Karma for me is cause and effect. The idea of good brings good or bad brings bad is a general statement for me. I personally don’t see karma as a reward or punishment system; I see it simply as cause and effect.
I have a question that's not directly related to the video, please just ignore or delete it if you find it off topic. For some time I have been wondering what the differences between spirituality, religion and psychology are. It seems to me that, in theory, many spiritual practices and effects could also be explained in terms of psychology, but spiritual practitioners seem to give spirituality a higher status than they give to psychology, even though some of those practitioners claim to not include anything supernatural in their practices. I have similar confusions when it comes to the difference between spirituality and religion, is it just that religions are organised while spirituality is more of a personal thing? I sometimes want to start doing spiritual exercises, because I feel like something is missing in my life but I'm at this point not convinced that anything supernatural exists. Do you know any good explanation of what spirituality really is and if someone like me who lies somewhere between agnostic and atheist could do it?
Those are good questions. Different people are going to mean different things by the words spirituality and religion so I can only genreralize. There's many ways these words can be used too. Often the word religion is used in a derogatory way and when that's done it's the negative elements of religion, or that creep into religion, which are referenced, such as blind following, and a lack of taking logic and evidence into account. But by religion in a positive sense the qualities that might be picked out could be something that has an organization, and settled doctrine which has been carried by a tradition for some time. Often by spirituality people are either following a religion but wanting to distance themselves from the perception people have of religion, or following something based on their own experience and an eclectic collection of ideas. Psychology applied to these ideas would just be looking at the psychologically phenomenon and rejecting it making no claims in support of any ontology behind the phenomenon. I lean towards there being an ontology behind spiritual/religious experiences, and revealed knowledge from God being persevered to come extent in some traditions. I happen to think that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has done this.
@@Charvakarishi4669 yes, one of my biggest gaps in a while. Posted 2 videos for legacy electrical and been crazy busy. Will try and get something up in the next week.
Theology bhai never read the bhagvat geeta translated by isckon. They have done several mistakes and mistranslations like BG 9/32 where women and vaishyas are called of sin birth and introduced words like Demigod which is not present in the actual bhagvat geeta. Already read Gita Press Gorakhpur translations theology bhai
"Demigod" is just a word for "Devta" and/or "Devi". In my opinion, the word "Devta" or "Devi" should have been retained. But at the end of the day, the word demigod denotes Devi/Devta.
Shut up ISKCON's translations are better than the nonsense advaitin translations. People who cannot determine whether their own existence is real or not shouldn't go on targetting Vaishnavas
Now people have objections to Karma. Shaking my head.
Hare krishn
I think one aspect of compassion is to wish for everyone to realize their true, divine self.
Hare krishna 🙏 stay blessed
Karma for me is cause and effect. The idea of good brings good or bad brings bad is a general statement for me. I personally don’t see karma as a reward or punishment system; I see it simply as cause and effect.
I saw your comments on Capturing Christianity's video on reincarnation. Are you planning to make a full response video to that video?
I'll definitely do something. Seth's a good friend so we'll do a podcast with him at some stage too. Just seeing what channel we do it on.
Do you think you can make a video responding to Atheist Republics takes on the Bhagavad Gita?
They think it promotes violence.
I have a question that's not directly related to the video, please just ignore or delete it if you find it off topic.
For some time I have been wondering what the differences between spirituality, religion and psychology are. It seems to me that, in theory, many spiritual practices and effects could also be explained in terms of psychology, but spiritual practitioners seem to give spirituality a higher status than they give to psychology, even though some of those practitioners claim to not include anything supernatural in their practices.
I have similar confusions when it comes to the difference between spirituality and religion, is it just that religions are organised while spirituality is more of a personal thing?
I sometimes want to start doing spiritual exercises, because I feel like something is missing in my life but I'm at this point not convinced that anything supernatural exists.
Do you know any good explanation of what spirituality really is and if someone like me who lies somewhere between agnostic and atheist could do it?
