Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Scientific support for karma?
Does anybody have or is aware of scientific findings that support the Buddhist notion of karma? I haven't had a chance to do much research on it but I would like to know if it is actually grounded in a scientific understanding.
0
Comments
Support in what way?
What kind of proof are you looking for?
"Scientific understanding"...?
What makes you think it's a scientific equation you can put down on a chalkboard?
The fact that the Buddha spoke about it extensively, and that it has been adhered to and lived by, by countless ordained monks, nuns, lamas and gurus isn't enough for you to test it for yourself?
It's not a formula....it's a law of life: what ever you think, say or do intentionally, will carry a consequence.
what greater understanding would you require?
karma is a law of life. equations and such do not calculate laws of life they only prove that we exist. living to the laws of life help to free your mind and simplify your path to a better place. -xentistbuddha-
sometimes, the best form of compassion is a freezing cold bucket of 'wake up' water.....
Not saying the above fits that bill, but I don't see that gentleness equates with truth.
Sometimes, it's the exact opposite....
federica, your mind may be open. but you may still be conquering yourself.
what you say holds many truths;
but they are not always clear.
your mind is most difficult to conquer than another,
but still we should not neglect this.
it is being equal and balanced that helps you become the path.
teaching this can only bring prosperity to a life.
Does our current scientific understanding of the world support the Buddhist concept of karma?
I think the very best that science has come up with so far that describes and conceptualizes the Buddhist concept of karma in simple, observable, demonstrable terms is Newton's 3rd law of motion:
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
To wit:
A human being is basically energy-in-motion.
A human being expresses that energy-in-motion in a certain manner and direction in the universe.
A human being will eventually inevitably receive that same energy-in-motion returning back to him/her.
One may easily experiment with and demonstrate this universal truth, simply try it yourself. Please bear in mind that there is always some lag time involved as energy travels through time and space.
Does it mean that space-time is circular? Quite possibly.
Newtons third law applies to all forces. Not only those intentional.
In a finite circular universe with a single line it is as you say easy to show that there is karma.
In a normal world like ours there is no to me known way to show that the energy caused by one intentional action is the one returning to the agent. And I do not think it has to be either.
Karma laws are not the same laws that govern energy or force.
I do not think the Karma laws stand or fall on the concept of a circular space-time.
/Victor
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html
@B5C: I do not know what you mean by "scientific" or "proof" or "Newtons laws". That is why i avoided the terms. But can give you a heuristic argument in a finite bent universe where a straght line is a circle. That is if one was to travel in a straight line in that universe one would arrive at the point where one left given sufficient time.
Imagine that the world consists of a mathamatical line is such a univere where every point along it has mass. Lets say that one point on that line has will to push one of its neighbours away without affecting any other point.
Given sufficient time that impulse will travese that universe and hit the first point in the back. pushing it in the same direction as it pushed its neighbour.
Karma!
/Victor
BTW you didn't avoid "Newton's laws." You quoted: "Newtons third law applies to all forces. Not only those intentional."
Newton's third law: "The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Newton's laws are not evidence supporting Karma. Newton's laws describe how motion works.
This is like some Christian apologetics claiming that thermodynamics supports their god or string theory's ideas on other dimensions that god and heaven is real because god and heaven are different dimensions.
And thats as far as you can go..
The Sun rises.
I think that was a fact far before there was any scientific method.
The earth does not revolve aroung its own axis
That was a fact proven by a scientific method (experiment dropping a ball from a high tower) by the old Greeks. Still today we know otherwise...
I think you have to high esteem for a method whose limits you do not entirely grasp.
I said:
In a finite circular universe with a single line it is as you say easy to show that there is karma.
You asked:
Where is your scientific evidence that Newton's laws also applies to Karma?
can you point out the place I say I have scientific evidance that Newtons laws applies to karma? So then we agree. Great!
/Victor
How sure are you that we live in a finite circular universe?
Until a couple of months ago cold fusion was laughed at. Two minutes before you read the article from Cern upending the absolute speed of light. For you the absolute limit of the speed of light was a fact! and two minutes later it was not any more.
The experiment that the Greeks performed was flawed because of their understanding of the physical laws were flawed.
Just like you can rest assured that our understanding of the physical laws are flawed and will be set straight next century. Even now the ultimate limit on speed as the speed of light is being contended!
As buddhism explains so clearly. Thruth and value are only constructs of the human brain.
How sure are you that we live in a finite circular universe?
Not at all. That was my argument:
I said:
In a normal world like ours there is no to me known way to show that the energy caused by one intentional action is the one returning to the agent. And I do not think it has to be either.
See we agree.
/Victor
You sound like a Christian apologist I know.
Yes, science changes. Science changes only when the facts are present. Until some scientific evidence shows me with actual PROOF that Karma is real. Then I will believe you, but till then. It's all bullshit.
For you:
http://www.skepdic.com/karma.html
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com/2009/07/is-karma-true.html
You should read Bertrand Russle. (I think his name is)
And no a thing is not bullshit until it is scientifically proven. On the contrary as I said. Penicillin did work before it was scientifically proven. The sun did rise even before it was proven how it did it. And the speed of light was not the ulitimate speed even though science did prove it to be for a long time.
Actually the Buddhist way of critically examining a thing before accepting it as a fact is much more strict and usefull than the method used by science.
/Victor
These links does not discuss Buddhist Karma concept at a glance...
So not actually meaningful in this thread? Or what was your point?
what's that supposed to mean?
What is anyone's action, mental or physical, other than motion in the universe?
What is anyone's thought or intention, other than motion in the universe?
What is a human being, other than motion in the universe? Science is not supposed to be a religion in which one simply believes (or does not believe) dogma proclaimed by others, no matter their "credentials."
Science is supposed to be a roll-up-one's-sleeves-and-try-it-out-oneself-and- observe-the-results experimental experience.
Ergo, if one seeks scientific support for the Buddhist notion of karma, one must test the idea for oneself and see what results one gets.
My own personal experience and experimentation has yielded results that correlate very well with Newton's third law.
But all views are wrong when grasped to, and that is also true of karma. Imagine somebody being so anal about being 'good' that they have emotional problems or some kind of neurosis.
But the method you are describing is the Buddhist method that I like better than the scientific one. To make it a scientific method we need to try it "en masse". In a controlled environment with a separate reference group. at least.
For now I am all ears! Could you describe your experiments please? I am willing to try them out too.
I believe many on this forum would like to as well...? Then maybe we could get some kind of signficance into play.
/Victor
hope it helps!
/Victor