The War on Karma

tmottes

A discussion about the various assumptions/arguments about/against karma and one person's rebuttals.

The War on Karma

Sile

Wow - fantastic talk so far - thanks for this.

tmottes

@Sile no problem. I found it to be very clear and thorough in his counterpoints.

Here is another speech by him on karma and causality. Only 2 of the 3 parts are available; but after listening to them both, I didn't feel like I was missing anything.

Sile

Thanks, @tmottes - I have to go back now and listen to the first one again with full attention, but the part on Jains was very funny (well, hopefully it was a metaphor; if not, it wasn't that funny!!)

tmottes

If you like his method of teachings, check out my other post on emptiness. It's quite a bit longer but he goes over how buddhism has branched in regards to its teachings. He has such a good grasp on buddhist and indian history that he can explain clearly the subtle differences and potentially why they schismed.

Sile

Will do, and thanks again for these great resources!

Songhill

tmottes, great topic! Before the secular Buddhists throw karma into the bin along with rebirth they need to be aware of the anti-buddhist position they are taking.

Ajita Kesakambali taught what appears to be a form of materialism, that there is no future life for us let alone repeated rebirth. Mankind is formed of earth, water, fire, and air, which return to their elements after death. There is no merit in good deeds (good karma) or demerit in wicked ones" (Paul Williams, Anthony Tribe, Buddhist Thought (2000), p. 19).

vinlyn

Songhill, I'm what I guess you call a "secular Buddhist", or what I prefer to call a "philosophical Buddhist".

I don't want to throw karma into the bin...but I want to clarify what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what it includes and what it doesn't include. I've always said that the basic concept is logical and works.

And, I don't want to throw rebirth into the bind, either. But before I accept it OR reject it, I want a little more evidence that it exists and how it works.

So please stop misstating "our" position.

music

vinlyn said:

Songhill, I'm what I guess you call a "secular Buddhist", or what I prefer to call a "philosophical Buddhist".

I don't want to throw karma into the bin...but I want to clarify what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what it includes and what it doesn't include. I've always said that the basic concept is logical and works.

And, I don't want to throw rebirth into the bind, either. But before I accept it OR reject it, I want a little more evidence that it exists and how it works.

So please stop misstating "our" position.

What sort of evidence for rebirth?

tmottes

I would strongly encourage you to listen to the talk before commenting on karma in this thread. If you want to discuss it without listening, please feel free to start a new thread.

Sile

I notice a suspicious tendency to resist aspects of Buddhism which are least familiar to our Western upbringing Then philosophical justification is sought for what is really just a resistance to new ideas. This is kind of tragic, because one reason many people turn to Buddhism is to seek something they aren't finding elsewhere; and yet, upon actually encountering spects that are new and different, we shy away and call the avoidance "Westernization." It's actually kind of hilarious, and I definitely feel that instinct in myself.

Sometimes it's just plain old laziness, too (again, seeing that in myself); it's no accident that prostrations, for example, are "Westernized" out of existence in some practices. I myself am strangely drawn to the dignified practice of sitting on the puffy cushion, as opposed to grunting through the sweat-inducing prostrations. I'm sure it's because prostrations are an out-dated relic of medieval theocratic misogyny.

vinlyn

music said:

vinlyn said:

Songhill, I'm what I guess you call a "secular Buddhist", or what I prefer to call a "philosophical Buddhist".

I don't want to throw karma into the bin...but I want to clarify what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what it includes and what it doesn't include. I've always said that the basic concept is logical and works.

And, I don't want to throw rebirth into the bind, either. But before I accept it OR reject it, I want a little more evidence that it exists and how it works.

So please stop misstating "our" position.

What sort of evidence for rebirth?

I almost don't care what kind of evidence. But something beyond just someone saying it exists.

vinlyn

Sile said:

I notice a suspicious tendency to resist aspects of Buddhism which are least familiar to our Western upbringing Then philosophical justification is sought for what is really just a resistance to new ideas. This is kind of tragic, because one reason many people turn to Buddhism is to seek something they aren't finding elsewhere; and yet, upon actually encountering spects that are new and different, we shy away and call the avoidance "Westernization." It's actually kind of hilarious, and I definitely feel that instinct in myself.

Sometimes it's just plain old laziness, too (again, seeing that in myself); it's no accident that prostrations, for example, are "Westernized" out of existence in some practices. I myself am strangely drawn to the dignified practice of sitting on the puffy cushion, as opposed to grunting through the sweat-inducing prostrations. I'm sure it's because prostrations are an out-dated relic of medieval theocratic misogyny.

I like the way you wrote that.

vinlyn

tmottes said:

I would strongly encourage you to listen to the talk before commenting on karma in this thread. If you want to discuss it without listening, please feel free to start a new thread.

Tmottes, I'm not sure who you're referring to with this comment, but to address your concern, I listened to it. And while I thought that overall it was a good talk, and cleared up a few issues, there were some things I didn't like about the talk.

First, its title. At least as far as our forum goes, I haven't heard anyone declaring war on the concept of karma. War? Really? Dropping bombs, napalm, hand to hand combat, ICMB? Where's the war? I don't see it the war. I don't even see any one doing any "attacking" of the concept. Even non-Buddhists I've talked to about karma have generally said to me that -- overall -- the concept makes sense. In this forum, I don't even recall anyone saying karma doesn't exist. What I have heard are discussions where one of us will say that karma works a particular way, or gives an example of karma, and then someone else that they don't really think it works that way.

