Analogy of Karma...!

[intuition]

Any care to share their understanding of Karma, I'm all ears to any examples...Cheers

KNOWLEDGE SPEAKS|WISDOM LISTENS

[NightMyst3]

I think it's like on a level. Whatever you do adds up. Every action you do is a little bad a little good and that helps teeter your level.

Eventually when something is "needed" or somesuch the grains of your karma are weighed and the thing is either done or not done.

[wolfgang]

Karma is unconscious habitual forms that stay with your soul as long as you are unconscious. Karma is like habitual behavior - some of it's good some is detrimental. Karma causes rebirth/reincarnation. Karma attaches to souls of people that haven't awakened (most of us). Once we see that we really aren't separate from source, karma is not attached and the soul doesn't reincarnate. Another mapping of this is to think it in Christian terms. Karma is like sin and separation from God. Hell is reincarnation and staying separate from God in rebirth. Once one realizes they really are one with God (enlightenment), they can be in heaven while on earth and after physical death (no more karma or reincarnation).

[NightMyst3]

that works...to a point. that philosophy still ties you to the earth however?

[Anagogy]

Karma is how the energy expression of consciousness balances itself. It is not punitive in nature, as some may believe, but it is understandable how it could be misconstrued.

Allow me to explain: when an object exists in a particular environment, and is more hot than the surrounding environment, it will naturally cool down until it has achieved balance. The same goes in reverse, if an object is more cold than the surrounding environment, it will naturally heat up until it has achieved balance with the surrounding environment. Now, never mind what caused these objects to get out of balance with their environment...

The scale of hot and cold can be considered a kind of continuum, or dimension, with two different directions (hot and cold). The surrounding environment is what determines the "collective norm" for that continuum. All energy has a continuum which is its domain of expression. Balance for that particular type of energy, always occurs within that domain, and not somewhere else.

So karma is the energy continuum that governs the balance of consciousness. Consciousness is the energy domain of experience. When an ego, or "point of consciousness", is formed it is similar to superheating or supercooling an object in the metaphorical environment alluded to above. It sets in motion a balancing effect which causes energy to be exchanged with the surrounding environment until the energy has been uniformly distributed and balance has been achieved. It is a natural interaction and exchange of energies.

When an ego is formed, a huge imbalance in energy has already been set in motion. You could also picture it as a rain drop that has landed from the sky onto a tall rock (earth perhaps? ), and is now gently running downhill, naturally seeking its level (the ocean). It may gain or lose mass on its journey back to the ocean, it may even get stuck for a while in some crack or hole, or be taken up by evaporation into the sky and recycled again (a common occurence ), but eventually it will make its way back to immense ocean from whence it sprang. So no matter what, you will eventually merge back into the one soul, because the energy that you are -- consciousness -- is always seeking balance, no matter what.

The episodes you have in life that push you even farther away from the Ocean of Soul (and you can use your thinking noodle to figure out what those are) create a "disharmony" in consciousness which was wrought from imbalanced experience. The energy of consciousness must then realign itself, and work off this "disharmony" through, yet again, more experience of an opposite nature.

The information given above is a bare bones explanation of how karma works, the process is actually more intricate, especially when you start considering the relationship and interactions between individual, group, and cosmic experience.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

So karma is the energy continuum that governs the balance of consciousness. Consciousness is the energy domain of experience. When an ego, or "point of consciousness", is formed it is similar to superheating or supercooling an object in the metaphorical environment alluded to above.

Almost agree but see it as balancing consciousness with unconsciousness. The ego being the unconscious and separate self that carries karma.

When an ego is formed, a huge imbalance in energy has already been set in motion. You could also picture it as a rain drop that has landed from the sky onto a tall rock (earth perhaps? ), and is now gently running downhill, naturally seeking its level (the ocean). It may gain or lose mass on its journey back to the ocean, it may even get stuck for a while in some crack or hole, or be taken up by evaporation into the sky and recycled again (a common occurence ), but eventually it will make its way back to immense ocean from whence it sprang. So no matter what, you will eventually merge back into the one soul, because the energy that you are -- consciousness -- is always seeking balance, no matter what.

the energy that we are is consciousness not ego or the rain drop. the ego is not seeking to release it's hold on being unconscious or make its way back. it is energy that gets stuck and self generated as being separate. the karma of an ego is energy not flowing or energy in turbulence because there is no awareness of being shinning on the transparent nature of the ego.

