
>if you break a mirror or that you will break your mother's
>back if you step on a crack.
>
>Those things are irrational no matter what land you live in
>or what language you speak.
What, you mean rationality is not restricted to people adhering to
traditional Western thought?!
As stated on another post I should perhaps have been more straight to
the point in my question to Judy:
Why is it bigotry to call MMY's belief in karma superstitious?
We can have a more substantive discussion if Judy explains her reasoning
behind her comment about bigotry.
> Until
>> then, as far as I am concerned, you are just jacking off in public.
What a strange mindset you have that asking a question is jacking off in
public.
>> And one more teaser question: Do you believe that the statement,
>> "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is
>> either irrational or superstitious?
>
>Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
>You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
>of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
>crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
>think about these words? For every action there is an equal
>and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
>words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
>good. Sheesh!
I'm not even going to bother trying to answer his question because it
doesn't make much sense to me.
Lawson English
>Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
>unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
>meaning she did have in mind.
>
>Regarding karma, Lawson was playing one of Judy's tricks of asking me to
>define a word that Judy used and is being questioned about.
Actually, no, I had assumed that the thread started when you wrote:
"A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
to the evidence for karma?"
For you to ask what is the rational basis for "such a belief in karma"
without first asking for defintions, or supplying your own, requires OTHER
people to start asking "what do you mean by karma?"
The only "game" I was playing was to try and point out that you were
questioning whether belief in karma could be rational without first asking
what did the other person mean by karma or by supplying your own
definition.
We can't go anywhere without one, no?
Lawson English
>Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
>You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
>of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
>crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
>think about these words? For every action there is an equal
>and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
>words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
>good. Sheesh!
But "karma" has no good or evil associated with it. Those are relative
terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
what the word "karma" means: action.
Dan Moore
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>
> >Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
> >You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
> >of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
> >crackpot thinking.
Not true! If you shove a guy off a cliff, sure as shinola,
you can use Newtonian physics to predict his fate. Now if the
cliff is really, really short, you could argue that Newtonian
physics breaks down and you can no longer predict the dude's
fate.
Dan
What is that karma chameleon that Boy George was singing about?
It comes and goes ohooh
Lawson English
>> Could you give some examples of the dictionary definitions?
>> And do you know what is the literal meaning of 'karma'?
>
>Webster's New World College Dictionary karma n. 1.
>Buddhism & Hinduism. The totality of a person's actions in
>any one of the successive states of that person's existence,
>thought of as determining the fate of the next stage 2.
>loosely, fate; destiny
>
>Here is a more descriptive definition from my old The New
>Columbia Encyclopedia:
>
>"The doctrine of karma states that one's state in this life
>is a result of actions (both physical and mental) in past
>incarnations, and action in this life can determine one's
>destiny in future incarnations. Karma is a natural,
>impersonal law of moral cause and effect and has no
>connection with the idea of a supreme power that decrees
>punishment of forgiveness of sins."
>
>The answer to your second question is yes.
But that isn't the meaning of the word, but only an interpretation of it in
a specific context (and not a very good one, IMHO, at that -even for
mainstream Hinduism/Buddhism).
Lawson English
>Lawson English wrote:
>>
>> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>>
>> >Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
>> >You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
>> >of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
>> >crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
>> >think about these words? For every action there is an equal
>> >and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
>> >words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
>> >good. Sheesh!
>>
>> But "karma" has no good or evil associated with it. Those are relative
>> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
>> what the word "karma" means: action.
>
>I see, so what you're saying is that a person who lies,
>cheats, and steals, who molests children and rapes their
>mothers and murders their fathers, will by karmic law get
>the OPPOSITE action in return -- namely a wonderful life now
>and and even nicer one in his next incarnation. I see.
>Thanks for clearing this up.
1) I never said that that Newton's Laws of Motion were a good analogy
(although it might be good as long as you leave moral issues out of the
equation -see below).
2) I said:
>> But "karma" has no good or evil associated with it. Those are relative
>> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
>> what the word "karma" means: action.
Where did you get the idea that *I* was talking about moral/ethical issues,
given what I just said?
Lawson English
>
>Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
>quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
>-- superstitious.
1) the dictionaries do a piss-poor job, according to MY understanding of
Hinduism/Buddhism, of explaining the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation of
"karma."
2) MMY, as I already pointed out, does NOT agree with the mainstream
Hindu/Buddhist interpretation, and made that clear in his first published
book, which came out about 30 years ago.
Lawson English
>
>I suspect you would even get more sense out of talking with
>the door. :-)
>
>Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
>States.
>
And yet, most of the definitions of "ghetto" refer to the segregated and
walled portion of a city where Jews were forced to live in Europe,
especially in Italy, where the term comes from.
Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with non-Jews was
understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <37DDA222...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
> asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> > You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
> > demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
> > chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
>
> Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
> started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
> justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
> negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
>
> being referred to as a 'journalist' in today's world
> without hanging themselves?"
>
> Given your statement above, I am certain you have no
> problem with MY implied definition, right? After all,
> it is a word that I am using, and for anyone to ask
> YOU to define it would be chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
Please, if you're going to offer an analogy, offer a fair
and accurate one such as:
"How can anyone possibly justify being a journalist?"
Had you posted that, you would have been a hell of a lot
more accurate and fair.
No, I have no problem with your statement other than finding
it a twisted analogy. However, it does show more about your
lack of understanding than it does about the state of
American journalism.
Belief in karma is a superstitious belief, as it is defined
by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
mirror.
Dene is right to question how any rational person could
justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
dictionaries. But because Judy, Lawson, and other TMers like
to play word games and substitute their meanings for words,
he's right to wonder what Judy and Lawson claim are the
Maharishi's beliefs about karma. Dene uses the standard
definition for the word. You, Judy, and Lawson should look
it up. If like the TM word "flying," it means something
entirely else to Maharishi's followers, then tell us. Don't
play your TM word games.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <tJwXEbAL...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>,
> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > c_ar...@my-deja.com writes:
> > > asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> > >> You are right. It is amazing that Judy and Lawson would
> > >> demand that YOU define a word that they are using. What
> > >> chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
> > >
> > >Andrew, you seem to have overlooked that the thread
> > >started with something like, "How can anyone possibly
> > >justify a belief in karma?" which more than implies a
> > >negative definition of the term in Dene's mind.
> >
> >
> > "A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's
> beliefs
> > in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> > explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and
> point
> > to the evidence for karma?"
> >
> > Thus I'm asking what the
> > evidence is for MMY's belief in karma and why it is a rational belief.
>
> I would love to see someone address the subject without falling
> into squabbling mode, but you really have to admit, don't you,
> that NO ONE can properly address that question without knowing
> how YOU define these two terms (karma and rational) in your mind.
> Then and only then can they compare them to what they understand
> of Maharishi's beliefs and do a "compare and contrast." By casting
> the original question in a negative light and then being too wimpy
> to say why, you hold all the cards.
>
> > To anybody who has got their thinking cap on it should be obvious that
> > what I think karma means is irrelevant since I'm asking about MMY's
> > belief in it.
>
> C'mon, man. I am not a TMer, and have no interest in defending
> Maharishi's position on anything. But you wouldn't have asked
> the question in the first place if there wasn't something in
> your definition of 'karma' that seemed to make it incompatible
> with your definition of 'rational.' If you can explain to me
> why you seem to feel they are incompatible, I will take a shot
> at saying why I think they aren't.
>
> > Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
> > unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
> > meaning she did have in mind.
>
> Show some balls, man, and tell us your definitions of these two
> terms, and then we will have some basis for a discussion. Until
> then, as far as I am concerned, you are just jacking off in public.
>
> And one more teaser question: Do you believe that the statement,
> "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is
> either irrational or superstitious?
Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
think about these words? For every action there is an equal
and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
good. Sheesh!
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <37DDE86D...@blockspam.mindspring.com>, asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com
> says...
> >
>
> >
> >justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
> >dictionaries.
>
> And do you know what is the literal meaning of 'karma'?
Webster's New World College Dictionary karma n. 1.
Buddhism & Hinduism. The totality of a person's actions in
any one of the successive states of that person's existence,
thought of as determining the fate of the next stage 2.
loosely, fate; destiny
Here is a more descriptive definition from my old The New
Columbia Encyclopedia:
"The doctrine of karma states that one's state in this life
is a result of actions (both physical and mental) in past
incarnations, and action in this life can determine one's
destiny in future incarnations. Karma is a natural,
impersonal law of moral cause and effect and has no
connection with the idea of a supreme power that decrees
punishment of forgiveness of sins."
The answer to your second question is yes.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog
Andrew A. Skolnick
Rational thinking is not restricted to any culture. People
can be rational in any society. More often than not, sad to
say, people are not rational. Magical thinking,
superstition, and other forms of irrationality are common in
all cultures and lands. Just look at how many Americans
regularly play the lottery!
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>
> >Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
> >You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
> >of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
> >crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
> >think about these words? For every action there is an equal
> >and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
> >words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
> >good. Sheesh!
>
> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
> what the word "karma" means: action.
I see, so what you're saying is that a person who lies,
cheats, and steals, who molests children and rapes their
mothers and murders their fathers, will by karmic law get
the OPPOSITE action in return -- namely a wonderful life now
and and even nicer one in his next incarnation. I see.
Thanks for clearing this up.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog
Dene Bebbington
>>unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
>>meaning she did have in mind.
>>
>>define a word that Judy used and is being questioned about.
>
>Actually, no, I had assumed that the thread started when you wrote:
>
>in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>to the evidence for karma?"
>
>without first asking for defintions, or supplying your own, requires OTHER
>people to start asking "what do you mean by karma?"
I was asking about MMY's belief in karma, not what I mean by karma. How
many more times do I have to point out the bleeding obvious.
>The only "game" I was playing was to try and point out that you were
>questioning whether belief in karma could be rational without first asking
>what did the other person mean by karma or by supplying your own
>definition.
>
>We can't go anywhere without one, no?
Sigh. On another thread Andrew commented that MMY's belief in karma is
superstitious, Judy then said that to call this belief superstitious is
bigotry. I'm trying to find out why she thinks that, as I've already
pointed out I should have asked the question more directly. Judy asking
me to define karma is silly considering that the issue is MMY's belief
in karma, which is what I'm asking about. Also, asking me to define
superstition is silly since it was an obvious reference to what she was
saying.
If someone asserts it is bigotry to call MMY's belief in karma
superstitious it's not up to me to define those terms when I ask them to
justify the assertion.
Of course, I should also have asked Andrew to support his claim about
MMY's belief in karma. He has provided definitions of karma which I
certainly would agree are superstitious, but the question is whether
that is MMY's conception of karma too.
Now, please excuse me whilst I go talk to next doors cat, I expect to
get more sense out of it than I've been getting from some people on this
thread.
Edmond H. Wollmann
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's
beliefs
> in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and
point
> to the evidence for karma?
>
> Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
>
> "Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the
lilies
> stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A
wind
> just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
For those so interested, karma is the momentum of an idea within the
idea exploration of "ALL-That-Is (the mind of God). It is the
natural flow of e-motion (energy motion) that every intention possesses
as it is released through the creative extension (5th house-Leo) and
expression.
There is not any punishment involved. The horoscope has 4 cardinal
points that have 3 segments each (the pyramidal structure and the
structure of DNA nucleotide bases). These 3 segments make up the 3
grand crosses of Cardinal (belief), Fixed (emotion), and Mutable
(thought) (Bashar). The persona or personality is basically an
artificial construct based upon these bases of belief/emotion and
thought (because ego is the effect of the focused illusion of time and
space). All of experiential reality is created from this base(the
number 4 and the square represent physicalization in the material
world), hence the horoscopic patterns reflect the archetypal
construction that the entire identity (physical and non-physical)
creates as an effect of the definitions it holds-or the configuration
of archetypal reference that it has chosen to experience, its
vibrational frequency. The fixed signs and/or the 2nd, 5th, 8th, and
11th houses reflect this accumulation of belief momentum, which is then
disseminated into the mutable or cadent houses as experiential reality.
Your karma or reincarnational momentum is your chart.
Everything we have and are is the result of effort. It reflects the
intentional definitions held. If you wish to change momentums you must
change definitions. It is simple mechanics. To change definitions you
must first be able to imagine (image-in, this is reflected in your moon
sign) a new definition-trust it, and if you trust it, you will act like
it, imagination is the initiator of real-ization. Action is
the conviction of belief. (Please refer to self-empowering astrology
post).Retrograde planets reflect the energy connected to the planet and
sign in a pendulum swing in extreme, it is in a state of repression and
reassessment. When the analytically correct application of the planet
is absorbed (please refer to projection post), it turns forward and
becomes a non-issue and the pendulum swing stops. This is called
Samsara.
The goal is to get off the wheel of karma and make free will decisions
based on natural aggression, following your bliss and excitement
(Uranus) not guilt and fear (Saturn=to saturate with material
consciousness).
----
"Hillmen come down from the lava.
Forging across the mighty river flow, oh oh.
Always, forever, only so you
Don't worry your pretty little head!
Ursa Major, Ursa Minor"
Paul McCartney "Pretty Little Head"
--
Edmond H. Wollmann P.M.A.F.A.
© 1999 Altair Publications, SAN 299-5603
Astrological Consulting http://www.astroconsulting.com/
Artworks http://www.astroconsulting.com/personal/
Andrew A. Skolnick
> > c_ar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Let me use another example: "How can anyone cope with
> > > being referred to as a 'journalist' in today's world
> > > without hanging themselves?"