Those are good questions. Different people are going to mean different things by the words spirituality and religion so I can only genreralize. There's many ways these words can be used too. Often the word religion is used in a derogatory way and when that's done it's the negative elements of religion, or that creep into religion, which are referenced, such as blind following, and a lack of taking logic and evidence into account. But by religion in a positive sense the qualities that might be picked out could be something that has an organization, and settled doctrine which has been carried by a tradition for some time. Often by spirituality people are either following a religion but wanting to distance themselves from the perception people have of religion, or following something based on their own experience and an eclectic collection of ideas.
Psychology applied to these ideas would just be looking at the psychologically phenomenon and rejecting it making no claims in support of any ontology behind the phenomenon.
I lean towards there being an ontology behind spiritual/religious experiences, and revealed knowledge from God being persevered to come extent in some traditions. I happen to think that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has done this.
@@TheologyUnleashedit's been some time since you have posted you're last video
@@Charvakarishi4669 yes, one of my biggest gaps in a while. Posted 2 videos for legacy electrical and been crazy busy. Will try and get something up in the next week.
How many geetas have you read? Have you read all the 39 geetas
1. Anu-gītā, 2. Avadhūta-gītā, 3. Aṣṭāvakra-gītā, 4. Kapila-gītā 5. Adhyātma Gītā 6. Arhad-gītā Or Tattva-gītā 7. Bhagavad Gītā 8. Bhikṣu-gītā 9. Bodhya-gītā 10. Brahma-gītā 11. Brāhmaṇa-gītā 12. Devī-gītā 13. Gaṇeśa-gītā 14. Haṃsa-gītā 15. Har-gītā 16. Hārīta-gītā 17. Jayanteya-gītā 18. Īśvara-gītā, 19. Kapila-gītā 20. Maṅkī-gītā 21. Mahāvīra Gītā (Jaina) 22. Pāṇḍava-gītā 23. Parāśara-gītā 24. Piṅgala-gītā 25. Prema-gītā 26. Rāma-gītā 27. Rudra-gītā 28. Śiva-gītā 29. Śivaśaṁpāka-gītā 30. Sūrya-gītā 31. Sūta-gītā 32. Vicikhyu-gītā 33. Vṛtra-gītā 34. Vyādha Gītā 35. Vyāsa-gītā 36. Yama-gītā, 37 Ribhu gītā, 38 Uddhava gītā, 39 Janaka gītā.
Just bhagavad gita
@@TheologyUnleashed Do read the other 38 Geetas
@@OMPATI-br8jh it's better to become expert at one book then to skim the surface of many.
Read Ribhu gita and Astang gita. They have a very good philosophy
@@OMPATI-br8jh Bhagavad gita and Bhagavatam are the essence of the Vedas. I find great nectar studying them.
Do you understand sanskrit sir
No, I started studying at one stage but got too busy.
Bhagvat geeta actual essence is in sanskrit not English, Hindi or any other language
@@OMPATI-br8jh sanskrit can be translated into English with lots of the mensing being retained.
Only 75-80 %
@@OMPATI-br8jh it can be translated enough to show it doesn't support advaita vada
Srimad bhagvatam translated by gita press Gorakhpur is best translated Srimad Bhagvatam
Theology bhai never read the bhagvat geeta translated by isckon. They have done several mistakes and mistranslations like BG 9/32 where women and vaishyas are called of sin birth and introduced words like Demigod which is not present in the actual bhagvat geeta. Already read Gita Press Gorakhpur translations theology bhai
"Demigod" is just a word for "Devta" and/or "Devi". In my opinion, the word "Devta" or "Devi" should have been retained. But at the end of the day, the word demigod denotes Devi/Devta.
Shut up ISKCON's translations are better than the nonsense advaitin translations. People who cannot determine whether their own existence is real or not shouldn't go on targetting Vaishnavas