The episodes you have in life that push you even farther away from the Ocean of Soul (and you can use your thinking noodle to figure out what those are) create a "disharmony" in consciousness which was wrought from imbalanced experience. The energy of consciousness must then realign itself, and work off this "disharmony" through, yet again, more experience of an opposite nature.

The information given above is a bare bones explanation of how karma works, the process is actually more intricate, especially when you start considering the relationship and interactions between individual, group, and cosmic experience.

Disharmony exists where there is unconsciousness. Such a thing as "disharmony" in consciousness doesn't happen. As soon as there is consciousness - the disharmony lessens and peace shows up, as well as karma drops away.

[Jonathan Mead]

If you really want to get into it, there is no such thing as disharmony or harmony. These are dualistic views and consciousness or reality is essentially non-dual. All things are seeking balance, but this is from a subjective standpoint. If the ego is seeking union or realization of the infinite, unbound cosmic consciousness, it seems there is disharmony that needs to be brought back into harmony. But this is merely an illusion created by the idea, or the belief that there is a seperate existence. The separation is an illusion. It's like the seer getting lost in the seen.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Mead

If you really want to get into it, there is no such thing as disharmony or harmony. These are dualistic views and consciousness or reality is essentially non-dual. All things are seeking balance, but this is from a subjective standpoint. If the ego is seeking union or realization of the infinite, unbound cosmic consciousness, it seems there is disharmony that needs to be brought back into harmony. But this is merely an illusion created by the idea, or the belief that there is a seperate existence. The separation is an illusion. It's like the seer getting lost in the seen.

No arguments here, but this "illusion of separation" is the disharmony itself. How do you think you got where you are? Perhaps a better word would be "distortion". The difference, as it were, between "reality", or rather, how reality "actually is" as opposed to how it "appears to be", is the distortion of karma itself. The journey back to oneness is a natural result of karma balancing itself out. The "balancing" is the clearing up of the "distortions" of awareness. You can't go back until you acquire the proper "fit". The square peg doesn't fit in the round hole.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Almost agree but see it as balancing consciousness with unconsciousness. The ego being the unconscious and separate self that carries karma.

From my perspective, the ego is a distortion within the unified field of oneness. This imbalance of energy causes one portion of the One, to seemingly be out of phase with the rest of the One. This energetic imbalance results in a seemingly separate "self" who is ignorant. Ignorant, in this context, means this "ego" has stopped "knowing" and started "perceiving". One does not involve the possibility of distortion, the other does. So this ignorance, or unconsciousness, is actually the karma itself viewed from the perspective of self. You can "perceive" it, it many different ways.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

the energy that we are is consciousness not ego or the rain drop. the ego is not seeking to release it's hold on being unconscious or make its way back. it is energy that gets stuck and self generated as being separate. the karma of an ego is energy not flowing or energy in turbulence because there is no awareness of being shinning on the transparent nature of the ego.

The psychological structure of the ego does not innately seek release or balance. However, in my view, it is automatically working off karma. In my analogy of the rain drop, the gravity that pulls that drop down towards the ocean is not the rain drop itself. Whether the rain drop wants to go towards the ocean or not is really moot, because regardless, the water WILL seek its level. Similarly, the ego need not be consciously seeking to work off karma, it will happen automatically. It's like planting a seed, it will grow into a tree eventually, naturally. The ego could speed up or, alternatively, retard the process by consciously acknowledging the power of their choice. However, after a certain point, the working off of the karma will necessarily involve conscious awareness of the process at work in order to correct distortions of perception.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Disharmony exists where there is unconsciousness. Such a thing as "disharmony" in consciousness doesn't happen. As soon as there is consciousness - the disharmony lessens and peace shows up, as well as karma drops away.