> > >
> > > Given your statement above, I am certain you have no
> > > problem with MY implied definition, right? After all,
> > > it is a word that I am using, and for anyone to ask
> > > YOU to define it would be chutzpah. Dumb chutzpah.
> >
> > Please, if you're going to offer an analogy, offer a fair
> > and accurate one such as:
> > "How can anyone possibly justify being a journalist?"
> >
> > Had you posted that, you would have been a hell of a lot
> > more accurate and fair.
>
> anyone justify being a journalist? This will become
> a more interesting question for you a little further
> down.
>
> > by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
> > the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
> > mirror.
"As it is defined by my dictionaries" [see another post
where I provide two of those definitions], "karma is a
superstitious belief." I DID NOT say my dictionaries define
karma as a superstitious belief. Sorry my sentence was
unclear and led you to read it the wrong way.
(Here is a another example (for Lawson English's sake) of
what I meant by "as defined by my dictionaries":
"Ghettos, as defined by my dictionaries, can be found in
most major U.S. cities."
That doesn't mean the the dictionaries say you can find a
ghetto is most major U.S. cities!)
> Andrew, I defy you to show me a dictionary definition that
> defines karma as a "superstitious belief." I'll bet
> you can't find one, and that you made your statement above
> up to support your case.
Sorry, but you misread my statement, which obviously was not
clear.
> > Dene is right to question how any rational person could
> > justify a belief in karma -- as it is defined by most
> > dictionaries.
>
> Webster's defines it as:
While it's not important to this discussion, you really
should state which "Webster's." There are many Webster's
dictionaries published by different publishers.
> kar·ma
> Pronunciation: 'kär-m&
> Function: noun
> Etymology: Sanskrit karma fate, work
> Date: 1827
> 1 often capitalized : the force generated by a person's
> actions held in Hinduism and Buddhism to perpetuate
> transmigration and in its ethical consequences to
> determine the nature of the person's next existence.
>
> My on-line encyclopedia isn't much better:
> karma
> [Skt., (= (action, work, or ritual], basic concept common
> to HINDUISM, BUDDHISM, and JAINISM. The doctrine holds
> that one's state in this life is the result of physical
> and mental actions in past incarnations and that present
> action can determine one's destiny in future incarnations.
> Karma is a natural, impersonal law of moral cause and
> effect; only those who have attained NIRVANA, or liberation
> from rebirth, can transcend karma.
Yes, not too different from the ones I quoted in an earlier
post. In my opinion and many others, those definitions
describe a belief that is clearly superstitious.
> As it happens, in my personal definition,
Sorry, but "personal definitions" are like personal love
affairs. Not very productive or reproductive.
> only agree with
> one word in either of these two definitions (action),
See what I mean: your personal definition agrees with only
one of those words: "action" you say. You know, this
reminds me of a Mason William's song ("Prince's Panties" I
think it's called) where a prince goes around with his own
vocabulary because it suits him better, so he asks for bread
and yellow instead of bread and butter. Very productive.
Especially if you want to live in Babel.
> but my
> point (which relates STRONGLY to justifying one's existence
> as a journalist) is that I think you made up the "superstition"
> part. I would be willing to bet that the editors of diction-
> aries have a greater sense of ethics (and legal liability)
> than you have, and you cannot produce one VERIFIABLE dictionary
> definition (name and edition of source, please) that says that
> karma is a "superstitious belief."
No, as I explain above, I didn't say any dictionary does
this.
> Put up or shut up, Andrew. And if you can't, I don't think we
> need dwell much longer on my "lack of understanding of the state
> of journalism." I think we will have established a clear-cut
> case of a noted journalist being willing to lie on a public
> forum to make his case.
>
You're sounding an awful lot like Judy now. You
misunderstood what I wrote and call me a liar. The sentence
you misconstrued certainly should have been less confusing,
but you seem too eager to jump to nasty conclusions.
> > But because Judy, Lawson, and other TMers like
> > to play word games and substitute their meanings for words,
> > he's right to wonder what Judy and Lawson claim are the
> > Maharishi's beliefs about karma. Dene uses the standard
> > definition for the word. You, Judy, and Lawson should look
> > it up. If like the TM word "flying," it means something
> > entirely else to Maharishi's followers, then tell us. Don't
> > play your TM word games.
>
> I am not a TMer. And I totally and completely agree with you
> about TM's use of the term "flying." It is marketing bullshit,
> pure and simple. But I remember enough of what Maharishi said
> about karma to know that at its basis the theory is no more
> complex nor mysterious than the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
> "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction."
O.K. oh wise one, "I defy you to show me a dictionary
definition" that says the Third Law of Thermodynamics
pertains to karma.
And while you're searching, I defy you to find any
dictionary in the world that defines the "Third Law of
Thermodynamics" as "every action has an equal and opposite
reaction."
See what happens when you prefer to use your own personal
dictionary of definitions? You become a babbling idiot.
> The only
> thing that the eastern view of karma adds to this statement is
> a belief (and you are free to call *this* superstition if you
> want, just not to claim that a dictionary does) that the reaction
> is not limited to one lifetime.
Applying the Third Law of Thermodynamics to explain the
Maharishi's or your idea of karma is silly ignorance.
Applying Newton's Third Law of Motion to explain Maharishi's
or your idea of karma would be pseudoscience.
Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
-- superstitious.
--Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> writes:
> >Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> said:
> >
> >>Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
> >>unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
> >>meaning she did have in mind.
> >>
> >>Regarding karma, Lawson was playing one of Judy's tricks of asking me to
> >>define a word that Judy used and is being questioned about.
> >
> >
> >"A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
> >in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> >explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
> >to the evidence for karma?"
> >
I suspect you would even get more sense out of talking with
the door. :-)
Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
States.
Meow.
--Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
B. Mullquist
says...
>
lic.
>>
>> And one more teaser question: Do you believe that the statement,
>> "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" is
>> either irrational or superstitious?
>
>You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
>of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
>crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
>think about these words? For every action there is an equal
>and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
>words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
>good. Sheesh!
>
Andrew, I'm glad you've adopted some "mullquistian" bad Inglish
illogic. Like, when you point at a mirror with a red flashlight
the reflection is green.
Lawson English
>
>Andrew, I'm glad you've adopted some "mullquistian" bad Inglish
>illogic. Like, when you point at a mirror with a red flashlight
>the reflection is green.
It isn't?
But doesn't the mirror-effect reverse the frequencies so that it turns
green?
N.B. -------> ;-) <--------------- N.B.
anonym™
(PC 555- Unlawful Entry), fined, and placed on probation, July 1999
Winner of the Victor von Frankenstein Wierd Science, Bobo, Looney
Maroon, (SIX time Looney Maroon Winner!), Tar & Feathers, and Bolo
Bullis Foam Duck Awards, P.M.A.F.A.(Prediction Mangler of Augusts'
Financial Attributes) and 1998 Usenet Kook of the Year wrote:
>
> In article <PsePtQA2...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>,
> > A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's
> beliefs
> > in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
> > explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and
> point
> > to the evidence for karma?
> >
> > Dene Bebbington http://www.bebbo.demon.co.uk
> >
> > "Beside the braes of dawn. One clear new morning. Down where the
> lilies
> > stood in bloom. I knew that I was just a stranger in this world. A
> wind
> > just passing through." - Calum & Rory Macdonald (Runrig)
>
> For those so interested,
Ed Wollmann is a convicted criminal who is unlicensed to counsel,
although his web pages fraudulently make it appear that he is educated
or qualified enough to take on the responsibilities of psychological counseling.
He isn't.
--
"Why am I an asshole?" -Edmond Wollmann
c_ar...@my-deja.com
asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> Just what are you talking about? Newtonian physics or karma?
> You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
> of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
> crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
> think about these words? For every action there is an equal
> and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
> words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
> good. Sheesh!
Andrew, please try not to embarrass yourself in public
by demonstrating that you know as little about physics
as you do about the philosophy you are trying to demean.
In physics, and in the analogy, the term 'opposite' refers
only to the direction of the force.
Here, let me make it easy for you:
Suppose (hypothetically), that a noted journalist was so
threatened by a philosophy he didn't agree with that he
felt the need to lie in public about the dictionary
definitions of that philosophy. The force of reaction
to that lie reflects badly on HIM, not on the people whose
beliefs he is lying about.
c_ar...@my-deja.com
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
c_aragon said:
>>> Show some balls, man, and tell us your definitions of these two
>>> terms, and then we will have some basis for a discussion.
>
> As stated on another post I should perhaps have been more straight to
> the point in my question to Judy:
>
> Why is it bigotry to call MMY's belief in karma superstitious?
>
> We can have a more substantive discussion if Judy explains her
> reasoning behind her comment about bigotry.
Well, I'm not Judy (thank God), but I will have a shot at it.
Dene, you still have tried to elude responsibility for your
actions by refusing to say WHAT it is about the idea of karma
that you find irrational. Until you do, I cannot address it.
In my view, karma is really simple. It is the *belief* that
actions have consequences, and that those consequences are
not limited to one lifetime. To people who believe in the idea
of reincarnation (and there are FAR more of them on the planet
than there are people who believe in the opposite), this basic
idea is completely consistent and (dare I say it) rational.
On the other hand, like all ideas, this one has been twisted
and perverted by all sorts of people to justify their own actions.
As Andrew has said, some have used it to excuse the mistreatment
of people deemed 'untouchables.' Others have used karma as an
excuse for their own laziness and failure (I couldn't do it, man;
it's may karma!). I join you in deploring such idiots.
But where I stop short is in calling a belief system that can
never be proved or disproved 'superstitious' just because I don't
like it. You feel the need to do that. So does Andrew. THAT is
what Judy is referring to as bigotry. As I mentioned before,
far more people on this planet believe in the notion of karma
and reincarnation than do not believe in it, but you somehow feel
that it is Ok to refer to them all as superstitious and irrational,
just because you don't agree with their beliefs.
It's a BELIEF, man. They can no more prove its existence to you
than you can disprove its existence to them. If you want to be a
bigot and call all these millions of people superstitious because
they believe something you don't, fine. But at least show some
balls and explain WHAT you don't like about their belief system
when criticizing it. So far, you haven't done that. Until you
do, in my book you are not only a bigot but a stupid one. I'm
trying to do you a favor. If you explain what you don't like
about the notion of karma, at least you won't look so stupid.
Dene Bebbington
>Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>
>>
>>the door. :-)
>>
>>Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
>>States.
Well, I asked next doors cat if it made any sense to interpret the word
"ghetto" as "the segregated and walled portion of a city where Jews were
forced to live in Europe, especially in Italy" in regard to modern
America. The cat just looked at me askance.
>And yet, most of the definitions of "ghetto" refer to the segregated and
>walled portion of a city where Jews were forced to live in Europe,
>especially in Italy, where the term comes from.
Could we have some sources? And do these sources not also refer to the
contemporary meaning of the word?
Btw, both my dictionaries give the historical and contemporary meaning
of "ghetto".
>Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with non-Jews was
>understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
Lawson, aren't you tired of all that digging.
Dene Bebbington
>>
>> Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> writes:
>> >Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> said:
>> >
>> >>Obviously if Judy wasn't thinking of "superstitious" as meaning an
>> >>unfounded or irrational belief then she should say so and tell us what
>> >>meaning she did have in mind.
>> >>
>> >>Regarding karma, Lawson was playing one of Judy's tricks of asking me to
>> >>define a word that Judy used and is being questioned about.
>> >
>> >
>> >"A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs
>> >in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there
>> >explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and point
>> >to the evidence for karma?"
>> >
>the door. :-)
Are you speaking technically?!
>Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
>States.
Of course, only a TM apologist could have brought up this definition
even though the discussion was about modern America.
"Technically speaking" - now where have you heard that kind of phrase
before?!
c_ar...@my-deja.com
asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> c_ar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > Belief in karma is a superstitious belief, as it is defined
> > > by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
> > > the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
> > > mirror.
>
> "As it is defined by my dictionaries" [see another post
> where I provide two of those definitions], "karma is a
> superstitious belief." I DID NOT say my dictionaries define
> karma as a superstitious belief. Sorry my sentence was
With all due respect, Andrew, your sentence was "unclear"
because you planned it that way. You meant to imply that
the dictionaries themselves defined karma as "superstitious"
when in fact that is how you *interpret* their definitions.
It is fine to hold that beliefs contrary to your own are
"superstitious." It is not fine, especially for someone
who claims to be an "objective journalist," to imply that
the dictionary agrees with that bias.
I cannot speak for Judy (and I must admit that you have
placed me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with
her), but I suspect that her charge of "bigotry" has to do
with your willingness to declare the vast majority of
people on this planet, all of whom *believe* that karma
and reincarnation are How Things Work, are "superstitious"
because of that belief.
It is one thing to disagree with their beliefs. But they
are *beliefs*, man. No one will ever be able to PROVE to
you that reincarnation exists. Similarly, you will never
be able to PROVE that consciousness ends at death. If that
(the latter) is your belief, I totally respect it and support
your right to hold that belief. I don't feel threatened by
it and feel the need to declare you "superstitious" or stupid
because you believe it.
You, on the other hand, seem to feel every right to demean
people who hold a belief in the existence of reincarnation
and karma, and lump them into a slightly-less-than-human
grouping as "superstitious" and "irrational." THAT is
bigotry. A REAL objective journalist might have said, "Many
people hold a belief in ____. I find no objective evidence
for such a theory, and therefore feel it is inaccurate." But
you didn't do that. You chose to demean as a group those who
believe differently than you.