That's a discussion, not a war, and not an attack. And it kinda bothers me that the subtle tone I got from the talk was that "you gotta believe X".

During the Republican primaries, one of the phrases that was sometimes used by "President Obama's war on Christianity". There is no such war. And, in reference to the newspaper stories about the possibility of Jesus having a wife, I am reminded of a time that topic came up before, and a Christian friend of mine asked what I thought about that "war on Christianity". And my response was simple -- if you found proof tomorrow that Jesus was married, would you and your Christian friends stop being Christians? Her answer was no, and my response was, "So where is the war?"

tmottes

vinlyn said:

tmottes said:

I would strongly encourage you to listen to the talk before commenting on karma in this thread. If you want to discuss it without listening, please feel free to start a new thread.

Tmottes, I'm not sure who you're referring to with this comment, but to address your concern, I listened to it. And while I thought that overall it was a good talk, and cleared up a few issues, there were some things I didn't like about the talk.

First, its title. At least as far as our forum goes, I haven't heard anyone declaring war on the concept of karma. War? Really? Dropping bombs, napalm, hand to hand combat, ICMB? Where's the war? I don't see it the war. I don't even see any one doing any "attacking" of the concept. Even non-Buddhists I've talked to about karma have generally said to me that -- overall -- the concept makes sense. In this forum, I don't even recall anyone saying karma doesn't exist. What I have heard are discussions where one of us will say that karma works a particular way, or gives an example of karma, and then someone else that they don't really think it works that way.

That's a discussion, not a war, and not an attack. And it kinda bothers me that the subtle tone I got from the talk was that "you gotta believe X".

During the Republican primaries, one of the phrases that was sometimes used by "President Obama's war on Christianity". There is no such war. And, in reference to the newspaper stories about the possibility of Jesus having a wife, I am reminded of a time that topic came up before, and a Christian friend of mine asked what I thought about that "war on Christianity". And my response was simple -- if you found proof tomorrow that Jesus was married, would you and your Christian friends stop being Christians? Her answer was no, and my response was, "So where is the war?"

I was referring to anybody posting in this thread. The point was to listen to the talk and discuss it. I didn't want the thread to derail, unless warranted by natural debate coming from the talk.

As I stated in my OP, this is one mans rebuttals based on his understanding of the canon. If you feel otherwise and wish to participate in this thread, you should express how you feel and why. In reference to the title, war is not limited to armed conflict: war is also a state of competition, conflict, and/or hostility between different groups of people. I would say that it is an accurate title. If it was entitled Attacks on Karma, perhaps I could see your point; however, "war on" doesn't imply an attack against karma, simply conflict between groups of people that subscribe to different schools of thought on a single concept.

I would suggest we not get hung up on the title, as it is not the main point or message.

vinlyn

In your OP, you didn't make a main point.

So I discussed a concern with some things I heard in the recording.

Cinorjer

All right, let's begin to discuss the talk you linked to.

First, it's not just the title but he's going on to describe the Western skeptical viewpoint as an attack and war on the concept of karma itself. Then he goes on to describe four ways in which we attack karma (his words). My immediate objection is that there is no such thing as a war on karma, and nowhere have I seen karma attacked in the four ways he described. This attack on karma is entirely in his own mind. It is not at all what even my own extreme skeptical stand against past life karma actually is.

When he starts, he defines karma as actions have consequences. Not a single Western Buddhist or skeptic has a problem with this definition at all. But he then says one way we attack karma is by complaining about it being defined as fate or determinism, and the example he uses is, you shoot someone in a past life, you get shot in this one. He defends karma by saying, that determinism is not how he defines karma, that karma as fate is wrong.

Exactly what we skeptical Western Buddhists say about karma as fate, that he labels an attack on karma and thinks is wrong. He just repeated our criticism and said it's true when he says it, but it's a wrongful attack on karma when we say it. And he fails to see the absurdity of what he just did.

Karma as determinism or fate might not be how he defines karma, but it's how millions of Buddhists define it. A Western viewpoint never claims karma doesn't exist, only that karma as believed and used by many Buddhists is wrong.

That's just the beginning of his talk.

Oh, and he goes on a lot about intention. He thinks intention is everything in determining good and bad karma. That's also highly questionable. It's assigning bad intention to people who create bad karma. The problem is that people do all sorts of hurtful, destructive things with the best of intentions. You can beat someone to death trying to drive demons from them and only have good intentions--so that's good karma, right? So intention matters, but is not the perfect yardstick, either. A lot of suffering is caused by people with good intentions looking for ways to act on them without the wisdom to doubt their beliefs.

vinlyn

Shame on you Cinorjer. And thank you.

Cinorjer

I do like him, though. He has obviously thought deeply about Buddhist beliefs and practices. I just think he might need to spend a bit more time discussing his concerns with some modern Western Buddhists and he'll discover we actually believe the same things more than he knows.

vinlyn

Yes, as I indicated, overall I thought it was a pretty good talk. Perhaps in regard to the "war" and "attack" aspect, a bit hyperbolic.

tmottes

vinlyn said:

In your OP, you didn't make a main point.

So I discussed a concern with some things I heard in the recording.

@vinlyn I was referring to the point of the talk. Not my point. My understand of the talk was to clear up some misunderstandings/misinformation about the concept of karma from the perspective of buddhist fundamentalism (From Wiki: Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.).