I'm not arguing with you here. But I think its interesting how different people use different words to describe the same thing. For example, the way I word basically the same thing is: the "disharmony" in consciousness IS the unconsciousness, ignorance, distortion, or mis-perception of the true reality. Truth (or knowledge) ameliorates untruth (or false perception). Truth is giving the lie what is asked for. That phenomenon is karma being worked out. Karma attracts opportunities (or experiences) for correcting mis-perception.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

This energetic imbalance results in a seemingly separate "self" who is ignorant.

Is this energetic imbalance just being unconscious?

The psychological structure of the ego does not innately seek release or balance. However, in my view, it is automatically working off karma.

Maybe we differ here. It seems to me the ego fights to keep it's position. If it were a rain drop it would keep trying tofly around as that drop. The ego is not the part of us that does the work of becoming aware. That would be our real self that is awareness and non-ego. Our awareness is what shines the light of consciousness on the illusion of the ego.

It's like planting a seed, it will grow into a tree eventually, naturally. The ego could speed up or, alternatively, retard the process by consciously acknowledging the power of their choice. However, after a certain point, the working off of the karma will necessarily involve conscious awareness of the process at work in order to correct distortions of perception.

I think any ego work would impead awakening or ditching karma. Even the ego that is seeking enlightenment. The natural part that wants to ditch karma is our awarness of being, that is not ego - to me.

I'm not arguing with you here. But I think its interesting how different people use different words to describe the same thing. For example, the way I word basically the same thing is: the "disharmony" in consciousness IS the unconsciousness, ignorance, distortion, or mis-perception of the true reality. Truth (or knowledge) ameliorates untruth (or false perception). Truth is giving the lie what is asked for. That phenomenon is karma being worked out. Karma attracts opportunities (or experiences) for correcting mis-perception.

Nor am I with you! I do think we see karma in a similar way. Actually, disharmony in consciousness would be the unconsciousness -we both say that. Maybe we differ where the ego is. I put the ego on the unconsciousness side. That may sound strange, ha? What do I mean the ego is unconscious? Isn't the ego conscious? Well, it's conscious of it's own distorted view of being separate- but unconscious of oneness and Being.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Is this energetic imbalance just being unconscious?

In a basic sense, yes. It manifests as a lack of knowledge, and a sensory system to translate data.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Maybe we differ here. It seems to me the ego fights to keep it's position. If it were a rain drop it would keep trying tofly around as that drop. The ego is not the part of us that does the work of becoming aware. That would be our real self that is awareness and non-ego. Our awareness is what shines the light of consciousness on the illusion of the ego. I think any ego work would impead awakening or ditching karma. Even the ego that is seeking enlightenment. The natural part that wants to ditch karma is our awarness of being, that is not ego - to me.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what the ego is. To me an ego is simply a structure through which consciousness is filtered through. It RESTRICTS awareness. Consciousness is the witness, the container of possibility that has the capacity to choose. Egos, from my perspective, and I think somewhat similar to your view, are not made up of the part of consciousness which "broadcasts" perception.

They are not experiencers, they are experience. They are not capable of choice, because only consciousness is capable of choice. Rather than the part of consciousness that exercises the choice to identify with a perception, and limit itself, they ARE a perception. Perception serves to restrict conscious awareness, because all perceptions are filters. When you "perceive" you are using some kind of sensory system, whether that be nonphysical or physical. You are looking at information, through an "information interpreter". After all, you must perceive "something" with "something" (like a body, eyes, or whatever) The ego is like clothing that consciousness puts on. It makes it look a little different, and covers it up a bit.

The ego structure can certainly create strong tendencies within consciousness to seek preservation of "self". It cannot choose however, it can only convince consciousness to choose, usually by limiting its awareness of choices, thereby restricting free will in a sense. I agree with you that the ego does not seek enlightenment, it seeks the opposite in fact, though it can appear to be after enlightenment, in order to create a spirituality based ego, which I see more often than not . The automatic force I was alluding to, which reels you back to enlightenment regardless of choice, is your higher self. A Course in Miracles refers to it as the Holy Spirit, or memory of oneness. It acts as a sort of "spiritual gravity" for truth. Nuggets of truth are absorbed into the trapped consciousness (karmic lessons), and the limitations of ego are naturally eroded as the eons go on. The process can be greatly accelerated with conscious seeking of truth however.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Nor am I with you! I do think we see karma in a similar way. Actually, disharmony in consciousness would be the unconsciousness -we both say that. Maybe we differ where the ego is. I put the ego on the unconsciousness side. That may sound strange, ha? What do I mean the ego is unconscious? Isn't the ego conscious? Well, it's conscious of it's own distorted view of being separate- but unconscious of oneness and Being.