That, in my book, places you in EXACTLY the same grouping
as Creationists who demean those who believe in evolution
and make fun of them as ignorant of the "true reality."
What is next? Do you seek to pass laws to prevent people
who believe differently from you to teach what they believe
in their own schools?
> (Here is a another example (for Lawson English's sake) of
> what I meant by "as defined by my dictionaries":
>
> "Ghettos, as defined by my dictionaries, can be found in
> most major U.S. cities."
>
> That doesn't mean the the dictionaries say you can find a
> ghetto is most major U.S. cities!)
Lawson, in my opinion, was being a literalist to avoid dealing
with the larger issue. As are you. In my opinion, you chose
to slant what you were saying by inferring that dictionaries
defined karma as a "superstitious belief" when in fact that is
what YOU believe, and how YOU interpret those definitions.
> > Andrew, I defy you to show me a dictionary definition that
> > defines karma as a "superstitious belief." I'll bet
> > you can't find one, and that you made your statement above
> > up to support your case.
>
> Sorry, but you misread my statement, which obviously was not
> clear.
You and I both know that I misread neither your statement or
your intent, but I will let you off the hook this time. You
attempted to demean millions of people by claiming that their
belief system was "superstitious" and by claiming that the
word came from a dictionary instead of your own bigoted mind.
> > Webster's defines it as:
>
> While it's not important to this discussion, you really
> should state which "Webster's." There are many Webster's
> dictionaries published by different publishers.
True. But at least I *had* a dictionary definition to post,
unlike some journalists I know who prefer to make them up.
<snip *real* dictionary definitions>
> Yes, not too different from the ones I quoted in an earlier
> post. In my opinion and many others, those definitions
> describe a belief that is clearly superstitious.
>
> > As it happens, in my personal definition, =
>
> Sorry, but "personal definitions" are like personal love
> affairs. Not very productive or reproductive.
Nice one-liner but bullshit. EVERYONE has a "personal
definition" of pretty much everything. My personal
definition of karma is not Maharishi's, and comes more
from the Buddhist tradition than his. I haven't seen
too many dictionary definitions that agree with it
completely, but that does not force me to accept theirs
as correct.
> > only agree with
> > one word in either of these two definitions (action), =
>
> See what I mean: your personal definition agrees with only
> one of those words: "action" you say. You know, this
> reminds me of a Mason William's song ("Prince's Panties" I
> think it's called) where a prince goes around with his own
> vocabulary because it suits him better, so he asks for bread
> and yellow instead of bread and butter. Very productive.
> Especially if you want to live in Babel.
My personal definition is just that -- personal. I don't
attempt to impose it on others, unlike what you are attempting
to do. You are attempting to impose not only the dictionary
definition but your own bigoted interpretation of it on others
as the standard. You are welcome to yours; I am welcome to
mine. It is only when we attempt to have a discussion that
we need to agree on some *common* definition that we can
agree upon so that we aren't comparing apples and oranges.
> > but my
> > point (which relates STRONGLY to justifying one's existence
> > as a journalist) is that I think you made up the "superstition"
> > part. I would be willing to bet that the editors of diction-
> > aries have a greater sense of ethics (and legal liability)
> > than you have, and you cannot produce one VERIFIABLE dictionary
> > definition (name and edition of source, please) that says that
> > karma is a "superstitious belief."
>
> No, as I explain above, I didn't say any dictionary does
> this.
You did, Andrew. You do it again at the end of your post.
You just choose to deny it and weasel out of it now. Typical.
> > Put up or shut up, Andrew. And if you can't, I don't think we
> > need dwell much longer on my "lack of understanding of the state
> > of journalism." I think we will have established a clear-cut
> > case of a noted journalist being willing to lie on a public
> > forum to make his case.
>
> You're sounding an awful lot like Judy now.
I know, and it pains me no end.
> You misunderstood what I wrote and call me a liar. The sentence
> you misconstrued certainly should have been less confusing,
> but you seem too eager to jump to nasty conclusions.
You knew full well what you were implying, Andrew. To have
us believe otherwise is to have us believe that you are a
shitty writer with no knowledge of the English language.
While I am willing to believe the latter, I am not sure that
is the impression you want to leave us all with. If I were
you, I would stick with being a bigot, but one who can at
least write.
> > I am not a TMer. And I totally and completely agree with you
> > about TM's use of the term "flying." It is marketing bullshit,
> > pure and simple. But I remember enough of what Maharishi said
> > about karma to know that at its basis the theory is no more
> > complex nor mysterious than the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
> > "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." =
>
> O.K. oh wise one, "I defy you to show me a dictionary
> definition" that says the Third Law of Thermodynamics
> pertains to karma.
Can't. That's my personal definition of karma. But unlike
some...ahem...noted journalists, I never implied that you
could find that definition in a dictionary. You stated quite
clearly that I could find a definition in not one but many
dictionaries saying that it is a "superstitious belief."
> And while you're searching, I defy you to find any
> dictionary in the world that defines the "Third Law of
> Thermodynamics" as "every action has an equal and opposite
> reaction."
>
> See what happens when you prefer to use your own personal
> dictionary of definitions? You become a babbling idiot.
I defy you to find a definition of any of the Laws of Thermo-
dynamics in ANY dictionary. I checked with two of my coworkers
here, both of whom have Ph.D.s in Physics. If their information
is incorrect, blame the education system of the U.S.
> > The only
> > thing that the eastern view of karma adds to this statement is
> > a belief (and you are free to call *this* superstition if you
> > want, just not to claim that a dictionary does) that the reaction
> > is not limited to one lifetime.
>
> Applying the Third Law of Thermodynamics to explain the
> Maharishi's or your idea of karma is silly ignorance. =
There you go again, Andrew, being a bigot. I was simply
explaining my belief system, not saying it was correct or
trying to impose it on you. You react as if you are somehow
threatened by what I believe, and call what I believe "silly
ignorance." Please explain how that makes you any different
than anyone else who calls people names because they don't
like what those people believe.
Face it, Andrew. The reason you are here on a.m.t. is because
something in you is THREATENED by belief systems that are
different from yours. You feel the need to demean them and
call them names because on some level that must make you feel
better about what YOU believe. I can certainly understand it,
but you will have to forgive me if I do not respect it.
> Applying Newton's Third Law of Motion to explain Maharishi's
> or your idea of karma would be pseudoscience.
>
> Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
> quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
> -- superstitious.
There you go again. Your sentence structure above implies that
the dictionaries themselves define karma as superstitious, when
in fact it is only your *opinion* of their definitions that
makes them superstitious. The editors of the dictionaries have
something you lack, Andrew -- basic respect for the beliefs of
other human beings. They may not agree with those beliefs, but
they do not feel the need to put them down or demean them.
You do.
Andrew A. Skolnick
> >> >You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
> >> >of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
> >> >crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
> >> >think about these words? For every action there is an equal
> >> >and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
> >> >words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
> >> >good. Sheesh!
> >>
> >> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
> >> what the word "karma" means: action.
> >
> >I see, so what you're saying is that a person who lies,
> >cheats, and steals, who molests children and rapes their
> >mothers and murders their fathers, will by karmic law get
> >the OPPOSITE action in return -- namely a wonderful life now
> >and and even nicer one in his next incarnation. I see.
> >Thanks for clearing this up.
>
> (although it might be good as long as you leave moral issues out of the
> equation -see below).
You jumped in to disagree with my objection to someone
else's ludicrous statement about "Newton's Third Law of
Karma." When you jumped in with your "But..." it seemed you
were agreeing with his statement -- not disagreeing with it.
> 2) I said:
>
> >> But "karma" has no good or evil associated with it. Those are relative
> >> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction. That's
> >> what the word "karma" means: action.
>
> Where did you get the idea that *I* was talking about moral/ethical issues,
> given what I just said?
Because that was what we WERE discussing when you jumped in.
That's where.
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog
>
Andrew A. Skolnick
> >quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
> >-- superstitious.
>
> Hinduism/Buddhism, of explaining the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation of
> "karma."
>
> 2) MMY, as I already pointed out, does NOT agree with the mainstream
> Hindu/Buddhist interpretation, and made that clear in his first published
> book, which came out about 30 years ago.
Notice how Lawson continues to dismiss the dictionaries'
definition of karma and insists that they do not describe
the real meaning of karma. Not only that, he says the
Maharishi has his own "interpretation" of the word.
Not surprising from a cult that routinely invents their own
meanings for even the most prosaic words like "flying."
Yet Lawson still declines to answer Dene's repeated
question: What does the Maharishi claim to believe about
karma. Nobody here wants to answer Dene's question. They
either ask him what he thinks it means or else they attack
him for even asking.
Seems that Dene's may have touched a TM nerve here.
Andrew A. Skolnick
> >the door. :-)
> >
> >States.
> >
>
> walled portion of a city where Jews were forced to live in Europe,
> especially in Italy, where the term comes from.
>
> understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
Lawson, you can't stop digging in that hole you've made for
yourself, can you? There are NO ghettos in the United
States, you said. How can you say such a stupid thing?
Because, you say, up until recently the word ghetto was only
understood to be an analogy for any group but Jews.
Here's definition 2. from the oldest dictionary in my house,
published in 1969: "a quarter of a city in which members of
a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
pressure."
That was published 30 years ago. There are millions of
children today running around in the United States whose
parents were born after that dictionary was published.
Lawson, you don't seem to catch on that you can NEVER dig
yourself out of a hole. You've got to let go of the shovel
and climb out.
You're giving a whole new meaning to the phrase "China
syndrome." I propose that we name your habit the "Lawson
English China Syndrome."
Andrew A. Skolnick
> >
> >>
> >>I suspect you would even get more sense out of talking with
> >>the door. :-)
> >>
> >>Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
> >>States.
>
> "ghetto" as "the segregated and walled portion of a city where Jews were
> forced to live in Europe, especially in Italy" in regard to modern
> America. The cat just looked at me askance.
Cat must have gotten its tongue.
> >And yet, most of the definitions of "ghetto" refer to the segregated and
> >walled portion of a city where Jews were forced to live in Europe,
> >especially in Italy, where the term comes from.
>
> Could we have some sources? And do these sources not also refer to the
> contemporary meaning of the word?
Sorry, but Lawson doesn't recognize contemporary meanings
that do not fit his scheme of things or his word games.
> Btw, both my dictionaries give the historical and contemporary meaning
> of "ghetto".
>
> >Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with non-Jews was
> >understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
>
> Lawson, aren't you tired of all that digging.
Not a chance. To paraphrase what I believe is an old Chinese
saying, the hole a thousand miles deep begins with a single
shovel of dirt. And China is exactly where Lawson will wind
up if he doesn't quit digging in the bizarre hole of racist
comments he has made for himself.
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> writes:
> >Dene Bebbington wrote:
> >>
> >> Lawson English <eng...@primenet.com> writes:
> >the door. :-)
>
That depends what the question "hinges" on.
Actually, there are legal precedents for Lawson and Judy to
use "technically speaking" arguments when mangling words to
justify crackpot statements. After all, don't a lot of
crooks get off on "technicalities?"
> >Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
> >States.
>
> Of course, only a TM apologist could have brought up this definition
> even though the discussion was about modern America.
>
> "Technically speaking" - now where have you heard that kind of phrase
> before?!
Does the name "S A T A N" come to mind?
Well, actually, it was Judy Stein. Lawson makes a nice lap
dormouse, don't you think?
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <37DE065E...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
> asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> > You can't take a law of physics used to describe the motion
> > of objects and use it to predict the fate of people. That's
> > crackpot thinking. What's more, have you bothered to even
> > think about these words? For every action there is an equal
> > and OPPOSITE reaction. If used to "explain" karma, those
> > words mean that you should expect to get evil back for doing
> > good. Sheesh!
>
> by demonstrating that you know as little about physics
> as you do about the philosophy you are trying to demean.
> In physics, and in the analogy, the term 'opposite' refers
> only to the direction of the force.
defined the "Third Law of Thermodynamics" as "for every
action there's an equal and opposite reaction"?
Thanks for correcting me about what you meant by stretching
Newton's Third Law of Motion to fit your theory of karma.
However, I can assure you that Newton did not have any such
thing in mind. For one thing, Newton did NOT believe in
reincarnation. For another, your "adaptation" of Newton's
third law does not fit the observable universe. Your
misapplication of Newton's law is pure pseudoscience.
Dene Bebbington
>In article <ktkVNyAZ...@bebbo.demon.co.uk>,
> Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>c_aragon said:
>>>> Show some balls, man, and tell us your definitions of these two
>>>> terms, and then we will have some basis for a discussion.
>>
>> As stated on another post I should perhaps have been more straight to
>> the point in my question to Judy:
>>
>> Why is it bigotry to call MMY's belief in karma superstitious?
>>
>> We can have a more substantive discussion if Judy explains her
>> reasoning behind her comment about bigotry.
>
>Well, I'm not Judy (thank God), but I will have a shot at it.
Actually, this post showed that you're not too dissimilar from Judy in
some respects.
>Dene, you still have tried to elude responsibility for your
>actions by refusing to say WHAT it is about the idea of karma
>that you find irrational. Until you do, I cannot address it.
What would be the point of me explaining what I take karma to mean when
the question was regarding MMY's belief in it? If I were to explain why
I think belief in karma is irrational but MMY's conception of karma was
different then I'd merely be knocking down a strawman.
All this is so elementary I can't understand why you keep pressing me
for what my definition of karma is.
