Difficult Question About Rebirth

Amida

Something that's puzzled me about karma and rebirth, is the birth and death of so many infant humans. Do you believe infants that come into this world and die early do so according to karma, and if so, how do you make sense of this?

lobster

Baby bodhisattvas. Most precious jewels. :bawl:

hermitwin

yes.
karma is just the way things are.
why does a man live to 115 yrs old?
there are many things about myself that i dont like.
many things that i like too.
it is all the results of karma.
but dont forget that karma can be from 5 lifetimes away or from 5 seconds ago.

Amida

I can see someone accepting rebirth if they become enlightened and see this is reality. After that it may vex the mind to desire a conceptual model of this process, such as wanting to know why infants die. And for those who haven't been enlightened to see this as a reality, I don't blame them for doubting it.

yildun

hi
perhaps its not Karma alone
Its nurture and nature a mixture
of all three.

slainte

caz

Amida said:

Something that's puzzled me about karma and rebirth, is the birth and death of so many infant humans. Do you believe infants that come into this world and die early do so according to karma, and if so, how do you make sense of this?

Samsara is the nature of suffering, It isn't nice and it is pleasant. The Self of his life is not the same person we where in a different life so it seems horrid and unfair when we experience suffering we wonder why is this happening to me, The very subtle mind carries karmic potentiality's within it and all our various experiences are connected with the infinite amount of potentials we have within our mind and they can ripen at any time.

Don't fool your self Samsara is the nature of suffering all actions performed carry a potentiality for its experience its difficult and painful to understand but Buddha didn't simply teach about karma just to upset us he taught about it to show us that it is a must do to maintain morale discipline, Purify the mind of non virtuous potentiality's and generate renunciation for Samsara so we do not have to experience its suffering over and over again.

seeker242

Personally, I don't really "make sense of it" so to speak. It's more like just an acceptance of the fact that people are born and then they die and that's the way the world works. Not good, not bad, it's just how it is.

David

Amida said:

Something that's puzzled me about karma and rebirth, is the birth and death of so many infant humans. Do you believe infants that come into this world and die early do so according to karma, and if so, how do you make sense of this?

Seems it's very easy to see karma at work on the physica level but much harder to fathom how it works on the spiritual level (for lack of a better word). I've heard this argument against karmic rebirth many times as if claiming karmic rebirth is saying the infant deserves to die for what it did in a past life.

There are a couple of reasons why this view doesn't sit right with me. For one, it seems to liken karma to a process of punishment and reward when it's really just the way things go. If it is a means of punishment, then what would determine the next birth?

If the infant only has a few breaths, how could it possibly create the conditions determining the next life if karma worked as punishment instead of just how things go?

I don't think karma works in such a subjective way... I don't only reap what I sow but what you sow as well. This is why a person that has lived a compassionate and giving life, full of love and respect can still be crushed by a falling piano if the conditions are right for it.

A small lapse of mindfulness means they deserved to be crushed by a piano?

Sometimes, it's just unfortunate timing or conditions due to the chaos of interbeing.

hermitwin

may i suggest you read a book about what buddha said about karma.
its fine to have opinions but dont you wanna know what buddha taught?

ourself said:

Amida said:

Something that's puzzled me about karma and rebirth, is the birth and death of so many infant humans. Do you believe infants that come into this world and die early do so according to karma, and if so, how do you make sense of this?

Seems it's very easy to see karma at work on the physica level but much harder to fathom how it works on the spiritual level (for lack of a better word). I've heard this argument against karmic rebirth many times as if claiming karmic rebirth is saying the infant deserves to die for what it did in a past life.

There are a couple of reasons why this view doesn't sit right with me. For one, it seems to liken karma to a process of punishment and reward when it's really just the way things go. If it is a means of punishment, then what would determine the next birth?

If the infant only has a few breaths, how could it possibly create the conditions determining the next life if karma worked as punishment instead of just how things go?

I don't think karma works in such a subjective way... I don't only reap what I sow but what you sow as well. This is why a person that has lived a compassionate and giving life, full of love and respect can still be crushed by a falling piano if the conditions are right for it.

A small lapse of mindfulness means they deserved to be crushed by a piano?

Sometimes, it's just unfortunate timing or conditions due to the chaos of interbeing.

hermitwin

the only thing that is wrong with an infant dying is that people dont like it.
thousands of infants die everyday.
what happens to the infants?
1. they are reborn or
2. they go to heaven/hell (not sure how it works for christians if the baby has not accepted jesus) or
3. annhilation.
so, what is the problem?

footiam

Some people die not because of karma. They die because of germs, murderers, accidents etc. In case of germs, they don't know the harm they are causing because they don't have brains. In the case of murderers, they may committing fresh karma. Karma by the way, some people say means, actions. In the case of accidents, natural or unnatural, they are all impersonal but some just attribute that to the handiwork of Gods.
P.S Just kidding. Don't worry!~

maarten

AFAIK karma is not the only causal factor according to buddhism, see for example this wikipedia article. So although I believe that karma partly shapes our future, I think (for ordinary human beings) there is no way of knowing the exact causes for any event.

