Are you a nihilist?

betaboy

If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).

vinlyn

You have totally mis-defined nihilism.

robot

betaboy said:

If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).

You should read up on some Buddhism. There are several threads that list good books to get you started.

David

I don't know... I'm pretty sure it's possible to believe in rebirth and be a nihilist. So long as it seems pointless and without a logical approach to compassion.

BhikkhuJayasara

:coffee:

Jeffrey

This is actually a position often taken (the idea of @betaboy). The leader of my aol buddhism course taught it this way. Nihilism was defined as belief in anhilation at death. Eternalism was defined as going to heaven forever. The middle way was nagarjuna's dependent origination. So there is no essence thus no birth or death. (i think that's on the same page as us newbuddhists).

So yeah, if ghana bhuti of aol chat legend is right then @betaboy is spot on. I make an appeal to authority for the same reason I would give my degree credentials on a job interview... Just to get in the door.

So why not blow your brains out? You could end suffering with a bullet. The answer is either epicarianism or some kind of Buddhism really focused on the 'now'.

robot

Jeffrey said:

This is actually a position often taken (the idea of @betaboy). The leader of my aol buddhism course taught it this way. Nihilism was defined as belief in anhilation at death. Eternalism was defined as going to heaven forever.

So yeah, if ghana bhuti of aol chat legend is right then @betaboy is spot on.

So why not blow your brains out? You could end suffering with a bullet. The answer is either epicarianism or some kind of Buddhism really focused on the 'now'.

Betaboy is suggesting that there is something to be annihilated at death for those he is calling nihilists.
My understanding is that a nihilist doesn't believe in the existence of anything at all.
So someone who doesn't believe in rebirth cannot be a nihilist because he believes that there is a self that dies and is not reborn.

Jeffrey

That's a good point. If you don't belief in a graspable self that is the whole point. If you believe in a self you can pin down and say 'that's me' then it is either anhilated at death or it is eternal in heaven (or hell) or forever reincarnating. The nihilist says the self is anhilated. The eternalist believes the self continues which could be reincarnating.

Nagarjuna presented dependent origination to show that the self is a coming together of conditions. The conditions are not the self.

I lose the understanding when I try to go to true self and analyze. I know that whenever a being is there that it must be that there is openness, clarity, and sensitivity. That is always there with a being. But yet none of the three can be pinned down as "I got it". You can say dharmakaya, but if you are misunderstanding dharmakaya then the rug will eventually go out from under you, to your great surprise.

robot

Jeffrey said:

I lose the understanding when I try to go to true self and analyze. I know that whenever a being is there that it must be that there is openness, clarity, and sensitivity. That is always there with a being. But yet none of the three can be pinned down as "I got it". You can say dharmakaya, but if you are misunderstanding dharmakaya then the rug will eventually go out from under you, to your great surprise.

I'm pretty sure that this is arriving at the middle way. Hold no view because there isn't one you can get a grip on.

Jeffrey

Yes, I think that's right robot. Now when my football team loses that goes out the window. Let alone if I lose my friend I made. (Michigan wolverines lost tonight). But I know I can just be mindful and the jet stream of my heart will not care much about football loss eventually.

robot

Jeffrey said:

Yes, I think that's right robot. Now when my football team loses that goes out the window. Let alone if I lose my friend I made. (Michigan wolverines lost tonight). But I know I can just be mindful and the jet stream of my heart will not care much about football loss eventually.

We gotta learn the hard way I guess.

lobster

Got the matching sweatshirt? Same time tomorrow . . .

Jeffrey

The one thing I know that is ungraspable for sure is my cat. She will squirm and use her needle like claws.

David

robot said:

Jeffrey said:

This is actually a position often taken (the idea of @betaboy). The leader of my aol buddhism course taught it this way. Nihilism was defined as belief in anhilation at death. Eternalism was defined as going to heaven forever.

So yeah, if ghana bhuti of aol chat legend is right then @betaboy is spot on.

So why not blow your brains out? You could end suffering with a bullet. The answer is either epicarianism or some kind of Buddhism really focused on the 'now'.

Betaboy is suggesting that there is something to be annihilated at death for those he is calling nihilists.
My understanding is that a nihilist doesn't believe in the existence of anything at all.
So someone who doesn't believe in rebirth cannot be a nihilist because he believes that there is a self that dies and is not reborn.