>In my view, karma is really simple. It is the *belief* that
>actions have consequences, and that those consequences are
>not limited to one lifetime. To people who believe in the idea
>of reincarnation (and there are FAR more of them on the planet
>than there are people who believe in the opposite),
I don't give a tinker's cuss how many people believe in reincarnation.
[...]
c_ar...@my-deja.com
Dejanews seems to be dead as a doornail, and hasn't displayed
anything new since this morning, so I don't know if either of
you have replied. For the record, I don't really care what
you believe about karma and reincarnation; I only question
your willingness to put down those who believe in them, without
ever stating for the record WHAT you find objectionable about
the two concepts. When you do, and if the "new, improved"
Deja.com ever gets its act together, we can continue this...
Loren A. King
> In my view, karma is really simple. It is the *belief* that actions
> have consequences, and that those consequences are not limited to one
> lifetime. To people who believe in the idea of reincarnation (and
> there are FAR more of them on the planet than there are people who
> believe in the opposite), this basic idea is completely consistent and
> (dare I say it) rational.
I think "rational" may be the wrong standard to worry about here.
If we give the term "rational" a strict definition (i.e. "the choice
from a set of options that is most likely correct, given available
evidence combined with careful and correct analysis"), then we set the
bar way too high for a great many beliefs, some of which are entirely
reasonable. On the other hand, if by "rational" all we mean is
"consistent with the application of reasoning" then we have an
excessively vague standard that almost every belief could meet, however
speculative and ambiguous.
So, if "karma" is the belief that our actions have consequences that
will be borne by us beyond our present life, then I propose that we talk
about whether this belief is *reasonable*, i.e. is it the sort of belief
that thoughtful people might hold after sincerely and carefully
analysing the available evidence to the best of their abilities?
I'd be inclined to say that this sort of belief is reasonable.
However, I would add the caveat that a lot of ambiguous, speculative
(and probably incorrect) causal conjectures are similarly reasonable,
largely because thoughtful people often do hold sincere beliefs in lieu
of the kinds of evidence and conceptual rigor necessary to make claims
that are strictly rational. On my understanding, belief in karma is
reasonable, even though it isn't strictly rational (indeed, betting on
the reality of karma is probably irrational).
The trouble, I think, is that reasonable views, even when they aren't
particularly precise or scientifically verifiable, can nonetheless be
deeply held by thoughtful people, and this makes for protracted and
sometimes nasty conflicts when reasonable people disagree, say, on
religious or moral fundamentals.
Now, if you're a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic, the proper thing to do is to
acknowledge the reasonableness of speculative and unverified claims
(such as "karma" or "god" or "unified conscious field" or "true
goodness"), but to reserve judgement about the rationality of such
beliefs until such time as evidence and argument allows you to make
sense of these claims as testable scientific conjectures.
> But where I stop short is in calling a belief system that can
> never be proved or disproved 'superstitious' just because I don't
> like it.
The sceptic is prone to call such beliefs "superstition" because she
thinks that this is exactly what these beliefs probably are. But this
doesn't mean that these beliefs are unreasonable, or even wrong: the
sceptic acknowledges that reasonable people can hold what amount to
superstitious beliefs. Given this fact, the sceptic wonders whether we
should give much persuasive weight to what reasonable people are prone
to believe in lieu of unambiguous evidence or conceptual precision. The
sceptic also notes that, properly speaking, some of what passes for
science these days verges on superstition; and she also notes that
scientists often hold beliefs that are not terribly scientific; she
wonders why scientists aren't generally more sceptical and precise in
the lab, in their public pronouncements, and in their personal beliefs.
> It's a BELIEF, man. They can no more prove its existence to you
> than you can disprove its existence to them.
But we can approach the problem scientifically: what specific causal
mechanisms are involved, and how do they work?
L.
--------------------------------------
Loren King lk...@mit.edu
http://web.mit.edu/lking/www/home.html
Kurt Arbuckle
:
: Yet Lawson still declines to answer Dene's repeated
: question: What does the Maharishi claim to believe about
: karma. Nobody here wants to answer Dene's question. They
: either ask him what he thinks it means or else they attack
: him for even asking.
:
: Seems that Dene's may have touched a TM nerve here.
speak for Maharishi. I do think it is safe to say that his use of the
term is similar, although not identical to the common idea of Karma as
being the idea that ones actions create a response from the universe.
I believe Maharishi has basically said that it is impossible to know exactly
what that response will be, as the matter is simply too far reaching for a
human to comprehend. He then goes on to propose TM as the means for
transcending all that.
Whether one thinks that is superstition depends on what else one believes
about the universe and its nature. I fail to see how bigotry is involved.
I personally have never thought of the term "superstition" as particularly
demeaning, even if applied to millions of people. Almost everyone has
beliefs that from someone else's perspective would be superstitious.
A fanatic to me is someone who believes so strongly in his/her own beliefs
that he/she can't consider any other point of view. You may have been
fantical (I didn't see the original post) and by all indications you probably
are fanatical in your anti-anything-remotely-embraced-by-TMers, but calling
Karma superstition doesn't make you a bigot as I understand that term.
Kurt
Ken H.
anyone at all other than for the sake of arguing? The discussion of karma,
in my opinion, is one of those discussions that seems to go beyond the
abilities of discussion other than stating one's belief in it. How is it
possible to prove it either way? Like most things religious, or
philosophical, it seems to be a matter of personal choice as to whether or
not one believes, disbelieves, or withholds judgement at all, or not even
cares.
In all my years of being on courses and being around Maharishi I have rarely
ever heard him talk about the concept of karma other than to state that
karma means action. There is a verse, Chpt. 4, v 17 in the Bhagavad Gita,
which states, "...unfathomable is the course of action.." and in his
commentary Maharishi says "...every thought, word, or act sets up waves of
influence in the atmosphere. These waves travel through space and strike
against everything in creation. Whevever they strike they have some effect.
The effect of a particular thought on any particular object cannot be known
because of the diversity and vast extent of creation. THis complexity goes
beyond the possibility of comprehension..."
And notice that the word karma was not used.
For anyone to even include Maharishi in this discussion of karma without
giving specific references to what he said not just what you thought you
heard he said from somone who has a friend who thought he heard him say it,
is taking this conversation far astray from the path of truth. He has said
very little on this topic and everyone here is simply putting in their own
two cents, not Maharishis.
Ken H.
Bart Lidofsky
: Webster's defines it as:
Pet peeve #1: "Webster's" is in the public domain. ANYBODY can
write a dictionary, and call it "Webster's".
Pet peeve #2: Lexicography and philosophy are two different
disciplines. If you want to find out about karma and superstition, look in
a good philosophical dictionary.
Bart Lidofsky
Ken H.
http://members.home.net/lumiere/karma/mystknow.htm
Ken H.
Bart Lidofsky wrote in message ...
Bart Lidofsky
: Could you give some examples of the dictionary definitions?
: And do you know what is the literal meaning of 'karma'?
Action.
Bart Lidofsky
Lawson English
>> 2) I said:
>>
>> >> But "karma" has no good or evil associated with it. Those are
relative
>> >> terms. The "law" of karma is merely action followed by reaction.
That's
>> >> what the word "karma" means: action.
>>
>> Where did you get the idea that *I* was talking about moral/ethical
>issues,
>> given what I just said?
>
>Because that was what we WERE discussing when you jumped in.
>That's where.
YOU were. No-one else insisted on bringing moral/ethical issues into the
argument.
You've apparently taken an overly simplistic English dictionary definition
of a subtle Vedic (and Hindu and Buddhist) concept and assumed that
everyone is using the English dictinary definition.
Even in the Vedic and Hindu and Buddhist traditions, there's plenty of
different interpretations, so to assume that the *English* definition is
the one and only correct one is silly.
Lawson English
>Lawson English wrote:
>>
>> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>>
>> >
>> >Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
>> >quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
>> >-- superstitious.
>>
>> 1) the dictionaries do a piss-poor job, according to MY understanding of
>> Hinduism/Buddhism, of explaining the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation of
>> "karma."
>>
>> 2) MMY, as I already pointed out, does NOT agree with the mainstream
>> Hindu/Buddhist interpretation, and made that clear in his first
published
>> book, which came out about 30 years ago.
>
>Notice how Lawson continues to dismiss the dictionaries'
>definition of karma and insists that they do not describe
>the real meaning of karma. Not only that, he says the
>Maharishi has his own "interpretation" of the word.
Of COURSE I continue to dismiss an English definition of a Sanskrit word!
And of course MMY has his own interpretation. ALL the different religions
and cultures that sprang out of the Vedic tradition do. Even the "Vedic"
tradition used the same words in different ways depending on the context
and era.
>
>Not surprising from a cult that routinely invents their own
>meanings for even the most prosaic words like "flying."
>
>Yet Lawson still declines to answer Dene's repeated
>question: What does the Maharishi claim to believe about
>karma. Nobody here wants to answer Dene's question. They
>either ask him what he thinks it means or else they attack
>him for even asking.
>
>Seems that Dene's may have touched a TM nerve here.
Ken already gave MMY's definition. Karma means "action."
COme to think of it, *I* already gave it. Karma means "action." The "Law"
of Karma is that every action has a reaction.
Now, the nuances of MMY's definition/interpretation are likely different
than MY understanding, even having read what he said on the subject, but at
least I understand that the word is not a simple term whose meaning is
expressed adequately in an English language dictionary.
Lawson English
>> Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with non-Jews
>was
>> understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
>
>Lawson, you can't stop digging in that hole you've made for
>yourself, can you? There are NO ghettos in the United
>States, you said. How can you say such a stupid thing?
>Because, you say, up until recently the word ghetto was only
>understood to be an analogy for any group but Jews.
>
>Here's definition 2. from the oldest dictionary in my house,
>published in 1969: "a quarter of a city in which members of
>a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
>pressure."
Andrew, both you and I are over 40. "Recently," for me, when dealing with
definitions of words, refers to "in my lifetime."
That isn't very long, really. My grandmother used the phrase "I ain't"
quite often and she was well-educated. Turns out that it used to be an
acceptable contraction of "am not," at least in some areas of this country,
that was mis-used by less educated people (e.g. *he* ain't).
I wouldn't say that "ain't" was acceptable up until recently (my
grandmother died at age 88 about 20 years ago), but OTHER common phrases
are of recent vintage, also:
e.g., "Murphy's Law" is only 40 years old (it is a Space Age saying,
originated by an USAF captain working on the first rocket sled).
As I said, it is only recently that "ghetto" has been used without some
modifier to refer to anything other than a walled city in Europe where Jews
were forced to live.
Widdershins
wrote:
In re the subject line: You misspelled "flatulence."
Widdy
anonym™
Oops!
>
I think we should let "praticing" go, though!
anonym™
>
> Widdershins wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999 02:16:17 -0700, anonym™ <ano...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > In re the subject line: You misspelled "flatulence."
> >
> > Widdy
>
In your name, you misspelled "Nudnick".
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> In article <37DE58C7...@blockspam.mindspring.com>,
> asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> > c_ar...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > Belief in karma is a superstitious belief, as it is defined
> > > > by my dictionaries. Belief in karma is no more rational than
> > > > the belief that 7 years bad luck follows the breaking of a
> > > > mirror.
> >
> > "As it is defined by my dictionaries" [see another post
> > where I provide two of those definitions], "karma is a
> > superstitious belief." I DID NOT say my dictionaries define
> > karma as a superstitious belief. Sorry my sentence was
> > unclear and led you to read it the wrong way. =
>
> With all due respect, Andrew, your sentence was "unclear"
> because you planned it that way.
"With all due respect"? What a hypocritical thing to say.
You appear to have taken over Judy's mind reading role here
and are now declaring what people "planned." You show no due
respect when you do this.
> You meant to imply that
> the dictionaries themselves defined karma as "superstitious"
> when in fact that is how you *interpret* their definitions.
Only in your mean spirited mind. In another post, I gave two
dictionary definitions for karma that show that you had
implied this, I didn't.
> It is fine to hold that beliefs contrary to your own are
> "superstitious." It is not fine, especially for someone
> who claims to be an "objective journalist," to imply that
> the dictionary agrees with that bias.
That was your implication, not mine. I've told you this now
several times. You're persistence in claiming otherwise is
dishonest and certainly not a show of "due respect" no
matter how you label it.
> I cannot speak for Judy (and I must admit that you have
> placed me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with
> her), but I suspect that her charge of "bigotry" has to do
> with your willingness to declare the vast majority of
> people on this planet, all of whom *believe* that karma
> and reincarnation are How Things Work, are "superstitious"
> because of that belief.
What does the number of believers have to do with whether a
belief is based on evidence or is superstitious or
pseudoscience? Not that long ago, 60 million Germans
believed they were the master race. The number of believers
does not provide evidence of the validity of a belief.
Furthermore, I'm getting a little tired of having to spit
out the words you keep trying to put into my mouth. I did
not say that the majority of people on this planet are
superstitious. I said belief in karma is a superstitious
belief. I commented on the belief, not on the majority of
the world's population. For one thing, I don't know what the
majority of the word believes about karma.
That fact that I would say that stealing is a crime does not
mean that I'm calling any particular people criminals. Those
are your implications. Again, you seem to want to take over
Judy's role as a.m.t.'s Torquemada, putting people's words
on your rack and forcing them to say what you want them to
say.
> It is one thing to disagree with their beliefs. But they
> are *beliefs*, man. No one will ever be able to PROVE to
> you that reincarnation exists.
Right. Look up the word "superstition."