Enigma

In the Sivaka Sutta, the Buddha explains that not all events are caused by karma. To think that karma is in any way deterministic, defining all future events and experiences, is a mistaken view. Instead, the Buddha identifies a number of other causal factors for various experiences.

"There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"

"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true.

"Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans."

Here, the Buddha acknowledges that there are biological, climatological, and other causes besides karma (action). The niyama dhammas explain how things come to be. There are five categories of causation.

Kamma niyama involves consequences of one's own actions via intention, volition, and will. This is the sphere of morality. It has absolutely nothing to do with reward or punishment, but instead simple cause and effect, based on action.

Utu niyama includes the seasons and climate. This is the physical, inorganic order of existence, ranging from earthquakes to floods and all other natural disasters. The world of physics and chemistry is here. Thus, disasters have nothing to do with karma.

Biija niyama encompasses heredity and genetics, or living/organic matter. This is at the cellular level, at the hands of biology. Again, karma plays no role here. Therefore, birth defects are not the result of karma.

Citta niyama refers to the nature of mind, or mental dispositions and cognition. This is roughly equivalent to psychology. Here, we can say that disorders such as schizophrenia are unrelated to karma.

Dhamma niyama relates to the three marks of existence and the nature of samsaric reality. Anicca, dukkha, and anatta are related causally. That which is impermanent is unsatisfactory, and that which is unsatisfactory as empty of self.

In summary, there are many other factors at play besides karma in giving rise to any given experience or event. Not all things are the result of karma. If a baby dies shortly after birth, this is due to natural causes (biija niyama), not moral causes (kamma niyama).

driedleaf

I see that "falling piano" is not on that list. :hair:

David

Karma is the natural way of causation. To claim there are effects without causes is ridiculous.

Tosh

ourself said:

Karma is the natural way of causation. To claim there are effects without causes is ridiculous.

I think some confusion is that karma is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

But sometimes, as has been shown above, 'poo happens'.

David

Also I'd have to equate believing karma is some kind of punishing agent is more like a Hindu concept with perhaps even a pinch of Abrahamic dogma thrown in.

Sile

We should also consider that dying is not the worst thing - a life of horrific poverty, for example, or living to late adulthood with a debilitating painful disease, could be more painful - the infant's transition to the next life could be the ripening of positive karma, too, for all we know.

how

As has been pointed out by others..Karma is just one law of the universe.

Buddhism would also point out that the compilation of sufficient karma inertia to bring fruition to sentient birth, is simply the unfolding of cause and effect.
The idea that a long life is better than a short one is really just the ego's primal fear of extinguisment.
Transcend the ego's fear and the associating issues of fault, fair or blame, simply have no validity.

Amida

I, personally, don't accept rebirth as a reality. Has too many problems to accept intellectually. If I were to have some intuitive revelation it was reality, then I'd accept it.

One problem is the initial stream. If it comes into being by natural causes and conditions, then it's not driven by the karmic information of sentient beings. Yet, some say this steam of information is processed in the Bardo State, where it is reborn in a world in relation to that information. If the latter is the case, it contradicts initially coming into being by mere cause and effect, unrelated to sentient action.

Jeffrey

Amida, do you believe the body is the self? Buddha didn't :cool:

how

@Amida
One problem is the initial stream. If it comes into being by natural causes and conditions, then it's not driven by the karmic information of sentient beings.


Not trying to convince you one way or another but to explain that it is both...

It is a collection of karmic inertia sufficient to manifest as life
AND
this manifestation of life can be seen as natural causes and conditions.

Amida

@jeffery, no I don't believe this manifestation is an independent self.


@how, if there's a Bardo State where information is processed and is reborn in a fitting world, then an appearance in that world was due to past karmic information. But if this universe evolved due to natural causes and conditions, then it doesn't seem necessary for it to have arisen from past karmic information. And we're still stuck with the problem of how the initial stream comes into being. Natural causes and conditions, apart from rebirth, makes sense of the initial stream, but rebirth leaves the question, how did the initial stream arise without karmic information?

how

As a rude zafu pilot, I'll leave the Bardo to the Tibetans to explain. Not only does it not resonate with my own meager meditative reality but it reminds me too much of an uncomfortable holliday time share program I once sat through..

Jeffrey

@amida, I thought you were saying that because the five skhandas dissipate that would mean that it was over. I have no idea what goes to the next life, but the skhandas ending should have nothing to do with it. Do you see my line of thinking?

So 1 skhandas ending is irrelevant to rebirth
2 I don't know what else there is

I'll add that Buddha was not the skhandas either. But would you say Buddha was 'not there' although the skhandas were not him?

3 Buddha was there although he was not the skhandas
4 Therefore there could be something of 'me' that goes onward that has nothing to do with the skhandas

I think you are saying the body is gone so it is impossible for there to be an ongoing being. Is that right?