Cinorjer said:

First, it's not just the title but he's going on to describe the Western skeptical viewpoint as an attack and war on the concept of karma itself. Then he goes on to describe four ways in which we attack karma (his words). My immediate objection is that there is no such thing as a war on karma, and nowhere have I seen karma attacked in the four ways he described. This attack on karma is entirely in his own mind. It is not at all what even my own extreme skeptical stand against past life karma actually is.

You guys are right about the language including attack. I can see how his language might be strong for some; however, I can see both sides and would argue that as a buddhist he could have used more skillful words.

Regarding the attack, a quick look over at wikipedia and we can find a section dedicated to those individuals being discussed. Karma in Buddhism: Karma theory & social justice. These views could be taken as merely attempts to modernize an old and superstitious theory and that would be fair. He did prefaced this talk by saying he was a buddhist fundamentalist and interprets the canon in such a manner.

As far as your experience on hearing these attacks: just because you haven't "seen karma attacked in the four ways he described", doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I am not making any quantitative claims based on my anecdotal evidence, but on this very forum I have seen at least one comment to the effect that the buddha was a product of his time and thus picked up karma (or rebirth) from that prevailing culture. There are also other religious groups that DO use bring up his other points against karma.

Cinorjer said:

When he starts, he defines karma as actions have consequences. Not a single Western Buddhist or skeptic has a problem with this definition at all. But he then says one way we attack karma is by complaining about it being defined as fate or determinism, and the example he uses is, you shoot someone in a past life, you get shot in this one. He defends karma by saying, that determinism is not how he defines karma, that karma as fate is wrong.

Exactly what we skeptical Western Buddhists say about karma as fate, that he labels an attack on karma and thinks is wrong. He just repeated our criticism and said it's true when he says it, but it's a wrongful attack on karma when we say it. And he fails to see the absurdity of what he just did.

I don't believe he said that any westerners had a problem with karma being defined as actions have consequences. He said there were four ways that karma was being attacked:

1. on the content of the belief (exactly what the belief says)
2. on the basis of its providence (it didn't come from the buddha or that cultural aspects of the time were incorporated into the practice)
3. on the idea of having a belief in a buddhist practice, including karma (status of a belief)
4. on the motives for believing in karma

In terms of the "absurdity" I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. He said that the buddha rejected the idea of determinism as a result of karma (because our current actions have effects). He goes on to say that to misunderstand/misrepresent karma as deterministic and then point that as one of its flaws, is a flawed attack. Its an attack based on a false accusation or at the very least a misunderstanding.

Cinorjer said:

Karma as determinism or fate might not be how he defines karma, but it's how millions of Buddhists define it. A Western viewpoint never claims karma doesn't exist, only that karma as believed and used by many Buddhists is wrong.

"A Western viewpoint"... I doubt that the viewpoint of the western world on buddhism can be summed into a single viewpoint and neither does he say so. I can't put words in his mouth, but I would assume he would agree that millions of Buddhists' (eastern or western) understanding of karma is incomplete or not the way the Buddha intended it to be understood.

Cinorjer said:

Oh, and he goes on a lot about intention. He thinks intention is everything in determining good and bad karma. That's also highly questionable. It's assigning bad intention to people who create bad karma. The problem is that people do all sorts of hurtful, destructive things with the best of intentions. You can beat someone to death trying to drive demons from them and only have good intentions--so that's good karma, right? So intention matters, but is not the perfect yardstick, either. A lot of suffering is caused by people with good intentions looking for ways to act on them without the wisdom to doubt their beliefs.

He never says that "intention is everything in determining good and bad karma." He refers to karmic tendencies based on actions, with intentions guiding those actions. He doesn't say that good and bad intention are what is important. Intention is not good or bad, those are judgements on intentions. The intention is the consequence desired. The intention for beating somebody to death trying to drive demons from them is to drive demons from a person. The action is beating somebody to death, the desired consequent is removal of demons, but the REAL consequence is death. He advocates the Buddha's teachings on analyzing our actions (bodily, verbal, and mental) before, during, and after these actions. This way, the next time we want to drive demons from a person, we won't beat them to death. Plus intentions go deeper that most people realize. What is the true intention behind driving demons from a person? To change that person to fit our view? To make our lives easier? To get some sadistic pleasure? Some combination? Analyze that intention through the same process and repeat.

Cinorjer said:

I do like him, though. He has obviously thought deeply about Buddhist beliefs and practices. I just think he might need to spend a bit more time discussing his concerns with some modern Western Buddhists and he'll discover we actually believe the same things more than he knows.

In the most compassionate and sincere manner, I would suggest you take you own advice and read/listen to other texts/talks by him to get a more complete picture of his perspective on Buddhism. You might discover that you actually believe the same things more than you know.

vinlyn

tmottes said:

...My understand of the talk was to clear up some misunderstandings/misinformation about the concept of karma from the perspective of buddhist fundamentalism...

VInlyn's response: And do I understand correctly that you are seeing his position as fundamentalist? If so, I agree, and I almost always find fundamentalism in religion to be a little...hmmmm...scary.

...

As far as your experience on hearing these attacks: just because you haven't "seen karma attacked in the four ways he described", doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I am not making any quantitative claims based on my anecdotal evidence, but on this very forum I have seen at least one comment to the effect that the buddha was a product of his time and thus picked up karma (or rebirth) from that prevailing culture. There are also other religious groups that DO use bring up his other points against karma.