Nihilists don't necessarily believe nothing exists, they believe there is no meaning to anything. No possible true morality or reason as to why we are here.

So yes, a nihilist could believe in rebirth though would see no reason or point behind it.

robot

ourself said:

robot said:

Jeffrey said:

This is actually a position often taken (the idea of @betaboy). The leader of my aol buddhism course taught it this way. Nihilism was defined as belief in anhilation at death. Eternalism was defined as going to heaven forever.

So yeah, if ghana bhuti of aol chat legend is right then @betaboy is spot on.

So why not blow your brains out? You could end suffering with a bullet. The answer is either epicarianism or some kind of Buddhism really focused on the 'now'.

Betaboy is suggesting that there is something to be annihilated at death for those he is calling nihilists.
My understanding is that a nihilist doesn't believe in the existence of anything at all.
So someone who doesn't believe in rebirth cannot be a nihilist because he believes that there is a self that dies and is not reborn.

Nihilists don't necessarily believe nothing exists, they believe there is no meaning to anything. No possible true morality or reason as to why we are here.

I see. Thanks for that.
I was thinking that when Nagarjuna spoke about nihilism he was talking about the belief that nothing exists. As in self and form.

David

Yes, I'm also sure many nihilists believe in nothing, just not always. An atheist wouldn't even necessarily be nihilists if they believe right and wrong can be objectively known.

federica

Moved to general banter.

robot

Here is a pretty good essay that I came across:

http://aporia.byu.edu/pdfs/pianka-colorful_nothing_emptiness_in_the_madyamaka.pdf

zenff

`Everything exists', Kaccàyana, is one extreme. `Nothing exists' is the other extreme. Not approaching either of those extremes, Kaccàyana, the Tathàgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way:
(http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana04.htm)

The middle way I think is a position in a broader context than just death, rebirth or afterlife.
It is a subtle position on the nature of the phenomenal world. Is it just an illusion and if not, what is it?

Really explaining this subtle point from the perspective of the various Buddhist schools is asked too much for me. (read the paper @robot posted for that!)

If I remember correctly the Madyamika School makes a narrow escape by using a logical trick called non-confirming denial. They deny the intrinsic existence of all phenomena but claim that in doing so they don’t confirm the nihilist position.

From the struggle with this subtle position comes the notion that the four statements are insufficient for expressing the truth. These four statements are:

All things (dharma) exist: affirmation of being, negation of non-being
All things (dharma) do not exist: affirmation of non-being, negation of being
All things (dharma) both exist and do not exist: both affirmation and negation
All things (dharma) neither exist nor do not exist: neither affirmation nor
negation

DairyLama

betaboy said:

If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).

This sounds about right based on what the suttas say.

Cinorjer

I admit that Buddhist philosophy and various schools of Buddhist practice play around a bit with semantics in order to avoid either extreme. Probably the core Buddhist teaching on the debate between "eternal spirit or final death" is that debates like this miss the mark. What's important is that people suffer while they're living. But that doesn't mean we should ban wrestling with the big questions. Just put them in perspective.

Languages change, and I think instead of nihilism (generally defined as life is ultimately without meaning or value) we might talk about materialism (everything including the consciousness and self is the result of physical properties and interactions, thus when the brain dies, so does the self).

Frankly, belief in reincarnation to me is the nihilistic viewpoint. See, the entire purpose of the practice then is to escape life and reincarnation by graduating from Samsara. This reality and our lives have no more meaning than a pool of clinging quicksand that keeps sucking us under. Nirvana or Enlightenment is the extinguishing of the self, among other non-definitions. How can an outsider see a religion that seeks to extinguish who you are as anything but nihilistic?

Now, if death is the final end and all you have is this one lifetime, then it doesn't have to be nihilistic. It can mean we have a precious gift called life and not to waste it.

robot

SpinyNorman said:

betaboy said:

If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever). Rebirth is the middle path - the process continues (no nihilism) but in different forms (hence, no eternal self that continues). Both extremes are avoided by accepting this idea of rebirth (rather than the hindu idea where a permanent entity, Self, evolves).

This sounds about right based on what the suttas say.