> Similarly, you will never
> be able to PROVE that consciousness ends at death. If that
> (the latter) is your belief, I totally respect it and support
> your right to hold that belief. I don't feel threatened by
> it and feel the need to declare you "superstitious" or stupid
> because you believe it.
There you go, putting words into people's mouths. "Stupid?"
I didn't call those who believe in karma "stupid."
> You, on the other hand, seem to feel every right to demean
> people who hold a belief in the existence of reincarnation
> and karma, and lump them into a slightly-less-than-human
> grouping as "superstitious" and "irrational."
Look, Judy, I did not say that superstitious beliefs make
people "slightly-less-than-human. That's your crackpot
claim. Superstitious beliefs are all too human. Rational
thinking is often not the norm for human beings.
> THAT is
> bigotry. A REAL objective journalist might have said, "Many
> people hold a belief in ____. I find no objective evidence
> for such a theory, and therefore feel it is inaccurate." But
> you didn't do that. You chose to demean as a group those who
> believe differently than you.
No, Judy, you demean people by making up insulting
statements that you then falsely attribute to me.
> That, in my book, places you in EXACTLY the same grouping
> as Creationists who demean those who believe in evolution
> and make fun of them as ignorant of the "true reality."
> What is next? Do you seek to pass laws to prevent people
> who believe differently from you to teach what they believe
> in their own schools.
You mean like racism? Or Nazism? So these should be taught
in schools?
> > (Here is a another example (for Lawson English's sake) of
> > what I meant by "as defined by my dictionaries":
> >
> > "Ghettos, as defined by my dictionaries, can be found in
> > most major U.S. cities."
> >
> > That doesn't mean the the dictionaries say you can find a
> > ghetto is most major U.S. cities!)
>
> Lawson, in my opinion, was being a literalist to avoid dealing
> with the larger issue. As are you. In my opinion, you chose
> to slant what you were saying by inferring that dictionaries
> defined karma as a "superstitious belief" when in fact that is
> what YOU believe, and how YOU interpret those definitions.
Judy, again, it is you who inferred that dictionaries define
karma as a superstitious belief. Not I.
>
> > > Andrew, I defy you to show me a dictionary definition that
> > > defines karma as a "superstitious belief." I'll bet
> > > you can't find one, and that you made your statement above
> > > up to support your case.
> >
> > Sorry, but you misread my statement, which obviously was not
> > clear.
>
> You and I both know that I misread neither your statement or
> your intent, but I will let you off the hook this time.
Hey, regulars. Is this a Judy Stein quote or what? Sheesh.
> You
> attempted to demean millions of people by claiming that their
> belief system was "superstitious" and by claiming that the
> word came from a dictionary instead of your own bigoted mind.
Judy, Judy, Judy. I did NOT claim that "superstitious" is in
the dictionary definition of the word "karma." Do you see
"superstitious" in either of the two dictionary definitions
I provided?
> > > Webster's defines it as:
> >
> > While it's not important to this discussion, you really
> > should state which "Webster's." There are many Webster's
> > dictionaries published by different publishers.
>
> True. But at least I *had* a dictionary definition to post,
> unlike some journalists I know who prefer to make them up.
Like Judy, you are a liar who simply ignores the public
record:
Subject: Re: What is rational about belief in karma?
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 1999 04:26:45 -0500
From: Andrew A. Skolnick"
<asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com>
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic, alt.meditation.transcendental
"B. Mullquist" wrote:
<snipped>
> Could you give some examples of the dictionary
definitions?
> And do you know what is the literal meaning of 'karma'?
Webster's New World College Dictionary karma n. 1.
Buddhism & Hinduism. The totality of a person's actions
in
any one of the successive states of that person's
existence,
thought of as determining the fate of the next stage 2.
loosely, fate; destiny
Here is a more descriptive definition from my old The New
Columbia Encyclopedia:
"The doctrine of karma states that one's state in this
life
is a result of actions (both physical and mental) in past
incarnations, and action in this life can determine one's
destiny in future incarnations. Karma is a natural,
impersonal law of moral cause and effect and has no
connection with the idea of a supreme power that decrees
punishment of forgiveness of sins."
> > > As it happens, in my personal definition, =
> >
> > Sorry, but "personal definitions" are like personal love
> > affairs. Not very productive or reproductive.
>
> Nice one-liner but bullshit. EVERYONE has a "personal
> definition" of pretty much everything.
Yes, but they're supposed to be personal, not used to argue
that other's are wrong. That's what crackpots do.
You can't read English, I'm afraid.
> > > Put up or shut up, Andrew. And if you can't, I don't think we
> > > need dwell much longer on my "lack of understanding of the state
> > > of journalism." I think we will have established a clear-cut
> > > case of a noted journalist being willing to lie on a public
> > > forum to make his case.
> >
> > You're sounding an awful lot like Judy now.
>
> I know, and it pains me no end.
>
> > You misunderstood what I wrote and call me a liar. The sentence
> > you misconstrued certainly should have been less confusing,
> > but you seem too eager to jump to nasty conclusions.
>
> You knew full well what you were implying, Andrew.
Again. That's one of Judy's stock phrases to attack anyone
who doesn't agree with her interpretation of what he or she
posted.
> To have
> us believe otherwise is to have us believe that you are a
> shitty writer with no knowledge of the English language.
> While I am willing to believe the latter, I am not sure that
> is the impression you want to leave us all with. If I were
> you, I would stick with being a bigot, but one who can at
> least write.
You know, your hypocrisy is also equal to Judy's. You
lecture me about not knowing physics after you make an
ignorant statement claiming that Newton's law of action and
reaction is the "Third Law of Thermodynamics." And now you
insist that I'M not permitted to make a sentence unclear
enough for you to misconstrue. You insist that I had to mean
the interpretation that you came up with. Even after I said
that what I wrote was unclear and did not mean what you say
it meant, you insist otherwise. That's exactly what Judy
does.
> > > I am not a TMer. And I totally and completely agree with you
> > > about TM's use of the term "flying." It is marketing bullshit,
> > > pure and simple. But I remember enough of what Maharishi said
> > > about karma to know that at its basis the theory is no more
> > > complex nor mysterious than the Third Law of Thermodynamics:
> > > "Every action has an equal and opposite reaction." =
> >
> > O.K. oh wise one, "I defy you to show me a dictionary
> > definition" that says the Third Law of Thermodynamics
> > pertains to karma.
>
> Can't. That's my personal definition of karma. But unlike
> some...ahem...noted journalists, I never implied that you
> could find that definition in a dictionary. You stated quite
> clearly that I could find a definition in not one but many
> dictionaries saying that it is a "superstitious belief."
>
> > And while you're searching, I defy you to find any
> > dictionary in the world that defines the "Third Law of
> > Thermodynamics" as "every action has an equal and opposite
> > reaction."
> >
> > See what happens when you prefer to use your own personal
> > dictionary of definitions? You become a babbling idiot.
>
> I defy you to find a definition of any of the Laws of Thermo-
> dynamics in ANY dictionary. I checked with two of my coworkers
> here, both of whom have Ph.D.s in Physics. If their information
> is incorrect, blame the education system of the U.S.
You, sir. Are the biggest jackass on a.m.t., in Judy's
absence. The Third Law of Thermodynamics is not Newton's
Third Law of Motion. Don't blame the U.S. educational system
for your stupid error.
> > > The only
> > > thing that the eastern view of karma adds to this statement is
> > > a belief (and you are free to call *this* superstition if you
> > > want, just not to claim that a dictionary does) that the reaction
> > > is not limited to one lifetime.
> >
> > Applying the Third Law of Thermodynamics to explain the
> > Maharishi's or your idea of karma is silly ignorance. =
>
> There you go again, Andrew, being a bigot. I was simply
> explaining my belief system, not saying it was correct or
> trying to impose it on you.
Look, how many times do you have to be hit over the head
before you wake up? The Third Law of Thermodynamics is not
Newton's law regarding equal and opposite forces. The two
laws you think are the same came from two scientists three
centuries apart. The Third Law of Thermodynamics was
discovered by Hermann Nernst in 1906. It has NOTHING to do
with Newton's law: Nernst's law is something like "entropy
change approaches zero at a temperature of absolute zero."
> You react as if you are somehow
> threatened by what I believe, and call what I believe "silly
> ignorance."
Your calling Newton's law the "Third Law of Thermodynamics"
is silly ignorance. I called it that because it was silly
ignorance. Unlike you and Judy, I don't always assume
mistakes are deliberate attempts to deceive.
> Please explain how that makes you any different
> than anyone else who calls people names because they don't
> like what those people believe.
Sorry, but calling Newton's law the "Third Law of
Thermodynamics," was ignorant and silly.
> Face it, Andrew. The reason you are here on a.m.t. is because
> something in you is THREATENED by belief systems that are
> different from yours.
That fact that you believe Newton's law is the Third Law of
Thermodynamics -- or that it justifies your belief in karma
and reincarnation doesn't threaten me. Although it does
dismay me that there is so much ignorance and pseudoscience
around.
> You feel the need to demean them and
> call them names because on some level that must make you feel
> better about what YOU believe. I can certainly understand it,
> but you will have to forgive me if I do not respect it.
No, I don't think you understand any of this.
> > Applying Newton's Third Law of Motion to explain Maharishi's
> > or your idea of karma would be pseudoscience.
> >
> > Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
> > quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
> > -- superstitious.
>
> There you go again. Your sentence structure above implies that
> the dictionaries themselves define karma as superstitious, when
> in fact it is only your *opinion* of their definitions that
> makes them superstitious.
Have you no ability to comprehend English? I said that in my
opinion and the opinion of many others a belief in karma (as
defined by the dictionaries you and I quoted) is
superstitious. What part of the sentence don't you
understand?
> The editors of the dictionaries have
> something you lack, Andrew -- basic respect for the beliefs of
> other human beings. They may not agree with those beliefs, but
> they do not feel the need to put them down or demean them.
> You do.
Let's face it, you don't like to have anyone point out to
you that you have a superstitious belief. Too damn bad. Most
-- probably all -- humans have some superstitious beliefs.
Being able to question our beliefs is what truly makes us
more enlightened and unbigoted. Yelling bigotry when someone
questions your beliefs is itself a sure sign of bigotry. For
bigotry is the blind intolerance towards the beliefs of
others.
Andrew A. Skolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
> : question: What does the Maharishi claim to believe about
> : karma. Nobody here wants to answer Dene's question. They
> : either ask him what he thinks it means or else they attack
> : him for even asking.
> :
> : Seems that Dene's may have touched a TM nerve here.
>
> speak for Maharishi.
Well, fair enough as far as you not wanting to speak for
Maharishi -- but some people here (especially Judy and
Lawson) frequently make statements concerning what the
Maharishi says and/or teaches.
> I do think it is safe to say that his use of the
> term is similar, although not identical to the common idea of Karma as
> being the idea that ones actions create a response from the universe.
> I believe Maharishi has basically said that it is impossible to know exactly
> what that response will be, as the matter is simply too far reaching for a
> human to comprehend. He then goes on to propose TM as the means for
> transcending all that.
>
> Whether one thinks that is superstition depends on what else one believes
> about the universe and its nature. I fail to see how bigotry is involved.
Thanks Kurt for your opinion. We seem to agree about this.
> I personally have never thought of the term "superstition" as particularly
> demeaning, even if applied to millions of people. Almost everyone has
> beliefs that from someone else's perspective would be superstitious.
We also agree about this. Human beings are very
superstitious creatures. Logical reasoning is not the norm
for our species. And most people -- if not all -- believe in
one or more superstitious beliefs. No big whoopee.
> A fanatic to me is someone who believes so strongly in his/her own beliefs
> that he/she can't consider any other point of view.
We agree about this too.
> You may have been
> fantical (I didn't see the original post)
Hardly. I just said the belief in karma is a superstitious
belief. Judy went into attack mode (no surprise) yelling
"bigot." She then got help from some loon who has been
"interpreting" what he claims I implied and then calling me
a liar for saying that I implied no such thing. Sheesh! Nice
to have someone reasonable to "debate" with for a change.
> and by all indications you probably
> are fanatical in your anti-anything-remotely-embraced-by-TMers, but calling
> Karma superstition doesn't make you a bigot as I understand that term.
Thanks Kurt. That's how I see it too.
Best,
Andrew
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
c_ar...@my-deja.com
asko...@blockspam.nasw.org wrote:
> Hmmm. Do you mean embarrass yourself in public as when YOU
> defined the "Third Law of Thermodynamics" as "for every
> action there's an equal and opposite reaction"?
>
> Thanks for correcting me about what you meant by stretching
> Newton's Third Law of Motion to fit your theory of karma.
You are correct. I had it right in my mind and then went
to check with my two Physics Ph.D. buddies, who started
jammering away about Newton's Laws and the Laws of Thermo-
dynamics and I wound up getting more confused than straightened
out. But then, unlike some, I don't pretend to be a scientist.
Lawson English
>
>> and by all indications you probably
>> are fanatical in your anti-anything-remotely-embraced-by-TMers, but
>calling
>> Karma superstition doesn't make you a bigot as I understand that term.
>
>Thanks Kurt. That's how I see it too.
bigot: one obstinately and irrationally, often intolerantly, devoted to his
own church, party, belief or opinion.
superstition:
1a: a belief, conception, act or practice resulting from ignorance,
unreasoning fear of the unknown or mysterious, mordent scrupulousity, trust
in magic or chance or a false conception of causation. b: an irrational
abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature or God resulting
from such beliefs, conceptions or fears.
2a: idolatrous religion. b: idolatry.