Vinlyn's response: To me, that's part of the discussion...not an attack, and not war. It's sort of like he was way overly defensive. I mean after all, when Buddha was teaching his new concepts to people, was he declaring war on the old beliefs? Attacking them? I would say teaching and putting forth his views.

...

He never says that "intention is everything in determining good and bad karma." He refers to karmic tendencies based on actions, with intentions guiding those actions. He doesn't say that good and bad intention are what is important. Intention is not good or bad, those are judgements on intentions.

Vinlyn's response: Well, almost by definition, I'd say intention is a judgement.

tmottes

vinlyn said:

tmottes said:

...My understand of the talk was to clear up some misunderstandings/misinformation about the concept of karma from the perspective of buddhist fundamentalism...

VInlyn's response: And do I understand correctly that you are seeing his position as fundamentalist? If so, I agree, and I almost always find fundamentalism in religion to be a little...hmmmm...scary.

tmottes said:

As far as your experience on hearing these attacks: just because you haven't "seen karma attacked in the four ways he described", doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I am not making any quantitative claims based on my anecdotal evidence, but on this very forum I have seen at least one comment to the effect that the buddha was a product of his time and thus picked up karma (or rebirth) from that prevailing culture. There are also other religious groups that DO use bring up his other points against karma.

Vinlyn's response: To me, that's part of the discussion...not an attack, and not war. It's sort of like he was way overly defensive. I mean after all, when Buddha was teaching his new concepts to people, was he declaring war on the old beliefs? Attacking them? I would say teaching and putting forth his views.

tmottes said:

He never says that "intention is everything in determining good and bad karma." He refers to karmic tendencies based on actions, with intentions guiding those actions. He doesn't say that good and bad intention are what is important. Intention is not good or bad, those are judgements on intentions.

Vinlyn's response: Well, almost by definition, I'd say intention is a judgement.

Man those quotes got all screwed up.

By the definition that I posted from wiki (Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.), I think fundamentalist seems to fit his interpretation of buddhism.

I try evaluate things based on what they are and not a label they are given. To me buddhist fundamentalism is a way to stay more focused on the core teachings (4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path) and how they are applied to my life. A way to not get bogged down in all the commentary that comes afterward. To take the ethics, concentration (meditation), and wisdom at the core and find out how it works in my life. If we accept the sutras are the buddha's words-or at least accurate recounts, then all the information is there to take it for a test run.

-

Once again, I said I agree he could have chosen more skillful words for his talk. Perhaps he was feeling defensive that morning. I don't know. While I see hyperbole, I am not sure I see the same level of hyperbole that you see.

-

Intention

Dictionary:

1 a thing intended; an aim or plan:

Thesaurus:

intent, intentionality, deliberateness, design, calculation, meaning; premeditation, forethought, preplanning;

Wiki:

Intention is an agent's specific purpose in performing an action or series of actions, the end or goal that is aimed at. Outcomes that are unanticipated or unforeseen are known as unintended consequences.

I don't see value judgements in that. Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that intention include a judgement?

fivebells

Ironic that there should be so much effort going into discussing these minor points of karma ontology/cosmology, when you could be putting that effort into cutting through the karma we all see and can agree upon (and which is happening in this thread) as recommended by the Buddha.

vinlyn

tmottes said:

I don't see value judgements in that. Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that intention include a judgement?

Let's say that I have a snake in my window well (which I did). I had various options I could have taken:
1. I could kill the snake.
2. I could try to capture the snake.
3. I could have hired a pest control expert.
4. I could have left the snake in the window well and let it starve to death and die from dehydration.

When I consider which action to take, I have to make a value judgement. And which decision I make determines the karma I "earn", and that is based on that value judgement.

Sile

I think that "earn" has a sense of "deserve" built into it; i.e. it still implies some judgement somewhere out there in the universe, as opposed to a simple natural result.

I think (this is just my opinion) that since karma is devoid of a third-party judge, and is simply a natural result of cause and effect, it's good to think of it in the same way we think of sticking our finger into a candle flame--the natural result is a (what we consider) unpleasant effect on the finger. It doesn't mean a god has punished us; it's just the nature of that cause and effect. Taking a life has a range of natural effects, too.

Thinking of the earth or life as one big organism kind of works, too--we think the snake is separate from us, but in reality it's like stepping on your left foot with your right. As part of the same organism, we feel pain when our right foot tromps our left; as part of the web of life (karma), we feel the pain of ending the life or damaging the life of some other part of the organism.

Cinorjer

tmottes said:

In the most compassionate and sincere manner, I would suggest you take you own advice and read/listen to other texts/talks by him to get a more complete picture of his perspective on Buddhism. You might discover that you actually believe the same things more than you know.

Probably. I imagine if I ran into the Bhikkhu I'd have much more important things to talk about, like how he's doing and if he's hungry or thirsty and such. I don't think it's fair or accurate to come to any conclusion about what a person believes by reading or listening to a couple of lectures.

Context matters, also, and I'm not the intended audience. For Zen Masters, the lecture would consist of, "Act from clear mind, and then karma or no karma, no problem! Drink your tea. Next question?"

music

vinlyn said:

music said:

vinlyn said:

Songhill, I'm what I guess you call a "secular Buddhist", or what I prefer to call a "philosophical Buddhist".