Thankfully we have great thinkers like Nagarjuna and Chandrakirti who have illuminated the middle way for us. It would be a sad story if this were all we could hope to realize from the Buddhas teaching about it.

lobster

Are you a nihilist?
If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

LOL
You are certain? You believe in rebirth and have more overt nihilism than is good for grumpy cat. I don't believe in rebirth, nihilist am I? Maybe. Maybe not.

You could do Tonglen but maybe you can wait for your next incarceration . . . ?
No point in trying I take it?

Cinorjer

You know, the picture above, while making me chuckle, also reminded me that people take a lot for granted, even if we say there is compelling evidence for reincarnation. For instance, how do we know there isn't a set number of times we reincarnate and then our atman or whatever is used up and that's it. You got nine lives, literally, to make it up the ladder, and you are born knowing how many you have left. Would we waste the lives at the beginning, knowing we have 8 or 7 more shots at living a righteous life? Would we feel sorry for the person on his last life, knowing they were one of life's losers?

Such are the thoughts of a writer of fantasy worlds. I might turn that into a story.

seeker242

Jeffrey said:

This is actually a position often taken (the idea of @betaboy). The leader of my aol buddhism course taught it this way. Nihilism was defined as belief in anhilation at death. Eternalism was defined as going to heaven forever.

Bhikkhu Bodhi also teaches this way.

"The most important feature of kamma is its capacity to produce results corresponding to the ethical quality of the action. An immanent universal law holds sway over volitional actions, bringing it about that these actions issue in retributive consequences, called vipaka, "ripenings," or phala, "fruits." The law connecting actions with their fruits works on the simple principle that unwholesome actions ripen in suffering, wholesome actions in happiness. The ripening need not come right away; it need not come in the present life at all....

To recognize this principle is to hold right view of the mundane kind. This view at once excludes the multiple forms of wrong view with which it is incompatible. As it affirms that our actions have an influence on our destiny continuing into future lives, it opposes the nihilistic view which regards this life as our only existence and holds that consciousness terminates with death."

Bhikkhu Bodhi calls "this life as our only existence and holds that consciousness terminates with death" a "nihilistic view". Of course other teachers teach that way too.

zenff

betaboy said:

If you don't believe in rebirth, you certainly are.

I feel like saying: okay, you are right. I am a nihilist. I am not a Buddhist. I am a worldling and an outsider. I can never reach the blissful state of mind that you are in right now.
Count me out.
Are you happy now?

Dogmatic insistence will do that, it will chase people away.

DairyLama

seeker242 said:

Bhikkhu Bodhi calls "this life as our only existence and holds that consciousness terminates with death" a "nihilistic view".

That does seem to be how the suttas present it.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

You have totally mis-defined nihilism.

No, not in the context of the suttas where dependent arising is the middle way between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism.

DairyLama

Cinorjer said:

See, the entire purpose of the practice then is to escape life and reincarnation by graduating from Samsara.

But that's how dependent origination is described in the suttas - the ultimate goal is pari-Nibbana, liberation from the cycle of birth and death.

DairyLama

zenff said:

`Everything exists', Kaccàyana, is one extreme. `Nothing exists' is the other extreme. Not approaching either of those extremes, Kaccàyana, the Tathàgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way:
(http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana04.htm)

The middle way I think is a position in a broader context than just death, rebirth or afterlife.


Yes, I agree, and generally I think you can see the middle way as a means of transcending dichotomy and duality. But that doesn't mean the OP description is incorrect.

matthewmartin

Buddhism avoids the extremes of nihilism (once you die, you die) and eternalism (you live forever).

Nagarjuna, one of a zillion writers in the Buddhist cannon, did. Nargarjuna seemed to care about statements that were both true and false and statements that were neither true nor false. I'm just a lay follower, so to me, these are both ordinary contradictions-- useless statements with no correspondence outside an abstract logical system on paper.

I'm a nihilist, but nihilism (by the wikipedia definitions) means more than just extinctionalism. It also can entail on or more of the following:

- Life doesn't have a cosmic, or creator-being-created, prepackaged purpose for you. (I believe we have to make up a purpose, the purpose of ending suffering is a man made purpose and I'm content to copy it). I believe in karma-lite (mere cause and effect), not Scholasticist-Certified Karma (TM), which is a near sentient rewarder and punisher that somehow inuits your intention when you stepped on your sleeping cat, (or baby if you think cats are non-sentient automatons) thereby killing it.