3: a fixed irrational idea: a notion maintained in spite of evidence to the
contrary.
fanatical: (fantatic):
1: possessed by a demon.
2: governed, produced, or characterized by too great zeal.
1a: lunatic. b: a religiious maniac. c: an English nonconformist.
2: a person exhibiting excessive enthisams and intense uncritical devotion
ususually toward some controversial matter and commonly urging his beliefs
zealously and with unreasonable and uncompromising insistence.
Lurkers can decide:
1) is Andrew fanatical in his "anti-anything-remotely-embraced-by-TMers"
stance?
2) is a belief in karma (not even defined when labeled) a superstition?
3) is Andrew being a bigot when he calls belief in karma superstitious,
even given his own dictionary defintion?
el...@no.spam
anonym <ano...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>In your name, you misspelled "Nudnick".
You both misspelled "wollmann is an asshole"
Marie Michael Gabriel
comes around, the golden rule, bounce off me and back to you...
all of these indicate a karmic response to personal behaviors. However,
all of them also indicate that karma is now, in this lifetime, and not in a
reincarnate life.
if you have ever studied reincarnation and people's past life histories,
you will see that karma from a past life does not carry over... there is a
continuity of life in each individual life stream that dictates the
individual's current processes, not a process from a prior incarnate
heritage.
write back if you care to discuss further
peace, mmg
Ken H. <khas...@nospamplease.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<7rm6sr$vvg$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
gee whillickers (sp?) does this conversation about karma have any meaning
to
anyone at all other than for the sake of arguing? The discussion of karma,
in my opinion, is one of those discussions that seems to go beyond the
abilities of discussion other than stating one's belief in it. How is it
possible to prove it either way? Like most things religious, or
philosophical, it seems to be a matter of personal choice as to whether or
not one believes, disbelieves, or withholds judgement at all, or not even
cares.
<snip>
--
http://sgilbertcompaniesinc.com Equipment finance/leasing
http://members.tripod.com/~marmiga/mystery/heritage.html Marm's
Reincarnation
http://www.marmsweb.com/fulcher Taxes and investments
John McGuirk
I would much like to here your opinion on reincarnation and
Karma, as you seem to have, a specific opinion on it. As I am involved with
the Tibetan Buddhist religion, I have heard that Karma does have a
continuity throughout different lifetimes. However, I tend to disagree with
this idea a bit, as I believe we start with a "clean slate" as it were.
On the other hand, it is possible that ones Karmic value,
does influence a person next life. You got me thinking of both sides,
incidentally, and maybe, in a previous life, if one was greedy, that they
are born into a life that will teach them not to be, by either putting
themselves on the receiving end of greed from others, or place them in a
position where greed is visibly damaging. It's an idea that appeals to me
now, more so than when I initially dismissed it.
I know nothing of my previous lives, but somehow believe in
them. I know nothing of my karma from previous lives, and maybe one day I
might try regression, but the idea that a person could be born into an apt
time in history, in an apt place on this world, in an apt family, in order
to help them realize there previous "mistakes" (that might not be the best
word), is quite a valid belief and one I am only delving into now.
In other words, right now, I am hunting for opinion as I
form my own objective one.
I would be pleased to hear more about you're opinion,
Love and Peace,
John
Marie Michael Gabriel wrote in message
<01bf0037$35b32f40$d3f01ed1@default>...
Loren A. King
> Many ideas in language indicate an existence of karma... what goes
> around comes around, the golden rule, bounce off me and back to you...
Well, many ideas in languages indicate widespread *belief* in something
like karma; more likely they indicate some vague-but-widespread
conviction that human actions are somehow governed by laws of fate that
strike some sort of balance (i.e. `what goes around comes around').
I've often wondered if this belief is challenged by a generalization of
the Monte Carlo fallacy ...
Lawson English
>Many ideas in language indicate an existence of karma... what goes around
>comes around, the golden rule, bounce off me and back to you...
>
>all of these indicate a karmic response to personal behaviors. However,
>all of them also indicate that karma is now, in this lifetime, and not in
a
>reincarnate life.
>
>if you have ever studied reincarnation and people's past life histories,
>you will see that karma from a past life does not carry over... there is a
>continuity of life in each individual life stream that dictates the
>individual's current processes, not a process from a prior incarnate
>heritage.
>
>write back if you care to discuss further
>peace, mmg
>
There's an idea expressed in the Bhagavad Gita that whatever level of
enlightenment that one attains in this lifetime will be the starting point
for the next lifetime. Krishna goes on to say that more evolved individuals
will be reborn into families whose circumstances are supportive of faster
spiritual growth.
It may be that the assumption that moral character/behavior brings a
specific reward in the next lifetime can be drawn out of this passage in
the 'Gita or that the 'Gita is expressing this commonly held belief in
nutshell-form.
Legion
where do ya find em?
I'm working my way thru the backlog on this thread waiting to see if
anyone can figure out the secret password so that someone will post
Yogi's definition of karma.
Then this gem appears (9/13) from c arogant:
"in my personal definition, I only agree with one word in either of
these two definitions (action), but my point ... is that I think you
made up the "superstitious" part."
So c arogant made up an entire non-standard definition, except for one
word, and is now howling like a banshee that you used a standard
defintion except for one word.
I guess the point is - either make up the entire defintion, like c
arogant (and Judy, and Lawson, and Mr. Dictionary), or quote Webster
word for word.
Where do ya find em, Andrew?
c arogant claims to not be a TMer. Apparantly the gaping void between
reality and TM isn't vast enough for c arogant. Probably also feels
that TM courses are too cheap to be of any value.
P.T. Barnum seriously understated things.
Legion
Lorrill Buyens
Detective "Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> looked the murderer
straight in the eye and hissed:
>Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>
>>> Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with non-Jews
>>> was understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
>>
>>Lawson, you can't stop digging in that hole you've made for
>>yourself, can you? There are NO ghettos in the United
>>States, you said. How can you say such a stupid thing?
>>Because, you say, up until recently the word ghetto was only
>>understood to be an analogy for any group but Jews.
>>
>>Here's definition 2. from the oldest dictionary in my house,
>>published in 1969: "a quarter of a city in which members of
>>a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
>>pressure."
>
>Andrew, both you and I are over 40. "Recently," for me, when dealing with
>definitions of words, refers to "in my lifetime."
Whereas most people, when using "recently," are referring to events
which took place a *short time* ago (i.e., 1-15 years or so). If you
*mean* "in your lifetime," why don't you *say* so?
--
| Doctor Fraud |Always believe six|
|Mad Inventor & Purveyor of Pseudopsychology |impossible things |
| Weird Science at Bargain Rates |before breakfast. |
Support the Jayne Hitchcock HELP Fund
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/6172/helpjane.htm
Lorrill Buyens
>Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>
>>Lawson English wrote:
>>>
>>> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Belief in karma as defined by the dictionaries you and I
>>> >quoted is -- in my opinion and in the opinion of many others
>>> >-- superstitious.
>>>
>>> 1) the dictionaries do a piss-poor job, according to MY understanding of
>>> Hinduism/Buddhism, of explaining the Hindu/Buddhist interpretation of
>>> "karma."
>>>
>>> 2) MMY, as I already pointed out, does NOT agree with the mainstream
>>> Hindu/Buddhist interpretation, and made that clear in his first
>published
>>> book, which came out about 30 years ago.
>>
>>Notice how Lawson continues to dismiss the dictionaries'
>>definition of karma and insists that they do not describe
>>the real meaning of karma. Not only that, he says the
>>Maharishi has his own "interpretation" of the word.
>
>Of COURSE I continue to dismiss an English definition of a Sanskrit word!
Do you also dismiss an English definition of a Yiddish word,
"putz?" When a foreign word passes into English vernacular,
English-language dictionaries are generally justified in giving
an English definition of *the way it's used in everyday speech*.
Lawson English
But your average, everyday American doesn't believe in karma -certainly not
the karma described in Andrew's dictionary, since it is a word associated
with Hindu and Buddhist doctrines.
Andrew A. Skolnick
He most certainly does not dismiss the English definition of
the Yiddish word "putz." How can you suggest that when
everything he ever posts on these newsgroups is a
demonstration of that word's meaning?
-- Andrew Skolnick
http://nasw.org/users/ASkolnick
Andrew A. Skolnick
> On the momentous occasion of 14 Sep 99 13:56:59 -0700, the Great
> Detective "Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> looked the murderer
> straight in the eye and hissed:
>
> >Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
> >
> >>> was understood to be an anology, as in the term "black ghetto."
> >>
> >>Lawson, you can't stop digging in that hole you've made for
> >>yourself, can you? There are NO ghettos in the United
> >>States, you said. How can you say such a stupid thing?
> >>Because, you say, up until recently the word ghetto was only
> >>understood to be an analogy for any group but Jews.
> >>
> >>Here's definition 2. from the oldest dictionary in my house,
> >>published in 1969: "a quarter of a city in which members of
> >>a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
> >>pressure."
> >
> >Andrew, both you and I are over 40. "Recently," for me, when dealing with
> >definitions of words, refers to "in my lifetime."
More than a hundred thousand words have been added to
English dictionaries in our life time. And the meanings of
hundreds of thousands more have been changed both in their
common use and as they are defined by dictionaries. It is
utter bullshit to claim that you are going by some
definition in a dictionary published back when you were
suckling and speaking baby talk.
By the way Lawson, why don't you show us a dictionary that
was published in your life time that doesn't include the
definition of "ghetto" as part of a city in which members of
a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
pressure?
I doubt that you can find an American English dictionary
that doesn't include that definition of "ghetto." I checked
the oldest dictionary in my house and it certainly does
include it. I know children whose parents weren't born yet
when that dictionary was published.
> Whereas most people, when using "recently," are referring to events
> which took place a *short time* ago (i.e., 1-15 years or so). If you
> *mean* "in your lifetime," why don't you *say* so?
Because such are the word games that he and other TMers
play.
Don't know if you noticed Lorrill, but Lawson snipped out my
next sentence which pointed out that there are millions of
children in the United States whose parents weren't yet born
when that dictionary was written. So Lawson switches "in
your lifetime" for "recent" and hopes no one notices.
All this just so he can justify one of his most bizarre
*recent* assertions, that there are no ghettos in the United
States.
Avital Pilpel
> Don't know if you noticed Lorrill, but Lawson snipped out my
> next sentence which pointed out that there are millions of
> children in the United States whose parents weren't yet born
> when that dictionary was written. So Lawson switches "in
> your lifetime" for "recent" and hopes no one notices.
>
> All this just so he can justify one of his most bizarre
> *recent* assertions, that there are no ghettos in the United
> States.
So, Lawson is justifying one word-game by using another word-game?
Typical.
Avital Pilpel
ZnWalkr
"Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
(In reply to Anthony's preceeding definition)
> But that isn't the meaning of the word, but only an interpretation of it in a specific context (and not a very good one, IMHO, at that -even for mainstream Hinduism/Buddhism).>
To my recall, Karma in Sanskrit is: Ka refers to desire; r, is a letter for
action or interaction, ma is from manas (manas means mind [masculine tense is
spirit or subtle form, the feminine is of form or matter]). Ergo, karma
would be the results of action or interaction of mind with desire. This
reminds me of, "Thought in the mind has made us. What we are by thought is
wrought and built. If one endure in purity of thought, joy follows him as his
own shadow."
As I see it, past experience is a result in the present (an effect that
can't be changed), and our attitude or response in the present to that effect
is a future cause (which we are able to change). Karma Yoga in the (Hindu)
Bhagavad Gita is presented as a path of acting without being attached to
personal results. Directly working with cause and effect it is a Yoga of
working with Karma. It involves going contrary to your desire, no intention
of the fruits or "rewards" for your action (the concept of me and mine
ultimately), and also gives up one's own ideas of what's "right" for what's
right in a given reality. I believe all the spiritual Teachers have directed
our attention to thinking and actions with concern for present cause and
future effect, and the balancing of forgiveness/understanding for the
cessation of actions originating in the view that one is separate or
different from others (as we all share more in common than our general
tendency to see otherwise).
Dhyana,
Walking Ts'ao Creek Rd.
ZnWalkr
Dene Bebbington <de...@ebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> A little while back someone (Judy Stein, IIRC) wrote that MMY's beliefs in karma are not superstition. If that is so then can anyone out there explain what the rational basis for such a belief in karma is, and pointto the evidence for karma?>
My puter loads posts so slowly here I've not read all in this thread to see
if it may already have been presented, but if so I'll just offer my pov. I
find basic universal laws are inherent in the issue of karma. Just as there
are physical laws, such as the speed of light, there are also non-physical
laws that represent other consistent relationships within the universe. For
instance, there is a "experiencial equivalent of the third law of motion",
that is, every action has an equal and opposite reaction -- co-dependent
rising/relative reality. Even in quantum reality we've seen co-dependent
rising even occurs in creation of the most primary pure existence. But, it
rises in a unified whole... cause+effect occurring in spontaneous
relationship. This primary 'matter' of energy is actually dependent on what
is even subtler for causing it's existence... we've no clue where anti-matter
comes from or where it dissappears to, we only know it appears and then
dissappears, not die. This observence permits us view the unity of
existence, and verifies the relative existence of what is in reality and what
is not apparent in this reality .....and also, that there is reality and so
there is also a what is not reality.
Just as that occurance outside us proved to our experience of it that cause
is resultant of a effect, we can assume that what occurs inside us has
equally resounding effect outside us. All the dynamics of existence exist
within every area universally without exception - including every facet of
our being - our body, mind, and everything related to them. Difference is
relative, not absolute, and so the existence of different realities does not
mean the existence of divided realities. Rather, the mutual co-existence
implicit in relative existence points towards the ultimate unity and
inseparability of different relative existences..... this extends universal
as well as dimensional in all reality.