I don't want to throw karma into the bin...but I want to clarify what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what it includes and what it doesn't include. I've always said that the basic concept is logical and works.

And, I don't want to throw rebirth into the bind, either. But before I accept it OR reject it, I want a little more evidence that it exists and how it works.

So please stop misstating "our" position.

What sort of evidence for rebirth?

I almost don't care what kind of evidence. But something beyond just someone saying it exists.

Would Ian Stevenson's work count? Or do you expect someone to rise from the grave and tell you details of their future births? That's why I asked what sort of evidence you're looking for. The only kind of evidence for this would be people making claims, and other people verifying them. Unless there is some measuring device which can spot the soul leave the body at death and occupy another, lol.

tmottes

vinlyn said:

tmottes said:

I don't see value judgements in that. Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that intention include a judgement?

Let's say that I have a snake in my window well (which I did). I had various options I could have taken:
1. I could kill the snake.
2. I could try to capture the snake.
3. I could have hired a pest control expert.
4. I could have left the snake in the window well and let it starve to death and die from dehydration.

When I consider which action to take, I have to make a value judgement. And which decision I make determines the karma I "earn", and that is based on that value judgement.

Despite the issues I have with your scenario, I still think you can bypass value judgement and look solely for an outcome.
The karma is then based solely on that action and there is no need for value judgement. The outcome I would intend would be freedom of the snake without causing its death.

Cinorjer

Here's the thing about trying to perform skillful actions that are good karma only. Nobody can anticipate and predict all the consequences of our actions, and nobody can know if a given situation is going to end up with good or bad results, and rarely do our situations fit neatly into pure good and bad catagories.

Also our actions effect other people and their actions effect us. When people talk about karma, including our Bhikkhu in the link, they tend to treat it like a series of decisions and outcomes isolated and leading to a chosen destination. Life isn't like that. It's not you in a car with a dharma map heading out on the road, turning left and then right and straight and left again and the signpost says enlightenment ahead. Instead it's a wild bumpercar ride with everyone slamming into you from all sides and you have to act and react with no time to stop and think and no idea of where turning the wheel is going to bring you in the end.

So karma is an imponderable, not because it can't be understood. Anyone who has played billiards or pool knows how karma works. Action and reaction leading to another action. Karma is an imponderable because you never have enough information to do more than guess where your own actions are going to lead you or how they're going to effect others.

Cinorjer

Also, bad actions and decisions can lead to good consequences, and vice versa. Recently in the news there was an interesting tidbit, where a man broke into a home to rob it. Bad action! Bad karma! How can anyone claim otherwise? And strict karma believers say no, you can never get good results from bad karma. What do you do, when you see a house that is empty and have the opportunity to steal? You make the skillful decision not to steal.

But this man discovered an old woman in the supposedly empty house who had fallen and had spent days helpless and he called 911 and because of him, she lived. So bad karma brought a good result, in this case. Our model of good and bad karma didn't work. It's flawed. How come in this one instance, even with the worst of intentions (he intended to steal, not check on an old woman) and actions (breaking into someone else's house) he saved someone's life, good karma by any definition? How do you think the Bhikkhu would explain this?

tmottes

Cinorjer said:

Also, bad actions and decisions can lead to good consequences, and vice versa. Recently in the news there was an interesting tidbit, where a man broke into a home to rob it. Bad action! Bad karma! How can anyone claim otherwise? And strict karma believers say no, you can never get good results from bad karma. What do you do, when you see a house that is empty and have the opportunity to steal? You make the skillful decision not to steal.

But this man discovered an old woman in the supposedly empty house who had fallen and had spent days helpless and he called 911 and because of him, she lived. So bad karma brought a good result, in this case. Our model of good and bad karma didn't work. It's flawed. How come in this one instance, even with the worst of intentions (he intended to steal, not check on an old woman) and actions (breaking into someone else's house) he saved someone's life, good karma by any definition? How do you think the Bhikkhu would explain this?

First, I need to take a step back; I have put words in his mouth in the past and on reflection I don't think that is so skillful. So, continuing this discussion I will use my understanding of his beliefs as a basis for my answer. He has a great website (TONS of dharma talks...dating back to 2000) and I am sure would be happy to answer any questions if needed.

I am also going to set aside the value judgments of good and bad for the time being (I may still use skillful/unskillful toward the means of eliminating suffering), we can always revisit these if necessary; however, I maintain that they are not necessary, and in fact are a hinderance, to understand the role that intent plays in karma.

Karma is not a very straightforward concept. I don't think that one can always and simply say that this particular actions leads to that particular effect. As I have head Thanissaro Bhukku say in many of his talks, there is an apparent tendency for certain effects to manifest. So to say that breaking into a house would lead to bad karma is significantly simplifying the situation and not taking into consideration other factors (past actions) that might change the current effects. If you break into a house, there is the tendency for both immediate and longer term bad effects (get arrested, get shot, etc). It is not a universal judgment that punishes "bad", or even unskillful, deeds (Thanissaro Bhukku touched on this in the OP).

