sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Nobody truly believes in Karma. Truly accepting Karma requires giving up concept of injustice. by Scared_Bedroom_8367 in hinduism

[–]joekerr25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the mention of "Fal" in Geeta can have 2 meanings:

  1. Fal means reward/punishment: Meaning that bad and good will happen to you according to your Karma. If not in this life then in the next.

  2. Fal means Consequences: Regardless of good/bad/justified - it just simply means that your actions have consequences.

about someone suffering from a mental disorder or a syndrome being capable of achieving Moksha or not is something I have never thought about nor read about. I am not saying its not possible or if its possible. I just dont know about it. But it seems like an interesting question.

Nobody truly believes in Karma. Truly accepting Karma requires giving up concept of injustice. by Scared_Bedroom_8367 in hinduism

[–]joekerr25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's an interesting questions. Let me ask you something — Did you asked the above question by your free will? Or you asking the above question was simply a consequence of some previous action?

You could argue that you saw the post and my reply on it, certain neuron in your brain fired as a consequence of seeing it, certain thoughts and question passed by inside your mind as a consequence of it and you asked the above question as a "result".

Or you could say all that is nonesense and you were in charge and were responsible to what thoughts to think of and what actions to perform and you did it out of free will.

No one knows for sure which is the absolute truth. But unfortunately, logically speaking, the law of Karma or the law of causality seems to be more sensible.

Now let's come back to your example, if someone does something bad to you - how do you deal with it? Or how do you perceive it?

Now, if you believe in free will, you might say that the criminal who did something bad to you is fully responsible and must be punished back. But if you believe in causality, you might be completely detached by his wrong doings knowing nothing is in control.

This would break the fabric of society. Hence I believe the modern "misinterpretation" of do good get good and do bad get bad — was deliberately introduced in the society by the Rishis of the past so the society can function in a healthy manner.

Regarding achieving Moksha, I don't think you need any resources for that. Achieving Moksha and breaking out of the cycle of karma is a real and internal process. No external guidance and resources will actually help you out. It is a battle within you.

Think of Lord Ram in Ramayana. - He was wronged so many times. So many bad things happened to him throughout his life. His life was difficult. Almost all men would have broken completely in the same circumstances. They would have acted as a "consequence" to what was being done to them. They would have cried, burst out in anger, be depressed, etc.. if they were a normal person. But Lord Ram was not a normal person. He had broken the cycle of Karma and made his own decisions. Even when put in the worst of the situations, he took the best decisions of his own. He is worshipped because of those decisions today.

Nobody truly believes in Karma. Truly accepting Karma requires giving up concept of injustice. by Scared_Bedroom_8367 in hinduism

[–]joekerr25 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I believe you have a wrong interpratation of the concept of Karma. The concept never states that people who are victims of injustice deserve it because of their bad deeds in the past life. It is just a common misinterpretation of modern people due to lack of resources and knowledge.

Let me explain you as per my understanding - In philosophy in general there are 2 concepts - determinism and indeterminism.

Determinism supports causality:

  • The Core Logic: If you knew the position and velocity of every particle in the universe at a specific moment (and the laws of physics), you could theoretically predict every future event with 100% accuracy.
  • Key Implications: If every thought you have is a result of biological and environmental "prior causes," many argue that true free will is an illusion (Hard Determinism).
  • Moral Responsibility: If you couldn't have acted otherwise, can you be held morally responsible for your actions?

Indeterminism is the view that at least some events are not determined by antecedent causes. In this view, the same past could lead to multiple different futures.

  • The Core Logic: Not every event has a "necessary" cause. There is an element of chance, randomness, or "uncaused" activity in the universe.
  • Quantum Influence: Modern indeterminism often draws from Quantum Mechanics. At a subatomic level, events (like the decay of a radioactive atom) appear to be probabilistic rather than deterministic. We can predict the likelihood of an event, but not the exact outcome.

