Avinash_Tyagi said:
Nope, you said that Karma is merely the accruement of positive or negative deeds or energy which will be used to determine one's station in the next life, however that is false, one it doesn't not necessarily define our station in our next life, it defines our future, whether it be this life or future lives, not just our station, so it is not the accrument of deeds and energies, but the resultant effects of our actions/deeds and thoughts. So yeah your definition is a very incomplete view of Karma, my definition about action and reaction, was closer to the actual definition |
Oh boy. Semantics. I always wanted to be back in high school arguing about the meaning of words that I used.
So be it, then.
In no way did my prior definition place a limitation on what may be said about karma, and at no point did I say "merely" - indeed, there was a great deal about karma that was not said, but I did not claim that my definition was all-encompassing and attacking my definition on that point is fallacious. Further, your original definition, according to your own point concerning completion, has to be taken as incomplete and therefore wrong under the system of correctness that you have proposed. "Actions and reactions" misses both the gesture and the scope of the subject, and more than that it implies that karma is tied up in instant karma, which is rarely if ever a practical part of the philosophy.
But then my understanding of karma is primarily Buddhist, not Hinduist. Under the Buddhist understanding of karma, the idea that everything about our lives is determined by karma is incorrect, because we are still able to shape ourselves. I thin that's called the active rejection of past-action determinism, but I could be wrong.
Regardless, this is badly off-topic. I think we can both agree that the guy himself probably did not "deserve" that, though it could be argued that the HSN may have deserved the expense.