I would disagree that bad karma brought good results. I don't want to say that I can show you the karmic pathway, because I can't. However, there was an intention to break into the house (cause) and then he then broke into the house (effect and cause). Once in the house there was an intention to steal (cause) and then he saw the woman (effect). Intention (cause) now changes to helping her (effect). Alternatively if he stuck to his original intention he could have robbed her and left her to die or worse, which would have had other effects. This is why there is no determinism in karma. We have choices (causes) that modify effects

Our intentions range in scope from the very gross to the most subtle. Intention is just the beginning of this chain of karma: its the actions we take based on those intentions that really show us effects. This is why the buddha suggested we analyze our body, verbal, and mental "actions" before (intention), during (action), and after (effect).

It isn't that karma is flawed, it is that our understanding of how (or ability to understand how) it works is flawed. This is why the Buddha called it an imponderable.

fivebells

tmottes said:

It isn't that karma is flawed, it is that our understanding of how (or ability to understand how) it works is flawed. This is why the Buddha called it an imponderable.

Thanissaro would say the problem with this thread is that you are all arguing about something with which you have no direct experience, and directly experienced karma is the basis of Buddhist practice and the only type of karma a practitioner need be concerned with.

Why not go sit with the ill will and delusion this thread stinks of? That will pay far greater dividends than masturbating about cosmological/ontological issues, which Thanissaro says the Buddha primarily intended to teach as a way to encourage the assiduous study of here-and-now karma.

Thanissaro Bhikku said:

To avoid the drawbacks of the narrative and cosmological mind-sets, the Buddha pursued an entirely different tack — what he called "entry into emptiness," and what modern philosophy calls radical phenomenology: a focus on the events of present consciousness, in and of themselves, without reference to questions of whether there are any entities underlying those events. In the Buddha's case, he focused simply on the process of kammic cause and result as it played itself out in the immediate present, in the process of developing the skillfulness of the mind, without reference to who or what lay behind those processes. On the most basic level of this mode of awareness, there was no sense even of "existence" or "non-existence" [§186], but simply the events of stress, its origination, its cessation, and the path to its cessation, arising and passing away. Through this mode he was able to pursue the fourth type of kamma [i.e., kamma which leaves no traces -- fivebells] to its end, at the same time gaining heightened insight into the nature of action itself and its many implications, including questions of rebirth, the relationship of mental to physical events, and the way kamma constructs all experience of the cosmos.

RebeccaS

That was a little harsh

vinlyn

RebeccaS said:

That was a little harsh

That's putting it mildly.

fivebells

You're right, @RebeccaS. Off to sit with my own ill will and delusion.

Jason

Cinorjer said:

Also, bad actions and decisions can lead to good consequences, and vice versa. Recently in the news there was an interesting tidbit, where a man broke into a home to rob it. Bad action! Bad karma! How can anyone claim otherwise? And strict karma believers say no, you can never get good results from bad karma. What do you do, when you see a house that is empty and have the opportunity to steal? You make the skillful decision not to steal.

But this man discovered an old woman in the supposedly empty house who had fallen and had spent days helpless and he called 911 and because of him, she lived. So bad karma brought a good result, in this case. Our model of good and bad karma didn't work. It's flawed. How come in this one instance, even with the worst of intentions (he intended to steal, not check on an old woman) and actions (breaking into someone else's house) he saved someone's life, good karma by any definition? How do you think the Bhikkhu would explain this?

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I think he'd possibly make the point that actions, skillful or otherwise, don't always give immediate results (AN 6.63). I also think he'd point out that kamma in a non-linear process, and our experience of the present is influenced by the results of both past and present actions. It could be that the initially decision to rob the house was unskillful, but the robber's past good actions were in play as well; and his decision to help the woman was itself a skillful action, which could have overshadowed his previous, unskillful intention. So it's not as if the decision to rob the house automatically means nothing good could possibly come out of his entering the home. Each moment gives us the chance to act in skillful or unskillful ways, and those moments all serve to influence our experience of the present and the ways in which we affect the lives of others.

PrairieGhost

RebeccaS:

That was a little harsh

Shhh... he might come back and yell at us some more. :eek:

PrairieGhost

fivebells:

You're right, @RebeccaS. Off to sit with my own ill will and delusion.

Joking aside, you are quite right, of course, and I learned from your post.

Cinorjer

Jason said:

Actions, skillful or otherwise, don't always give immediate results. Kamma in non-linear, and our experience of the present is influenced by the results of both past and present actions. It could be that the initially decision to rob the home was unskillful, but the robber's past good actions were in play as well; and his decision to help the woman was itself a skillful action, which could have overshadowed his previous, unskillful intention. So it's not as if the decision to rob the house automatically means nothing good could possibly come out of his entering the home. Each moment gives us the chance to act in skillful or unskillful ways, and those moments all serve influence our experience of the present.

I agree with that, and only add that actions as well as consequences are rarely purely good or bad, but are a mixture of both in many cases. Thus the old "If you steal a loaf of bread to feed someone starving, is it good or bad?" cannot be answered one way or another. It's both and neither. It's feeding someone hungry and stealing, two separate acts bound together. For me, Buddhism is as much as anything a message of liberation from the chains of karma, meaning the hopeless task of dividing the world and your actions into good and bad and acting only for the good.

A poster above feels ill-will in our debate? I hope not. But, whatever you think of karma or how it works, I feel asking difficult questions helps us come to our own understandings.

vinlyn

Cinorjer said:

I agree with that, and only add that actions as well as consequences are rarely purely good or bad, but are a mixture of both in many cases. Thus the old "If you steal a loaf of bread to feed someone starving, is it good or bad?" cannot be answered one way or another. It's both and neither. It's feeding someone hungry and stealing, two separate acts bound together. For me, Buddhism is as much as anything a message of liberation from the chains of karma, meaning the hopeless task of dividing the world and your actions into good and bad and acting only for the good.