We are energy, as is our 'experience' in itself -emotions/feelings,
thoughts, actions, intention- these 'experiencial waves' propagate in the
context of a unified whole... our experience, and every single experience in
it, is the state of being connected to another relative existence we are
present to, there is a cause and/or a effect in play. I find it reasonable
that these experiencial waves - emited energy- may not return to our person
in this lifespan but at some point in the course of "awareness's" ongoing
existence... primary to a personality formed by our experience we are but
awareness conscious of our body transmitting sensation (consciousness aware
of itself, if you will). Herein it is awareness (now or eventually) that
bears the actual result of intentions. In our awareness (which is the sense
of a where) - in our experienced reality - there is intention, action,
reaction, result. This is a linear and a cyclic relationship we exist in
-impov, all is!
Expanding on the above points leads us to consider there must also be other
states of experience or awareness outside human mind's existence, for every
thing that exist's share's "existence" as a common denominator with us. So,
as we exist and are aware why wouldn't it occur on some level in every thing
that exist's, and even in dimensions outside our intellect? It is said, you
can run but you can't hide from your self........
--
B. Mullquist
>
>In article <B40330...@206.165.44.87>,
> "Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> wrote:
>(In reply to Anthony's preceeding definition)
>
>> But that isn't the meaning of the word, but only an interpretation of it in a specific
context (and not a very good one, IMHO, at that -even for mainstr
>
>
>action or interaction, ma is from manas (manas means mind [masculine tense is
>spirit or subtle form, the feminine is of form or matter]).
I guess you mean "masculine gender". 'Kaama' (desire) and 'karma' are probably
almost indentical in English pronunciation.
Legion
to refer to "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions." I like it as a
reference because it is *rumored* to be a Christian publishing house.
"Karma, kamma (...). Karman, the law of consequence with regard to
action, which is the driving force behind the cycle of reincarnation or
rebirth (samsara) in Asian religions. According to karma theory every
action has a consequence which will come to fruition in either this or a
future life... Karma is not itself 'reward and punishment', but the
strict law producing consequence. The origin of the idea of karma is
uncertain, but it's beginnings could well be in non-Vedic, heterodox
groups such as the Ajivikas and Jains (who have an extensive karma
literature).
"In Hinduism the word karma first appears in the Rg Veda, where it means
religious action, specifically sacrifice; there is no hint of it's later
meaning as the force driving beings through samsara. There is some hint
of this in the Brahmanas, but only with the Upanisads do we really find
karma in the sense of causality of action ..."
The words *rational* and *superstition* don't appear in the Oxford
piece.
What is interesting about the piece is the light it casts on Lawson's
reliability and his semantical games.
In particular, Lawson rejected Andrew's discussion of karma based on
it's current, generally accepted usage. He insisted that we must refer
to Hindu texts, and only those written in Sanskrit.
But Oxford makes clear that Lawson was just talking out of his teapot.
First, if the concept of karma did not originate with the Hindus, then
why should we refer to them? Let us go instead to the Jain texts from
which the Hindus adapted the concept. Second, if we did use a Sanskrit
dictionary, what one? If we use one from the time of the Rg Veda (~
1000 BCE) we'll get one meaning for karma. If we use one from the time
of the Upansads, about 500 years later, we'll get another definition.
Obviously, contrary to Lawson's protestations, concepts do evolve and
change as they are adapted from one culture or religion by another.
Concepts also evolve and change within a religion. Appeals to a
*baseline text* or defintion are ridiculous as nonesuch exist.
Andrew is absolutely correct. Any discussion of karma today must be
based on it's generally accepted usage and meaning today. There is no
*correct* meaning, only it's current one. Other meanings and usages are
merely historical/classical and vary from period to period.
[For Lawson's edification, this is a widely applicable concept, see
*ghetto*.]
Thanks to Kurt, we know that Yogi feels we are insufficiently advanced
life forms to be told what he thinks karma is. But now we see his
opinion is meaningless. If Yogi, or someone else, wishes to claim that
the meaning of karma used for a short segment of the distant past is
correct, that's their *opinion*. Only it's current meaning can be
correct today. Although Yogi is welcome to try to influence the
continuing evolution of the concept.
I thought the physics analogy (for every action ...) suggested was
amusing. As Andrew pointed out, you can't pick and choose your laws
of physics, and redefine them as it it suits you (but don't tell TM and
Hagelin that).
So if the law of karma means that for every positive action there is an
equal and opposite negative active, and vice versa ...
Think of all the joy and beauty that has been created somewhere in
reaction to Judy...
Think of all the knowledge and truth that has become known in reaction
to the nonsense and snakeoil of TM ...
Think of all the clarity that has been brought to other people's lives
in reaction to the marble-mouthed, muddleheaded, misbegotten,
mumbled mutterings of Lawson ...
Just think.
Now think about Pee Duffy and his bags of Cheetos...
Just think.
Would rather not,
Legion
Andrew A. Skolnick
>
> Different people have posted various definitions of karma. It's time
> to refer to "The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions." I like it as a
> reference because it is *rumored* to be a Christian publishing house.
Now, stop that Legion. You know that was just Judy Stein's
ignorant rationalization to explain why the Oxford DWR
listed TM as a religion. She later explained that her
"mistake" was a mental "fart." Proving once again that Judy
does know beans about what she speaks. :-)
(see http://www.aaskolnick.com/junkyarddog/bigot3.htm)
A very good post, Legion.
> So if the law of karma means that for every positive action there is an
> equal and opposite negative active, and vice versa ...
>
> Think of all the joy and beauty that has been created somewhere in
> reaction to Judy...
>
> Think of all the knowledge and truth that has become known in reaction
> to the nonsense and snakeoil of TM ...
>
> Think of all the clarity that has been brought to other people's lives
> in reaction to the marble-mouthed, muddleheaded, misbegotten,
> mumbled mutterings of Lawson ...
>
> Just think.
>
> Now think about Pee Duffy and his bags of Cheetos...
I told you that wasn't for public dissemination.
> Just think.
I think you're asking too much of the blissninnies.
Judy Stein
> Kurt Arbuckle wrote:
> >
> > Andrew A. Skolnick (asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com) wrote:
> > :
> > : Yet Lawson still declines to answer Dene's repeated
> > : question: What does the Maharishi claim to believe about
> > : karma. Nobody here wants to answer Dene's question. They
> > : either ask him what he thinks it means or else they attack
> > : him for even asking.
> > :
> > : Seems that Dene's may have touched a TM nerve here.
> >
> > I suspect that no one who is willing to post to this group is
> > willing to speak for Maharishi.
>
> Well, fair enough as far as you not wanting to speak for
> Maharishi -- but some people here (especially Judy and
> Lawson) frequently make statements concerning what the
> Maharishi says and/or teaches.
I can't imagine where Kurt got the idea that nobody is "willing
to speak for Maharishi." What does he think TM teachers do, just
for starters?
As for TMers who aren't teachers, if we know Maharishi has
expressed himself on a topic, why in heaven's name would Kurt
think we wouldn't be "willing" to report what he has said?
That's one of the silliest ideas I've seen here in a long time.
Not only that, but Kurt himself goes on to do exactly what he
claims nobody is willing to do:
> > I do think it is safe to say that his use of the term is
> > similar, although not identical to the common idea of Karma as
> > being the idea that ones actions create a response from the
> > universe. I believe Maharishi has basically said that it is
> > impossible to know exactly what that response will be, as the
> > matter is simply too far reaching for a human to comprehend. He
> > then goes on to propose TM as the means for transcending all
> > that.
Kurt, man, what is going on with you? You used to be one of the
clearest thinkers around.
> > Whether one thinks that is superstition depends on what else
> > one believes about the universe and its nature. I fail to see
> > how bigotry is involved.
>
> Thanks Kurt for your opinion. We seem to agree about this.
But not, it would seem, with the dictionary. Kurt and Andrew
both appear to have "personal definitions" of "superstition."
From Webster's 10th Collegiate:
"1a. a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the
unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of
causation b. an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the
supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition 2. a
notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary."
> > I personally have never thought of the term "superstition" as
> > particularly demeaning,
"Superstition" is clearly a pejorative and demeaning term as far
as the dictionary is concerned; and it would be hard for Andrew
to make a case that he does not intend it to be precisely that
when he uses it.
> even if applied to millions of people. Almost everyone has
> beliefs that from someone else's perspective would be
> superstitious.
>
> We also agree about this. Human beings are very
> superstitious creatures. Logical reasoning is not the norm
> for our species. And most people -- if not all -- believe in
> one or more superstitious beliefs. No big whoopee.
I think a review of Andrew's responses to ideas he holds to be
illogical, unreasonable, or superstitious would quickly dispel
the notion he attempts to put over here that he considers these
qualities "no big whoopee."
> > A fanatic to me is someone who believes so strongly in
> > his/her own beliefs that he/she can't consider any other point of
> > view.
>
> We agree about this too.
>
> > You may have been
> > fantical (I didn't see the original post)
>
> Hardly. I just said the belief in karma is a superstitious
> belief. Judy went into attack mode (no surprise) yelling
> "bigot."
In fact, I made the comment about bigotry only in passing, as a
parenthetical.
However, Andrew had previously gone into some detail in his
condemnation of belief in karma, considerably beyond simply
calling it "superstitious." Just for example:
> > and by all indications you probably are fanatical in your
> > anti-anything-remotely-embraced-by-TMers, but calling Karma
> > superstition doesn't make you a bigot as I understand that term.
>
> Thanks Kurt. That's how I see it too.
Andrew appears to be admitting his rabid anti-TM stance is
fanatical.
For the record, here's the dictionary definition of "bigot":
"a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions or prejudices."
And the definition of "prejudice":
"an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or
before sufficient knowledge"; "an irrational attitude of
hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or
their supposed characteristics."
Andrew's comments about karma clearly reveal that they have been
made "before sufficient knowledge." To call a belief in karma
"superstitious" is hostile; and given that belief in karma does
not fit any of the characteristics provided in the definition of
"superstitious," it is also irrational. (Indeed, to call belief
in karma "superstitious" is itself superstitious in the sense of
"a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.")
So the idea that karma is a superstitious belief is a prejudice;
and because Andrew is obstinately and intolerantly devoted to
this idea, it is bigoted.
At least according to the dictionary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Judy Stein * The Author's Friend * jst...@panix.com +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Judy Stein
"Ken H." <khas...@nospamplease.mindspring.com> wrote:
<snip>
> In all my years of being on courses and being around Maharishi
> I have rarely ever heard him talk about the concept of karma
> other than to state that karma means action. There is a verse,
> Chpt. 4, v 17 in the Bhagavad Gita, which states,
> "...unfathomable is the course of action.." and in his
> commentary Maharishi says "...every thought, word, or act sets up
> waves of influence in the atmosphere. These waves travel through
> space and strike against everything in creation. Whevever they
> strike they have some effect. The effect of a particular thought
> on any particular object cannot be known because of the diversity
> and vast extent of creation. THis complexity goes beyond the
> possibility of comprehension..."
>
> And notice that the word karma was not used.
Ken, the overall theme of the Gita is the nature and role of
karma and how to transcend it. Many of the verses and much of
Maharishi's commentary are devoted to explaining how karma
operates. "Karma" is usually translated "action" both in the
verses and the commentary (look at a conventional translation;
there's very likely to be a note explaining what English word has
been used to translate "karma"--whatever word it is, you'll find
it's used in most or all of the places where Maharishi's
translation uses "action"). Verses 12-24 of chapter IV are a
detailed analysis of "action"; the word appears 22 times just in
the verses themselves, not to mention the commentaries.
Then, of course, there are the sections "Karma and Being" and
"Karma and the Art of Being" in Science of Being and Art of
Living. The latter is quite lengthy; a footnote to it explains
the various senses of the term. Maharishi uses a number of
different English words for these various senses to make the
distinctions clear. It may be that he used the Sanskrit term
less often in the Gita because he had found out that Westerners
tend to have a very limited and often distorted notion of what it
means.
Karma is *not*, as you seem to suggest with your choice of
quotes, something Maharishi mentions only in passing and
dismisses by saying it's too complex to understand. That verse
expresses an absolutely crucial, central idea concerning karma,
but taking it out of context makes it sound simplistic.
One of TM's foundational principles is the Gita line,
"Established in yoga, perform action." The Sanskrit is,
"Yogastah kuru KARMAni."
The principle of karma is fundamental to everything Maharishi
teaches. TMers themselves are karma yogis, for heaven's sake,
the very people to whom the teaching in the Gita is addressed; TM
itself, MMY says, is the "fulfillment" of the "philosophy of
karma."
"Stress," "nonattachment," and "overshadowing," three very
important concepts in TM, are all intimately related to karma.
Indeed, it's hard to find a term used in TM that isn't in some
way related to karma.
In fact, you have heard Maharishi talk at great length about
karma. You may not remember him using the term explicitly, but
it sounds as though you never made the connection between karma
and whatever terms he did use.
It's not possible to talk about enlightenment in the Vedic/Yogic
context without talking about karma.
> For anyone to even include Maharishi in this discussion of karma without
> giving specific references to what he said not just what you thought you
> heard he said from somone who has a friend who thought he heard him say it,
> is taking this conversation far astray from the path of truth.