- Life has no possibility of ethics. I don't believe this. This is a Christian theological stance that if you don't believe in god, then ethics can't exist because the only ethics they allow are the laws of god. However, I believe rational ethics are a real enough and valid enough thing, even if they are made by humans for some human-made goal. I think this is where calling people unqualified nihilist is dangerous, it implies they are amoral sociopaths.

- The impossibility of knowledge. Wow, by this definition, a lot of Buddhist are hard core nihilists, some percentage of people on Buddhist forums are outright hostile to the idea that there is anything but belief and make believe as a foundation for all human thought as demonstrated by the rabid hostility to anything that smacks of science.

Dictionary nihilism doesn't say much about reincarnation, so it's an abuse of English, bad word choice. A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me. A god who created the world but has no further interaction is of no interest to me. Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me. It all falls into the category of "Things-in-Buddhism-that-are-as-important-as-the-rule-about-sleeping-in-high-beds"

robot

SpinyNorman said:

zenff said:

`Everything exists', Kaccàyana, is one extreme. `Nothing exists' is the other extreme. Not approaching either of those extremes, Kaccàyana, the Tathàgata teaches the Dhamma by the middle way:
(http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana04.htm)

The middle way I think is a position in a broader context than just death, rebirth or afterlife.

Yes, I agree, and generally I think you can see the middle way as a means of transcending dichotomy and duality. But that doesn't mean the OP description is incorrect.

I think the OP description is incorrect because it asserts that one must accept that rebirth is a fact in order to avoid the wrong view of nihilism.
The OP falsely claims that the belief in rebirth is the Middle Way.
As seeker pointed out Bikkhu Bodhi describes the belief in rebirth as a mundane view which opposes the view of nihilism.
Which is not the Middle Way.

Nevermind

ourself said:

So yes, a nihilist could believe in rebirth though would see no reason or point behind it.

Exactly. For a nihilist rebirth could just be another dry meaningless observation. So we are reborn, so what... Indeed, being reborn over and over again could seem quite meaningless.

Also, there are countless examples of people who claim to believe in rebirth, yet act in ways which indicate they don't actually believe it. They behave just as morally or immorally as anyone who doesn't believe in rebirth, or they may act worse than average.

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

DairyLama

robot said:

As seeker pointed out Bikkhu Bodhi describes the belief in rebirth as a mundane view which opposes the view of nihilism.
Which is not the Middle Way.

Rebirth is part of mundane Right View - but it's still Right View. It's also an example of the middle way, which has various applications in different traditions.

DairyLama

Nevermind said:

Also, there are countless examples of people who claim to believe in rebirth, yet act in ways which indicate they don't actually believe it.

In my experience many western Buddhists claim not to believe in rebirth but still wonder about it's significance.

seeker242

matthewmartin said:

A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me.

Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me. It all falls into the category of "Things-in-Buddhism-that-are-as-important-as-the-rule-about-sleeping-in-high-beds"

But isn't that essentially looking at karma backwards? In both example you refrence the past. Isn't the Buddhist notion of karma supposed to be about how you act right here, right now, and what effects that will have in the future?

Looking to the past when considering karma seems more like a Hindu view of karma rather than a Buddhist one.

seeker242

Nevermind said:

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

Sure they do. Karma is a religious belief and it certainly influences moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

Beej

I believe in nothing.... everything is sacred to me.

I believe in everything.... nothing is sacred to me.


^^^The 2 above statements are true, at least in reards to my perspective. So does that make me a Nihlist or Anti-Nihlist?

person

I don't care what all the skeptics and naysayers say, I believe in Nihilism, %100.

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

Sure they do. Karma is a religious belief and it certainly influences moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

I didn't say that it doesn't influence behavior. I said it doesn't have much impact on it. It doesn't seem to do much for reading comprehension also, incidentally.

robot

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

Sure they do. Karma is a religious belief and it certainly influences moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

It doesn't seem to do much for reading comprehension also, incidentally.

So witty tonite!!

seeker242

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

Sure they do. Karma is a religious belief and it certainly influences moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

I didn't say that it doesn't influence behavior. I said it doesn't have much impact on it. It doesn't seem to do much for reading comprehension also, incidentally.

Let me rephrase.