A poster above feels ill-will in our debate? I hope not. But, whatever you think of karma or how it works, I feel asking difficult questions helps us come to our own understandings.

I agree that feeding someone hungry and stealing are 2 different acts, BUT I would have to ask were there no reasonable alternatives to stealing? For example, here in Colorado Springs there are panhandlers on Tejon Street that sometimes bully pedestrians while panhandling...and yes, I am sure they have needs, including hunger, clothing, medicine, etc. But just 3-6 blocks away is a soup kitchen operated by Catholic Charities, which offers all of those things. So there would be a reasonable alternative.

I also agree with you that I see no ill will here, and that such discussions are the only way to learn and begin to see different viewpoints.

Jason

Cinorjer said:

Jason said:

Actions, skillful or otherwise, don't always give immediate results. Kamma in non-linear, and our experience of the present is influenced by the results of both past and present actions. It could be that the initially decision to rob the home was unskillful, but the robber's past good actions were in play as well; and his decision to help the woman was itself a skillful action, which could have overshadowed his previous, unskillful intention. So it's not as if the decision to rob the house automatically means nothing good could possibly come out of his entering the home. Each moment gives us the chance to act in skillful or unskillful ways, and those moments all serve influence our experience of the present.

I agree with that, and only add that actions as well as consequences are rarely purely good or bad, but are a mixture of both in many cases. Thus the old "If you steal a loaf of bread to feed someone starving, is it good or bad?" cannot be answered one way or another. It's both and neither. It's feeding someone hungry and stealing, two separate acts bound together. For me, Buddhism is as much as anything a message of liberation from the chains of karma, meaning the hopeless task of dividing the world and your actions into good and bad and acting only for the good.

A poster above feels ill-will in our debate? I hope not. But, whatever you think of karma or how it works, I feel asking difficult questions helps us come to our own understandings.

I think AN 4.235 is relevant here:

"Monks, these four types of kamma have been directly realized, verified, & made known by me. Which four? There is kamma that is dark with dark result. There is kamma that is bright with bright result. There is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result. There is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

"And what is kamma that is dark with dark result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates an injurious bodily fabrication, fabricates an injurious verbal fabrication, fabricates an injurious mental fabrication. Having fabricated an injurious bodily fabrication, having fabricated an injurious verbal fabrication, having fabricated an injurious mental fabrication, he rearises in an injurious world. On rearising in an injurious world, he is there touched by injurious contacts. Touched by injurious contacts, he experiences feelings that are exclusively painful, like those of the beings in hell. This is called kamma that is dark with dark result.

"And what is kamma that is bright with bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a non-injurious bodily fabrication ... a non-injurious verbal fabrication ... a non-injurious mental fabrication ... He rearises in a non-injurious world ... There he is touched by non-injurious contacts ... He experiences feelings that are exclusively pleasant, like those of the Beautiful Black Devas. This is called kamma that is bright with bright result.

"And what is kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result? There is the case where a certain person fabricates a bodily fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... a verbal fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... a mental fabrication that is injurious & non-injurious ... He rearises in an injurious & non-injurious world ... There he is touched by injurious & non-injurious contacts ... He experiences injurious & non-injurious feelings, pleasure mingled with pain, like those of human beings, some devas, and some beings in the lower realms. This is called kamma that is dark & bright with dark & bright result.

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

"These, monks, are the four types of kamma directly realized, verified, & made known by me."

(As a side note, when referring to the 'world' (loka), it's my opinion that the Buddha was often using this term as a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.), as well as to literal realms of existence one can be reborn into.)

Cinorjer

@jason

Those sutras really rock when they get going, don't they? Dark and bright kamma. I do like that.

Vastmind

@Jason...Thanks for the tie in and/or break down.
However one looks at it. lololol

I was thinking as @Cinorjer wrote...that...wait, that
robber's intention changed, as soon as he 'intended'
to help someone, rather than hurting (robbing)..
therefore...pointing out the difference between intention
and Karma. We all know, you dont get away with shit.
He will get the Karma from the intention to rob, but also
the Karma from the intention of helping/compassion.


BTW....
"........For me, Buddhism is as much as anything a message of liberation from the chains of karma, meaning the hopeless task of dividing the world and your actions into good and bad and acting only for the good."

:clap:

DairyLama

fivebells said:

Ironic that there should be so much effort going into discussing these minor points of karma ontology/cosmology, when you could be putting that effort into cutting through the karma we all see and can agree upon (and which is happening in this thread) as recommended by the Buddha.

But in the suttas karma is described specificially as beings reappearing in various realms according to their actions, ie the cycle of rebirth in samsara - so it's difficult to avoid the ontology and cosmology.

fivebells

Hi, @PedanticPorpoise. Actually, avoiding consideration of ontology and cosmology is the easy route, and was explicitly recommended by the Buddha. See the quote from the author of the "War on Karma" talk himself, Thanissaro Bhikku, in my subsequent comment.