Agreed. The ego structure warps the consciousness that shines through it. Like looking through rose colored lenses -- everything is red. This is why I consider them filters. They filter "out" parts of existence, to leave you with an incomplete view of reality.

[wolfgang]

Beautifully put Anagogy!

Originally Posted by Anagogy

In a basic sense, yes. It manifests as a lack of knowledge, and a sensory system to translate data.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what the ego is. To me an ego is simply a structure through which consciousness is filtered through. It RESTRICTS awareness. Consciousness is the witness, the container of possibility that has the capacity to choose. Egos, from my perspective, and I think somewhat similar to your view, are not made up of the part of consciousness which "broadcasts" perception.

Ego filters consciousness and is a structure that is not able to decide anything. I can follow that. I would add that ego is habitual. We think the ego decides something but all that is happening is a unconscious response that has been trained.

Ego restricting awareness - like that perspective. I would ask, thought, what makes the ego restrict awareness? Is that just because the ego is not made up of the part of consciousness/awareness that is flexible and able to choose?

They are not experiencers, they are experience. They are not capable of choice, because only consciousness is capable of choice. Rather than the part of consciousness that exercises the choice to identify with a perception, and limit itself, they ARE a perception. Perception serves to restrict conscious awareness, because all perceptions are filters. When you "perceive" you are using some kind of sensory system, whether that be nonphysical or physical. You are looking at information, through an "information interpreter". After all, you must perceive "something" with "something" (like a body, eyes, or whatever) The ego is like clothing that consciousness puts on. It makes it look a little different, and covers it up a bit.

If perception server to restrict conscious awareness - how can someone perceive without restrictions? I mean, the idea that oneness is what, I think, is to be entertained and identified with - so if one does realize oneness is the true nature of self - what do we get to perceive? Of coarse I ask this a lot and usually say it's a paradox - that oneness and individual-ness can exist to have something to have the experience of oneness go through. Just wondering what your take would be on that. how to be in oneness but still have a point of experience or perception but also not restrict or distort awareness.

The ego structure can certainly create strong tendencies within consciousness to seek preservation of "self". It cannot choose however, it can only convince consciousness to choose, usually by limiting its awareness of choices, thereby restricting free will in a sense. I agree with you that the ego does not seek enlightenment, it seeks the opposite in fact, though it can appear to be after enlightenment, in order to create a spirituality based ego, which I see more often than not . The automatic force I was alluding to, which reels you back to enlightenment regardless of choice, is your higher self. A Course in Miracles refers to it as the Holy Spirit, or memory of oneness. It acts as a sort of "spiritual gravity" for truth. Nuggets of truth are absorbed into the trapped consciousness (karmic lessons), and the limitations of ego are naturally eroded as the eons go on. The process can be greatly accelerated with conscious seeking of truth however.

Maybe that difference in view of the ego is showing up again. The ego, to me, is not able to produce tendencies withing consciousness. It only is able to be habitual and self creating or generating. I do agree the ego is not able to choose. I do start to wonder about how the ego eventually goes down a path that destroys it self in some way. That going into ego too much causes so much pain that eventually the individual surrenders and realizes the ego isn't so important.

Agreed. The ego structure warps the consciousness that shines through it. Like looking through rose colored lenses -- everything is red. This is why I consider them filters. They filter "out" parts of existence, to leave you with an incomplete view of reality.

Sounds like what beliefs are. The ego must be a belief keeper in it's habits that causes an individual to see existence a certain way.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Ego restricting awareness - like that perspective. I would ask, thought, what makes the ego restrict awareness? Is that just because the ego is not made up of the part of consciousness/awareness that is flexible and able to choose?