"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

MaryAnne

@Seeker242 said:
"Let me rephrase.

"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about. "
(italics mine)

Well, not for me they're not. I don't follow the precepts because I expect "good Karma" in return. That may (or may not) be the end result - no one knows that for sure one way or the other - but I follow the precepts for my own personal reasons, without the promise of 'reward'.

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

seeker242 said:

Nevermind said:

The fact is, and this is the core of the topic, religious beliefs don't have much impact on moral behavior.

Sure they do. Karma is a religious belief and it certainly influences moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

I didn't say that it doesn't influence behavior. I said it doesn't have much impact on it. It doesn't seem to do much for reading comprehension also, incidentally.

Let me rephrase.

"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about.

If you say so. I know how insistent morally superior people can be.

Jeffrey

I follow karma for a reward for all beings. I dedicate the merit of good actions to all beings. This is heart warming because you sincerely wish for their welfare. The reward is that you will be able to practice dharma in future lives.

matthewmartin

seeker242 said:

matthewmartin said:

A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me.

Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me....

But isn't that essentially looking at karma backwards? In both example you reference the past. Isn't the Buddhist notion of karma supposed to be about how you act right here, right now, and what effects that will have in the future?

All I know about Hinduism I got via Buddhism, so I wouldn't know about that. I believe in karma-lite. If I don't act to help other now in this life, they won't get any help-- cause and effect. What goes around comes around, albeit not always, sometimes people get away with crimes.

It seems we can invoke Occams razor here...if I'm to be concerned about future "me's" who won't remember my life or identify with me, or even know if I existed or not, and they are suffering for crimes I am committing now...wouldn't it be simpler to just invoke the principle of compassion and a desire for all beings to be liberated? Why should I care more or less about one specific future person who will suffer for my actions or lack of action now? It would make more sense to do what one can to help people in the future and distant future out of compassion rather than out of some selfish based fear of future justice. (selfish because we identify with that single future poor sorry sot who will inherit our Karma)

Anyhow, a cosmic criminal justice system that punishes an unknowing bystander for crimes of another when they share nothing in common, not a body, nor a self, nor an atman, nor memories... it's just very unfair. But if true, should I care? Should I operate on a precautionary principle and do good/avoid evil on the off chance that the cosmic justice system works like this? Nah, again, good creates good effects now & evil creates evil effects now. That is enough motivation to do good, avoid evil. (or Kusala and akusala)

seeker242

MaryAnne said:

@Seeker242 said:
"Let me rephrase.

"Karma is a religious belief and it certainly has a good deal of impact on moral behavior for a lot of people! That is what keeping the precepts are all about. "
(italics mine)

Well, not for me they're not. I don't follow the precepts because I expect "good Karma" in return. That may (or may not) be the end result - no one knows that for sure one way or the other - but I follow the precepts for my own personal reasons, without the promise of 'reward'.

They are for me. But it's not about getting anything like "good karma" or "rewards", etc. It's about behaving skillfully and not unskillfully. For example, lying has bad consequences, therefore don't tell lies. It's like that.

Although, I do disagree that no one knows for sure one way or the other. Bad actions will always have bad consequences, good actions will always have good consequences. But if you try to go further than that, trying to link some particular action to some particular result, that is when you get into unsure territory IMO. Only a person with the psychic power of a "divine eye" can see those links. That sort of thing is beyond the sight of ordinary people.

Nevermind said:

If you say so. I know how insistent morally superior people can be.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be morally superior? If that was the case, we would actually have world peace! No thievery, no rape, no murder, etc, etc. The human realm would be like a deva realm!

Nevermind

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be morally superior?

They wouldn't like it, cuz there wouldn't be anyone to feel superior over.

seeker242

matthewmartin said:

seeker242 said:

matthewmartin said:

A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me.

Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me....

But isn't that essentially looking at karma backwards? In both example you reference the past. Isn't the Buddhist notion of karma supposed to be about how you act right here, right now, and what effects that will have in the future?

All I know about Hinduism I got via Buddhism, so I wouldn't know about that. I believe in karma-lite. If I don't act to help other now in this life, they won't get any help-- cause and effect. What goes around comes around, albeit not always, sometimes people get away with crimes.

