Ashok Aggarwall
On Fri, 19 Dec 1997 01:34:34 GMT, hagen@igr.nl (Hagen) wrote:
>These are some messages I have send to ISKCON (Hare Krishna),
>and other experts on Hindu beliefs.
>Until now, I have not received any response that has showed me wrong
>on my conclusions regarding the concept of the law of karma.
>Maybe someone in this newsgroup can proof my wrong, about the invented
>origins and subjective
>and therefore mythical, non-scriptural origins of this concept.
>
>Opinions on karma part (1):
>
>I approach the law of karma as a scientist.
>At first hand I have the idea therefore that karma is something manmade.
>
>Not scriptural in a literal sense.
>What are the scriptural texts that prove, the law of karma is not
>something made up, later, by smart people, but something that is clearly
>
>outlined in the original scriptures of Hindu and Vedic religion.
>
>So where is the text that can been seen as the deepest foundation
>explaining the law of karma.
>At least, the texts that you repeat (refer to), are not clear enough for
>
>this purpose. It can only be seen as a very tiny small part.
>Can you please give me the places of books, where I can find the
>foundation texts for the law of karma. Maybe it is possible for you, to
>email me those texts?
>
>Opinions part (2)
>There is no text at all in Hindu or Vedic scriptures that speaks and
>clarifies in depth the outline of the law of karma.
>It is manmade for the entire.
>You are right that few people approach myths and belief systems totally
>scientificly.
>Why don't people present the foundation texts that outline karma in the
>original scriptures?
>Can't they.
>I think this is a good example of bad karma. The worst kind of karma I
>can think of.
>To hell with all those creeps.
>
>If you happen to know of texts that make my karma negative because of
>this conclusion, then, please let me know where I finally can get these
>foundation scriptures to read.
>
>Opinions part (3):
>I read your page on karma.
>
>What I was hoping for was the original texts in the scriptures of Hindu
>or Veda's, that outline the precise deifinitions of the law of karma.
>Since I can't find these texts, I have to assume that this law is
>manmade in origine.
>Invented thus, afterwards, based on a teaching, based on some lines in
>the scriptural texts.
>So this is subjective. Not objective mentioned in the original
>scriptures.
>
>The conclusion can then be no other, that in its own ball game, the
>presentation of the law of karma, other then based directly on an
>original text, is very bad karma.
>Please show me the texts that prove me wrong.
>Otherwise I have to stay in my conclusions, and even have to accuse you
>of
>irreasonable misleading people, with the claims to be both scientific
>and scriptural.
>You have a high regard of philosphy. It is the most precise form of
>science. It is more precise than even maths, because it is thinking
>about thinking, analyses about analyses.
>
>Thus as a philosopher I challenge you. Are you a philosopher.
>Then, show me the texts, that outline karma, in their original form.
>I doubt that you can, or anybody.
>Surely, there will be some remarks of rebirth and so on, and I would be
>glad to know of their mentioning (the precise texts), but the concept of
>
>the law of karma based on such texts alone, is not enough to present
>them as scriptural. They are an invented concept.
>Of course this does not say, that it might not be true or wrong, or not
>be fit for eventual scientific proof, once the techniques will become
>available for research on this level. Nevertheless, presenting the idea
>other than with this addition/disclosure statement, is speculation.
>Please show me that this (my) analysis is wrong.
>
>>From Jan Hagen
>hagen@igr.nl-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Mail posts to: ghen@netcom.com : http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/
Advertise with us! |
|