The ego is a formed structure -- a projection of consciousness, if you will. All forms restrict awareness to the given form. Like forcing liquid into a solid container, the liquid assumes the shape of formed container. We have created the very prison that binds us. "A prison for your mind." (matrix quote)

Originally Posted by wolfgang

If perception server to restrict conscious awareness - how can someone perceive without restrictions? I mean, the idea that oneness is what, I think, is to be entertained and identified with - so if one does realize oneness is the true nature of self - what do we get to perceive? Of coarse I ask this a lot and usually say it's a paradox - that oneness and individual-ness can exist to have something to have the experience of oneness go through. Just wondering what your take would be on that. how to be in oneness but still have a point of experience or perception but also not restrict or distort awareness.

Its strange how I can see some abstract things in a relatively simple and clear way, but they are near ineffable to describe.

From my perspective, all reality is information (or experience) that exists within the space of consciousness. Perception always involves a TRANSLATION of data. Intuition does not. See, there is KNOWING and there is PERCEPTION. Knowing, is what you had before separation from the one. You identified with all existence, and so you WERE all existence, which is total intelligent infinity, and probably impossible for us to truly grip intellectually with our present human limitations. From this state, we did not understand separation. But, you KNEW everything, because you were identified with everything.

See, you can't truly KNOW something, unless you ARE that something. For example, you cannot doubt your own awareness of existing, because the definition of existence hinges upon your awareness of existing ("I think, therefore I am"). It is an intrinsic part of your identity. However, because I am only a perception to you, my awareness CAN be doubted. So perceptions are like "ideas" that are alluded to by observations made through your sensory apparatus. They are "symbols" for something else. Intuition, on the other hand, is awareness of raw data, which involves a transcendence of subject/object relationships, temporarily.

When we attempted to know an opposite to oneness, it required perception, so the information could be warped to simulate separation (as "real" separation is not possible). This is when all types and manners of bodies were created. These were vehicles for consciousness, that utilized perception to deliver information to mind in a "structured" fashion. The ego is such a body.

Well, I kind of got off your question a little bit (sorry), but basically, if you were joined with oneness, you would have no perception, but you would KNOW you were all existence, no faith required. You would also feel unlimited power, and infinite potential for creativity, as you would exist at the most free point of existence, where all choices exist and are waiting to be made.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Maybe that difference in view of the ego is showing up again. The ego, to me, is not able to produce tendencies withing consciousness. It only is able to be habitual and self creating or generating. I do agree the ego is not able to choose. I do start to wonder about how the ego eventually goes down a path that destroys it self in some way. That going into ego too much causes so much pain that eventually the individual surrenders and realizes the ego isn't so important.

What I meant is that the ego *IS* a tendency. It *IS* the "habit body". It maintains stability by continuing patterns of identity. The consciousness trapped in an ego structure is impressed with the patterns inherent in the ego structure (like the liquid in the glass taking the form of the glass). The consciousness feels like it is the form it has constrained itself within.

However, the ego usually has no longterm happiness to offer the consciousness inside it, and can only offer more and more frustrating experiences involving a reality that exhibits separation. This means life will be good at times, but bad at other times -- the usual dance of duality. After enough negative experience, the consciousness eventually desires a way out, and the spiritual gravity pulling the mind towards the universal mind (or holy spirit) becomes stronger.

Originally Posted by wolfgang

Sounds like what beliefs are. The ego must be a belief keeper in it's habits that causes an individual to see existence a certain way.

Actually, this is something I'm a bit confused about. Is the ego a belief keeper, or are beliefs an ego keeper? Maybe it doesn't matter.

Thanks for the comments, Wolfgang.

[wolfgang]

Originally Posted by Anagogy

See, you can't truly KNOW something, unless you ARE that something. For example, you cannot doubt your own awareness of existing, because the definition of existence hinges upon your awareness of existing ("I think, therefore I am"). It is an intrinsic part of your identity.

However it is an error to make a self out of thinking. "I think, therefore I am" is more like "I found a way to pretend to be separate and I call it thinking". The "I am" that is real doesn't have thinking, do you see it that way? That thinking is a function of being separate from oneness?