Ken, take a deep breath. The discussion got sidetracked due to
Dene's arrogance and obstinacy. We haven't even gotten started
yet. And your characterization of what has been said about MMY's
ideas so far is not only inaccurate but insulting.
> He has said very little on this topic
Good GREEEEEEEF.
Ken, on the contrary. He has said so much on this topic the
difficulty is in being selective about what to cite.
Just for openers, here's a quickie from Science of Being:
"The art of Being with regard to karma lies in maintaining the
state of Being irrespective of the type or state of karma.
Whatever be the activity, whatever be the karma performed by the
mind, senses, body, or the surroundings, Being is eternally
maintained...
"It is the art of Being in the field of karma that, even though
karma by nature is opposed to Being, karma itself is brought to
the level of Being. Being is maintained in Its status and karma
fails to challenge Its validity. When both karma and Being are
maintained at the level of the mind, then this is the art of
Being and the art of karma, simultaneously. Karma and Being find
their fulfillment simultaneously in the regular practice of
Transcendental Meditation."
Judy Stein
Leg...@webtv.net (Legion) wrote:
<snip>
> In particular, Lawson rejected Andrew's discussion of karma based on
> it's current, generally accepted usage. He insisted that we must refer
> to Hindu texts, and only those written in Sanskrit.
Nope, Lawson didn't say that. If the broken software you're
using makes it impossible for you to have the post you're
responding to on the screen in front of you as you compose your
reply, you need to write down or print out the post so you can
quote it accurately.
That is, if you *want* to quote it accurately. If you want to
tell lies about what a TMer has said, as Andrew does, obviously
you can just make up anything you want.
Lawson said nothing about referring to Hindu texts written in
Sanskrit. What he said was that the definitions in the English
dictionaries that had been cited were inadequate in explaining
Hindu belief.
> But Oxford makes clear that Lawson was just talking out of his teapot.
> First, if the concept of karma did not originate with the Hindus, then
> why should we refer to them?
Since we're talking about what Hindus believe, who better to go
to than Hindus?
<snip>
> Obviously, contrary to Lawson's protestations, concepts do evolve and
> change as they are adapted from one culture or religion by another.
> Concepts also evolve and change within a religion. Appeals to a
> *baseline text* or defintion are ridiculous as nonesuch exist.
Indeed. But nobody appealed to a baseline text or definition.
> Andrew is absolutely correct. Any discussion of karma today must be
> based on it's generally accepted usage and meaning today. There is no
> *correct* meaning, only it's current one. Other meanings and usages are
> merely historical/classical and vary from period to period.
Right. However, definitions *today* also vary depending on the
culture and understanding of the definers. Which is why, if we
want to know what Hindus believe today about karma, we need to
find out what *they* mean by it, rather than assuming the
definition coming from another culture reflects the Hindu
understanding.
<snip>
> Thanks to Kurt, we know that Yogi feels we are insufficiently
> advanced life forms to be told what he thinks karma is.
Again, Legion, if you just want to make up what a TMer said out
of whole cloth, you have an excellent precedent to follow in the
posts of Andrew Skolnick. Note that he has conferred his
approval on your post, so you should be encouraged to know you're
proceeding in a way that pleases him.
Kurt, of course, said nothing of the kind. Indeed, he gave his
understanding of what Maharishi has said about karma.
There are more detailed explanations in MMY's Gita
translation/commentary and in his "Science of Being and Art of
Living." See another post of mine addressed to Ken.
> If Yogi, or someone else, wishes to claim that
> the meaning of karma used for a short segment of the distant past is
> correct, that's their *opinion*. Only it's current meaning can be
> correct today.
Well, no, its current meaning could well be incorrect.
Although Yogi is welcome to try to influence the
> continuing evolution of the concept.
Gracious of you to give him permission. He's been doing it
already for 40-some years now.
Judy Stein
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> writes:
<snip>
> >Betcha even the door knows there are ghettos in the United
> >States.
>
> Of course, only a TM apologist could have brought up this definition
> even though the discussion was about modern America.
Nonsense. Don't you ever get embarrassed by your own sophistry?
When discussing how the term "ghetto" is used, it's entirely
appropriate to point out that it has various meanings, that it
originally had a specific and limited meaning which, at least in
the United States and Europe, has become outdated, and that it
has more recently acquired more generic meanings that have
departed further and further from its original meaning.
"Ghetto" came to refer to any minority enclave, especially an
economically disadvantaged one. Then it began to be used in an
even broader sense to designate any poor urban neighborhood.
As I noted in another post, the potential for confusion between
these two senses (so that one tends to think of any poor urban
neighborhood as one inhabited by a minority, thus associating
minorities with poverty) has resulted in an avoidance of the term
altogether, substituting minority-neutral phrases such as "inner
city" and "disadvantaged area" for "ghetto."
But Andrew used the term "ghetto." Wonder why?
Judy Stein
buyensl@prime*SPAMMERS.GO.HOME*net.com (Lorrill Buyens) wrote:
> On the momentous occasion of 14 Sep 99 13:49:41 -0700, the Great
> Detective "Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> looked the murderer
> straight in the eye and hissed:
>
> >Andrew A. Skolnick <asko...@blockspam.mindspring.com> said:
<snip>
> >>> 1) the dictionaries do a piss-poor job, according to MY
> >>> understanding of Hinduism/Buddhism, of explaining the
> >>> Hindu/Buddhist interpretation of "karma."
> >>>
> >>> 2) MMY, as I already pointed out, does NOT agree with the mainstream
> >>> Hindu/Buddhist interpretation, and made that clear in his first
> >>> published book, which came out about 30 years ago.
> >>
> >>Notice how Lawson continues to dismiss the dictionaries'
> >>definition of karma and insists that they do not describe
> >>the real meaning of karma. Not only that, he says the
> >>Maharishi has his own "interpretation" of the word.
> >
> >Of COURSE I continue to dismiss an English definition of a
> >Sanskrit word!
>
> Do you also dismiss an English definition of a Yiddish word,
> "putz?" When a foreign word passes into English vernacular,
> English-language dictionaries are generally justified in giving
> an English definition of *the way it's used in everyday speech*.
It's not clear whether you're incredibly stupid or profoundly
intellectually dishonest (we have so many of both flavors from
sci.skeptic involving themselves in alt.m.t discussions).
But just in case the problem is stupidity:
Dictionaries may well be "justified" in defining "karma" so as to
reflect the piss-poor understanding represented by the way the
English-speaking public uses the term in everyday speech.
That the dictionaries may be *justified* in reflecting English
usage, however, doesn't make their definitions any less piss-poor
with regard to what Hindus, in whose culture the concept
originated and still plays a major role, mean by the term.
As should be clear from the context, we are discussing what one
particular Hindu individual understands by the term, and
secondarily how his own interpretation differs from the
traditional Hindu understanding.
But Andrew Skolnick appears to be insisting that the definition
in current English dictionaries is determinative of what "karma"
really means, and that any attempt to explain that the definition
reflects neither the traditional use of the term by Hindus, nor
the personal understanding of the Hindu individual in question, is
somehow deceptive, a matter of redefining the term to suit the
agenda of the person making the explanation.
Now, you seem to show some understanding of the fact that a
dictionary definition reflects current usage of speakers of the
dictionary's language, and not necessarily how speakers of the
term's original language use the term.
And yet you have attacked Lawson for making this very same point,
rather than criticizing Andrew Skolnick for dishonestly
pretending that a dictionary's definition of current
English-speaking usage constitutes the "real" meaning of the
term, from which any deviation, no matter what the context, is
suspect.
So as I noted, either you're too stupid to understand what's at
issue, or you're so lacking in integrity you're attempting to
defend the patent dishonesty of Andrew Skolnick, hoping readers
won't realize what you've said actually supports Lawson, not
Andrew.
Judy Stein
"Andrew A. Skolnick" <asko...@blocknazi.spam.mindspring.com> wrote:
> Lorrill Buyens wrote:
>
> > On the momentous occasion of 14 Sep 99 13:56:59 -0700, the Great
> > Detective "Lawson English" <eng...@primenet.com> looked the murderer
> > straight in the eye and hissed:
<snip>
> > >Andrew, both you and I are over 40. "Recently," for me, when
> > >dealing with definitions of words, refers to "in my lifetime."
>
> More than a hundred thousand words have been added to
> English dictionaries in our life time. And the meanings of
> hundreds of thousands more have been changed both in their
> common use and as they are defined by dictionaries.
Which is why dictionaries keep putting out new editions. <duh>
(And "as they are defined by dictionaries" and "in their common
use" are virtually synonymous, as Andrew knows.)
It is
> utter bullshit to claim that you are going by some
> definition in a dictionary published back when you were
> suckling and speaking baby talk.
Unless, of course, the point you were making explicitly concerned
the current applicability of the original definition of the term.
What Lawson said was that in the original sense of the term
"ghetto"--which he provided--there are no ghettos in the United
States and much of Europe.
Hardly controversial; rather obvious, in fact.
But Andrew chose deceptively to omit the context and portray
Lawson as claiming there were no ghettos in the *current* sense
of the term.
> By the way Lawson, why don't you show us a dictionary that
> was published in your life time that doesn't include the
> definition of "ghetto" as part of a city in which members of
> a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
> pressure?
Lawson didn't say any dictionary had been published in his
lifetime that didn't include this definition; to the contrary, as
Andrew knows.
Lawson said "up until recently" the term "ghetto" had been used
only as a metaphor, e.g, if it was referring to a black
neighborhood, the term would have a modifier, "black ghetto."
And then he defined "recently" to mean in his lifetime--which
would mean that by the time he was born, the term had already
taken on the generic sense and thus no longer required a
modifier.
So Andrew is lying on two counts.
Finally, of course, most of us don't keep older dictionaries
anyway. You'd have to go to a library that had a collection of
dictionaries dating back to before Lawson was born to find when
the generic definition first appeared.
> I doubt that you can find an American English dictionary
> that doesn't include that definition of "ghetto." I checked
> the oldest dictionary in my house and it certainly does
> include it. I know children whose parents weren't born yet
> when that dictionary was published.
Duh. Andrew said the dictionary was published in 1969. It would
be surprising if he knew only children whose parents were older
than 30.
And as Andrew knows, Lawson said the word was already being used
in the generic sense at least ten years before 1969.
> > Whereas most people, when using "recently," are referring to events
> > which took place a *short time* ago (i.e., 1-15 years or so). If you
> > *mean* "in your lifetime," why don't you *say* so?
>
> Because such are the word games that he and other TMers play.
Liar.
Lawson was talking about a timespan of several centuries, which
was clear from the context. "Recently" is entirely appropriate
to refer to the last 50 years or so of those four centuries.
For example, from the Encarta Online Encyclopedia (encarta.msn.com);
note the last sentence:
Ghetto, formerly a section of a town or city within which Jews were
compelled by law to live. By extension the term came to denote any
section inhabited principally or exclusively by Jews. The first
legally established ghetto was set up in Rome, in 1555, by Pope Paul
IV. Similar ghettos were established in most of Europe during the
following three centuries. Ghettos were surrounded by walls, and the
gates were locked at night. The ghetto system was abolished largely by
the French Revolution (1789-1799) and 19th-century liberal movements.
In recent years the term ghetto has been applied, often derogatorily,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
to crowded urban areas inhabited primarily by nonwhites.
> Don't know if you noticed Lorrill, but Lawson snipped out my
> next sentence which pointed out that there are millions of
> children in the United States whose parents weren't yet born
> when that dictionary was written. So Lawson switches "in
> your lifetime" for "recent" and hopes no one notices.
Liar.
Lawson didn't "switch" anything. That's what he meant to start
with. And the statistic about "millions of children" is utterly
meaningless. Citing this as though it were significant is
intentionally deceptive. Lawson should have left it in in order
to point out that it was a total non sequitur.
> All this just so he can justify one of his most bizarre
> *recent* assertions, that there are no ghettos in the United
> States.
Liar.
In context, what Lawson said was that there are no cities in the
United States that have walled enclosures where Jews are forced
to live. The only reason he's having to "justify" this entirely
reasonable, utterly uncontroversial statement is because of
Andrew's contemptible attempts to mislead readers about what he
said.
Judy Stein
> Lawson English wrote:
<snip>
> > Up until recently, using the word "ghetto" in connection with
> > non-Jews was understood to be an anology, as in the term "black
> > ghetto."
>
> Lawson, you can't stop digging in that hole you've made for
> yourself, can you? There are NO ghettos in the United
> States, you said. How can you say such a stupid thing?
> Because, you say, up until recently the word ghetto was only
> understood to be an analogy for any group but Jews.
>
> Here's definition 2. from the oldest dictionary in my house,
> published in 1969: "a quarter of a city in which members of
> a minority group live because of social, economic, or legal
> pressure."
>
> That was published 30 years ago. There are millions of
> children today running around in the United States whose
> parents were born after that dictionary was published.
Considering that the first recorded use of the term "ghetto" was
in 1611, and until after the Second World War more than four
centuries later primarily referred to a quarter of a city where
Jews were forced to live, Lawson's phrase "up until recently" is
entirely appropriate.
Andrew's elderly dictionary and the parents and children he
refers to are all "recent" in this context.
> Lawson, you don't seem to catch on that you can NEVER dig
> yourself out of a hole. You've got to let go of the shovel
> and climb out.
What Andrew means is that he's going to do his damndest to
continue to dig a hole around Lawson and shovel the dirt on top
of him until he surrenders.
A goodly portion of the dirt, of course, comes from the hole
Andrew dug for himself when he first falsely accused Lawson of
bigotry and racism.