Ok. Although, I don't believe it is ever possible to get away with a crime no matter what. For example, some guy robs bank, kills someone, flees to Mexico and lives out rest of his life in posh pleasure and dies seemingly happy of old age. He still didn't get away with it because bad action will always have bad result, always. Of course some people don't believe that but that is what the Buddha taught.

It seems we can invoke Occams razor here...if I'm to be concerned about future "me's" who won't remember my life or identify with me, or even know if I existed or not, and they are suffering for crimes I am committing now...wouldn't it be simpler to just invoke the principle of compassion and a desire for all beings to be liberated? Why should I care more or less about one specific future person who will suffer for my actions or lack of action now? It would make more sense to do what one can to help people in the future and distant future out of compassion rather than out of some selfish based fear of future justice. (selfish because we identify with that single future poor sorry sot who will inherit our Karma)

Anyhow, a cosmic criminal justice system that punishes an unknowing bystander for crimes of another when they share nothing in common, not a body, nor a self, nor an atman, nor memories... it's just very unfair. But if true, should I care? Should I operate on a precautionary principle and do good/avoid evil on the off chance that the cosmic justice system works like this? Nah, again, good creates good effects now & evil creates evil effects now. That is enough motivation to do good, avoid evil. (or Kusala and akusala)

Personally, I don't see it as a "cosmic justice system". But only that bad action have bad result and good action have good result, always, no matter what. And sometime the bad results appear immediately and sometimes later and sometimes much later.

Nevermind said:

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be morally superior?

They wouldn't like it, cuz there wouldn't be anyone to feel superior over.

What about animals? They just kill each other without any regard! These lowly animals are seriously lacking a moral compass!

But I get it, you are trying to insult me by passive aggressively accusing me of being morally superior. Ok, if that is what floats your boat. I won't hold any ill will against you, that would make bad karma!

Vastmind

Off topic...The Beej is back!
:wave:

@TheBeejAbides ..........

Nevermind

seeker242 said:

matthewmartin said:

seeker242 said:

matthewmartin said:

A life where I can't remember this one is of no interest to me.

Karma that punishes someone who can't remember my life is of no interest to me....

But isn't that essentially looking at karma backwards? In both example you reference the past. Isn't the Buddhist notion of karma supposed to be about how you act right here, right now, and what effects that will have in the future?

All I know about Hinduism I got via Buddhism, so I wouldn't know about that. I believe in karma-lite. If I don't act to help other now in this life, they won't get any help-- cause and effect. What goes around comes around, albeit not always, sometimes people get away with crimes.

Ok. Although, I don't believe it is ever possible to get away with a crime no matter what. For example, some guy robs bank, kills someone, flees to Mexico and lives out rest of his life in posh pleasure and dies seemingly happy of old age. He still didn't get away with it because bad action will always have bad result, always. Of course some people don't believe that but that is what the Buddha taught.

It seems we can invoke Occams razor here...if I'm to be concerned about future "me's" who won't remember my life or identify with me, or even know if I existed or not, and they are suffering for crimes I am committing now...wouldn't it be simpler to just invoke the principle of compassion and a desire for all beings to be liberated? Why should I care more or less about one specific future person who will suffer for my actions or lack of action now? It would make more sense to do what one can to help people in the future and distant future out of compassion rather than out of some selfish based fear of future justice. (selfish because we identify with that single future poor sorry sot who will inherit our Karma)

Anyhow, a cosmic criminal justice system that punishes an unknowing bystander for crimes of another when they share nothing in common, not a body, nor a self, nor an atman, nor memories... it's just very unfair. But if true, should I care? Should I operate on a precautionary principle and do good/avoid evil on the off chance that the cosmic justice system works like this? Nah, again, good creates good effects now & evil creates evil effects now. That is enough motivation to do good, avoid evil. (or Kusala and akusala)

Personally, I don't see it as a "cosmic justice system". But only that bad action have bad result and good action have good result, always, no matter what. And sometime the bad results appear immediately and sometimes later and sometimes much later.

Nevermind said:

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone could be morally superior?

They wouldn't like it, cuz there wouldn't be anyone to feel superior over.

What about animals? They just kill each other without any regard! These lowly animals are seriously lacking a moral compass!

But I get it, you are trying to insult me by passive aggressively accusing me of being morally superior. Ok, if that is what floats your boat. I won't hold any ill will against you, that would make bad karma!

Wow, you are morally superior.