QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 02:35 PM)
donation brings good karma. theft brings bad karma. and thus he will experience both good and bad consequences separately.
So does that mean as long as the person outweighs his bad deeds with good ones, "karma" will simply deemed his "bad deeds" as excusable?
Or, a more appropriate question will be, why is that bad deeds are always much more severe than good ones?
QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 02:47 PM)
which part of the consequences happening
SEPARATELY dont u understand?
True, consequences may trigger separately in accordance to good and bad karma, but isn't it already a bad karma for a person to rest upon the relieve that he'll always be "okay" about it as long as he manages to top up some good deeds in compensate his bad ones?
For example: I stole something. And then I contemplate: "Hey wait, it's that bad karma? Oh wait, no worries. All I gotta do is to get some good karma, and all will be fine." AND SO I CONTINUED STEALING.
Now, I don't know about you, but that thinking is already a "bad karma". Karma may have consequences SEPARATELY for good and bad deeds as you put it, but to actually accept karma as a teaching? I personally think it will put us into that position where we can choose to justify our bad deeds with the good ones, and even if that's possible, I seriously think we're in a big deal of bad karma, which ultimately means that if you believe in karma, only bad things can happen to you, LOL.

QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 03:27 PM)

Jesus dude! u really dont understand the meaning of
the consequences happening separately do you?
If you steal and do some good deeds, you will suffer consequences of stealing and at a
DIFFERENT time enjoy the good consequences of the good deeds.
Yeah, but that will put ourselves in the very position I described in my post.
QUOTE(teongpeng @ May 30 2010, 03:48 PM)
u thirsty u drink. u hungry u eat. DIFFERENT THINGS BRO. DIFF-farking-RENT! haih....

But do you see the FLAW of believing in a thing called KARMA?
QUOTE(soul2soul @ May 30 2010, 07:14 PM)
Does not work like that. You cannot actually cancel the Karma. You are playing with probability.
It's even worse you if think there is someone who can absorb your sins away.
QUOTE(soul2soul @ May 30 2010, 11:15 PM)
Added on May 30, 2010, 11:19 pmPut inside your pocket a small white stone (good kamma) and black stone (bad kamma).
Do more good things , you put more white stones into your pocket. When you draw from your pocket, the probability of you getting the white stone is higher, but by no means that you will never draw the black stone, just lower chance. So kamma works like this more or less - you cannot really cancel your kamma.
That's only because you think Karma only takes effect when an action takes place.
But the reality is, the action is already IN THE MIND, hence, if karma exists, then may people will have a whole lot more bad karma compared to having good ones.
QUOTE(LuciferAmadeus @ Sep 21 2011, 07:17 PM)
I think I get what you mean. You mean it's something like account balance? As long as you do good more than bad, you will get positive net?
I think, it works in a different way. For the bad deeds, you will get bad returns parable to what you did bad. Your good deed does not negate your bad deed, but it goes the same vice versa i.e Your good deed will be returned proportionally to your good deed. It's like you have two accounts which one cannot compensate the other. Perhaps, even each deed (good or bad) might even be returned separately.
If you think you can bear with the consequence of the small bad deeds you did, than fine. But what if the bad deeds returned simultaneously that it become one life-changing negative event?
Btw, I'm not buddhist. So my understanding of karma might be wrong.
Exactly!
Two rights does not necessarily cancel a wrong because the assumption that the wrong can be rectified mathematically by doing more good, hence two rights for a wrong, in its essence, is WRONG, because it does not necessarily constitute the remorse for the action, instead it encourages one to be less remorseful of a wrongdoing just because he knew he can cover it with two more rights. You know, like 2 really good excuses for a fault.
This post has been edited by Deadlocks: Nov 13 2011, 01:58 PM