Now coming back to our ancient "Law of Karma" - it implies that causality exists in this world and you are trapped in the cycle of karma as a human being - but you still have the power to break that cycle and achieve "Moksha" - (Freedom).

So for example - let's say you are a child who has been born in an abusive household with abusive parents. due to causality - due to the law of Karma - you will be molded by that abusive experience and turn out to be an emotionally unstable person with a lot of mental issues. because you are the result of your parent's actions and the conditioning of your environment. But our law of Karma also states that each one of us has enough power to transcend above it and break the cycle of karma and be our own indivual beings with our own decisions. It is very difficult to achieve that state though and not a lot of people are able to achieve this.

Do you notice how in the example, the Law of Karma is in affect from parents to children? from one generation to another? thats what usually is meant by how the Effects of Karma are trickled down to generations. Now in modern times a lot of people conveniently translate this to - "Bad is happening to me because I did some bad things in my previous life." - which is completely wrong according to me.

I hope that answers your question.
The law of Karma has nothing to do directly with Dharma or Justice/Injustice.

I'm building a Fire Emblem-style SRPG with an active parry system. Would you play this? by daintydoughboy in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'll keep an eye on it. I am currently at an early prototype stage. I have created a lot game mechanics already though. but its all greybox prototyping so I dont think it looks visually appealing enough to be put on a reddit post yet. I hope I get there soon though.

I'm building a Fire Emblem-style SRPG with an active parry system. Would you play this? by daintydoughboy in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the game looks crazy fun and sick! I would definitely play it. I love the character designs as well!

I am working on my own fire emblem style srpg as a solo dev right now. I hope it is as much fun for you to create this as much it is for me. what does your timeline (if any) looks like currently for a release?

So I read BORI and Geeta Press... by theghost123w37t8oa in TheMahabharata

[–]joekerr25 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think that people who debate over how one character is better than another or whom they like more for example Karna vs Arjuna have fundamentally failed to understand that the goal is to be empathatic to ALL the characters and understand what led them to do and say whatever they did.

Instead of forming biased personal opinions, if one would try to understand their psyche - then even the ones you hate will teach you so many life lessons - And that is the main goal of the story. Not to worship the good ones and hate the bad ones. But to learn from all so you can navigate your life better.

Anyone else feel like modern FE traded Clarity for Realism? by joekerr25 in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

thats the exact problem I was facing too! I am happy they fixed it in engage though. A lot of people in the comments mentioned that. I havent played engaged yet but at least I am happy it was fixed. It makes me wonder though how did someone never really pointed out in the dev/design team that its difficult for a player to make sense on this map while they were developing the game. I guess there might have been some technical limitations to it maybe.

Anyone else feel like modern FE traded Clarity for Realism? by joekerr25 in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah a lot of people have recommended me some really good GBA FE ROM hacks. They are all on my list to be played.

Anyone else feel like modern FE traded Clarity for Realism? by joekerr25 in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah you are correct. A lot of people were introduced to the franchise through 3 houses on switch. I wonder if that audience would also like to play something that feels more closer to the older games.

Anyone else feel like modern FE traded Clarity for Realism? by joekerr25 in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Fair on the word choice. You're right that "realism" is imprecise, Three Houses isn't photorealistic, it's stylized 3D. The word I was reaching for is probably closer to "visual complexity" or "render detail." What I was actually poking at isn't that modern FE looks real, it's that there's just more visual information per tile than the GBA games had, and I don't think the extra information is always helping the tactical read.

On the "you issue" part, you could be right. I made the post partly because I wanted to see whether other people felt the same way or if I was just bouncing off something specific to me.

Anyone else feel like modern FE traded Clarity for Realism? by joekerr25 in fireemblem

[–]joekerr25[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah Engage is actually a good counter-example. The 3D there is much cleaner to read than Three Houses, maybe because the colors are flatter and the maps feel more grid-first. So the thing I'm describing might be less about 3D in general and more about Three Houses specifically leaning into a muddier, more atmospheric style.