In the Q&A session at the end of the talk, some listeners raise the usual objections to the traditional Buddhist cosmology, and Thanissaro's response is basically "Why don't you try the practice and see what happens, I'm not asking you to take this on faith." He is simply asking that people train themselves in present-moment awareness and seeing the suffering, impermanence and egolessness of each aspect of experience. You don't need to believe anything at all to try that, other than that it might prove to be worthwhile for some reason.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude as you have that the Buddha of the Pali suttas talks about recollections of past lives, but those came quite late in the process of his awakening and did not motivate his practice, so they are not necessary to Right View, Right Effort, etc. (The inevitability of sickness, old age and death motivated his practice, and you only have to look around to believe in these things.) As Thanissaro says in that chapter I linked earlier, the Buddha's practice was to inquire into the kamma arising in each present moment of experience. If some of that kamma involves recollection of past lives, fine, that's what you inquire into. Until then, it's at best a fabrication which distracts from the practice the Buddha recommended, and more likely a further support for ego and ill will. (No matter which side of the argument you come down on.)

It is possible to participate in a thread like this while abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness, but it is damn hard. For that reason, most of the effort which has gone into this thread is at best useless, and in some cases clearly actively harmful to the actual goals of Buddhist practice.

tmottes

fivebells said:

Hi, @PedanticPorpoise. Actually, avoiding consideration of ontology and cosmology is the easy route, and was explicitly recommended by the Buddha. See the quote from the author of the "War on Karma" talk himself, Thanissaro Bhikku, in my subsequent comment.

In the Q&A session at the end of the talk, some listeners raise the usual objections to the traditional Buddhist cosmology, and Thanissaro's response is basically "Why don't you try the practice and see what happens, I'm not asking you to take this on faith." He is simply asking that people train themselves in present-moment awareness and seeing the suffering, impermanence and egolessness of each aspect of experience. You don't need to believe anything at all to try that, other than that it might prove to be worthwhile for some reason.

It is certainly reasonable to conclude as you have that the Buddha of the Pali suttas talks about recollections of past lives, but those came quite late in the process of his awakening and did not motivate his practice, so they are not necessary to Right View, Right Effort, etc. (The inevitability of sickness, old age and death motivated his practice, and you only have to look around to believe in these things.) As Thanissaro says in that chapter I linked earlier, the Buddha's practice was to inquire into the kamma arising in each present moment of experience. If some of that kamma involves recollection of past lives, fine, that's what you inquire into. Until then, it's at best a fabrication which distracts from the practice the Buddha recommended, and more likely a further support for ego and ill will. (No matter which side of the argument you come down on.)

It is possible to participate in a thread like this while abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness, but it is damn hard. For that reason, most of the effort which has gone into this thread is at best useless, and in some cases clearly actively harmful to the actual goals of Buddhist practice.

@fivebells, I agree with you. In fact, I was reading last night where the buddha speaks of the things he realized verses what he actually taught/shared. I think that there is some benefit in clearing up the misconceptions about karma so that they aren't such a heavy point of focus, otherwise the buddha wouldn't have mentioned it at all. IMHO, its when it gets down to the hypotheticals and the details where it becomes unskillful.

DairyLama

Jason said:

(As a side note, when referring to the 'world' (loka), it's my opinion that the Buddha was often using this term as a metaphor for the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience (e.g., SN 35.23, SN 35.116, SN 12.44, AN 4.45, etc.), as well as to literal realms of existence one can be reborn into.)

I suspect that "loka" is another of those words that has different layers of meaning, and is also highly context dependent. In some places it may have the meaning of the "the world" as a place or realm, in others the meaning of "our world" as our subjective experience - though ultimately is there any difference?
In any case I don't think it makes sense to impose one meaning in all situations.

Jason

PedanticPorpoise said:

I suspect that "loka" is another of those words that has different layers of meaning, and is also highly context dependent. In some places it may have the meaning of the "the world" as a place or realm, in others the meaning of "our world" as our subjective experience - though ultimately is there any difference?
In any case I don't think it makes sense to impose one meaning in all situations.

Precisely, which is why I don't think one should limit its meaning to a 'world' outside of our present experience, as in applying solely to postmortem rebirth rather than the experience of the five aggregates, the six sense spheres, and/or the internal world of fabricated experience. Hence, when the Buddha says things like "rearising in an injurious world," it can mean more than just being reborn into an unpleasant state of experience after death, such being reborn into an unpleasant experience in the here and now.

driedleaf

I like the title of the talk "War on Karma". Perhaps the talk was titled this way to make us think about how we can take something subtle and make it into something devastating. Perhaps it was titled this way to make us reflect on our own interpretation of karma. My interpretation of it is that people are trying too hard to make karma into something it is not. I agree that the workings of it is imponderable, but sometimes there is just no need to ponder about certain actions and its results. Just my take on it. I could be wrong.

David

I don't know how it works or if there is a why it works but I see karma as causality. This is because that was. If we are mindful of the cycles, we can better anticipate outcomes.

If there is reincarrnation or rebirth, then it seems logical that it would be subject to karma or causality. Aside from that, there are likely as many possibilities as there are minds to conceive them as to how such a process could work exactly.

Being a good and compassionate person may lead into nirvana or it may lead into Buddhahood or it may lead to another round of life on our way to being a bodhissatva... It could lead nowhere. It could lead to a big letdown or it could lead to some version of Hell.

No matter where it leads, it makes the here and now better so we shouldn't worry too much about what happens after this moment (lifetime). Right now, compassion results in much smiling.

That's karma.