Actually, this is something I'm a bit confused about. Is the ego a belief keeper, or are beliefs an ego keeper? Maybe it doesn't matter.

Thanks for the comments, Wolfgang.

Thanks for your thoughtful posts. What keeps beliefs alive? I guess I was more relating to the way the ego is a filter, that you mentioned. And the beliefs are filters too. So then it seemed like ego and beliefs are different labels of the same thing.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by wolfgang

However it is an error to make a self out of thinking. "I think, therefore I am" is more like "I found a way to pretend to be separate and I call it thinking". The "I am" that is real doesn't have thinking, do you see it that way? That thinking is a function of being separate from oneness?

I agree that thinking is not necessary in the oneness. I consider thoughts to be the shape awareness has taken at a given time. Anything can be a thought, any shape assumed. But when enlightenment is in effect, and we are joined with the one, the shape of awareness is infinite and boundary less. And there is no need from that state, (unless we were to choose to experience separation again), to "limit" the shape of mind to a specific form.

[Sam988]

There are people who live their entire lives only caring about themselves and sometimes even harming others when they stay in their way. Many of these people lead successful lives, have a great family, and get very rich. When they die, they die happily. And don't tell me they will be punished in their next incarnation; there's no evidence, but the ones created by wishful thinking minds, that reincarnation exists.

There are others who live their entire lives serving others, putting others first, doing charity work, helping everyone around them. But also, many of these, end up an old, alone, poor, and disgraced.


I don't believe in karma. It is just a concept, an idea that when you help others, it's good for you (and it may be or it may not be), and that when you harm others, you ultimatelly harm yourself too (also, it may be or it may not). It's like the bible's saying that "treat others how you would like to be treated". Karma is based on the assumption that life is fair, that the universe always corrects all unjustices and makes everything be fair. That's a great comforting mindset to have if you're in the bottom of life, but it will hardly make you motivated to change anything, to make your life be what you want to it be, to take action and be agressive and not stop, no matter what, until you get where you want in life.

[Anagogy]

Originally Posted by Sam988

There are people who live their entire lives only caring about themselves and sometimes even harming others when they stay in their way. Many of these people lead successful lives, have a great family, and get very rich. When they die, they die happily. And don't tell me they will be punished in their next incarnation; there's no evidence, but the ones created by wishful thinking minds, that reincarnation exists.

And these allegedly happy self serving individuals -- you were in their mind when they died? You know they were happy beyond any doubt?

Also, many would contend the idea that karma is about "punishment" is incorrect. I see it as a clarifying force that resolves distortions involving separation between experiencer and experienced.

And if you would care to actually read the available literature in regards to reincarnation, you'd be surprised how much evidence actually does exists for it. There are reams upon reams of evidence. What type of evidence would convince you, honestly?

Originally Posted by Sam988

There are others who live their entire lives serving others, putting others first, doing charity work, helping everyone around them. But also, many of these, end up an old, alone, poor, and disgraced.

Conjecturally, all manner of situations exist, such as the one you describe above. I can only say that it doesn't have to be that way. It could just as likely go in another direction if proper knowledge and direction is present.

Originally Posted by Sam988

I don't believe in karma. It is just a concept, an idea that when you help others, it's good for you (and it may be or it may not be), and that when you harm others, you ultimatelly harm yourself too (also, it may be or it may not). It's like the bible's saying that "treat others how you would like to be treated". Karma is based on the assumption that life is fair, that the universe always corrects all unjustices and makes everything be fair. That's a great comforting mindset to have if you're in the bottom of life, but it will hardly make you motivated to change anything, to make your life be what you want to it be, to take action and be agressive and not stop, no matter what, until you get where you want in life.

Whether life is fair or not, I don't know. All I know is we have to do the best we can with what we've been given. This is the covenant of self. To self actualize. Some people consider karma to be the greatest motivator of all time. Think of the moments in your life that were life defining, that made you "you". They usually involve a harsh contrast where your perspective was severely challenged by something negative or positive happening to you. What if you found out those experiences were brought on by karmic imbalances created in another life? Would that change your opinion on karma?