I think you have the (wrong?) view that we are fluxional skhandas, but I think the Buddha says that we are not fluxional form skhanda for example. Otherwise Buddhism (for me) is no different than what I thought when 8 years old. I mean, of course we are changing; even Christians believe we are changing.

PS if we are fluxional form skhanda how can we overcome craving for this fluxional self? How do we avoid suffering when sick and dying? The fluxional form skhanda would be heading towards death. Buddha said that through realization of his dharma the 'deathless' was attained.

jll

karma without morality?
that is material science not buddhism or hinduism or any other religion AFAIK.

Tosh said:

ourself said:

Karma is the natural way of causation. To claim there are effects without causes is ridiculous.

I think some confusion is that karma is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

But sometimes, as has been shown above, 'poo happens'.

jll

no, there is no confusion, karma as buddha taught, is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

the confusion is in your understanding of buddhism.

Amida

@jeffery

As I understand it, Buddha is the skhandas and not the skhandas. All things, even in their impermanence, are appearances within Buddha and are Buddha; and they are empty of any independent nature, so there's no independent *self* in any appearance. These things are reasonable, and I can accept them.

But my problem is with rebirth. If the appearance of your body within nature is due to 13.7 billion years of causes and conditions (evolution), which explains the initial coming into being due to the intrinsic qualities of nature, apart from sentient actions, then being reborn into a particular world due to karmic information contradicts the naturalistic model. The two don't see to work together; therefore, I doubt it.

Nature seems to be fairly comprehensible with the right models, and it doesn't seem likely one can make a working model of rebirth and karma.

Jeffrey

If we are skhandas isn't that a self? Christians don't believe they are not integrated with their environment. They don't believe that there is no change. The only difference is they think that changing self goes to heaven, right? If we all die and are extinguished wouldn't it be better to be a Christian and at least be comforted? How does knowing you are 'interbeing' help you on your death bed? I'd rather be a Christian on my deathbed in that situation.

The universe to me is just form skhanda, which is not me.

Nice talking with you, I am enjoying this thread more than most on karma/rebirth. Maybe just happy because my team won the football game hehe

fivebells

@Amida, I'm curious why you're interested in this question, if you don't accept rebirth.

Amida

@fivebells, even though I don't accept it, I'm open to reasonable models of it, if they can be put forth. I don't accept it, but I wouldn't say it's not absolutely not true. Sometimes, I consider it may be.

David

Tosh said:

ourself said:

Karma is the natural way of causation. To claim there are effects without causes is ridiculous.

I think some confusion is that karma is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

But sometimes, as has been shown above, 'poo happens'.

That's exactly it... Being moral can and will affect the karmic cycle but the karmic cycle doesn't care about morality.

David

hermitwin said:

may i suggest you read a book about what buddha said about karma.
its fine to have opinions but dont you wanna know what buddha taught?

How about you post in your own words what Buddha taught about causation?

A sutta is fine too if you can break it down into your own words.

jll

budhha taught about ultimate reality n relative reality.
in ultimate reality there is no you , me etc.
the concept of you is just a concept.
just as a car is a concept, made up of various parts.
if i tie myself together with my brother n say we are 1 entity,
you will see how ridiculous that is.

but since we are dealing with relative reality, your mental n physical volition has consequences on your future experiences.
if your volition consists of 'negative' (unskillful) ones, so will be your fruits.
i hope i am making some sense to you cos i wrote this in a hurry.

David

@jll;

I do agree, however, there is little skill to be aquired by not taking any breaths.

If an infant dying is the result of prior bad karma or the lack of having compassion in a past life, then logically, that infant will be in a repetitive cycle of dying as an infant because there is no way to aquire the skill needed to upgrade its' karmic prison in a few short breaths.

Unless I'm missing some kind of loop hole.

Absolutely every thing is the result of information being shared in one way or another. That is karma. It has always been like that.

There are many factors that determine a favourable birth and many of them have nothing to do with how good a person is.

And that is still karma.

I'm not saying Buddha didn't teach morality or that morality doesn't affect karma but he certainly didn't believe in an entity that punishes for wrong doing.

David

Sile said:

We should also consider that dying is not the worst thing - a life of horrific poverty, for example, or living to late adulthood with a debilitating painful disease, could be more painful - the infant's transition to the next life could be the ripening of positive karma, too, for all we know.

So if we do something bad enough to be born as a dying infant we get a "get out of karma free" card?

Hmmm... Haha Just kidding.

driedleaf

I think that the concept of "punishment", "reward", "fair", and "unfair" are only possible if there is an "I" or "me" to accept them. The idea of "punishment" are only existent in conventional reality (sammati). Beyond conventional reality there really is no punishment only causation.

hermitwin

'If an infant dying is the result of prior bad karma or the lack of having compassion in a past life, then logically, that infant will be in a repetitive cycle of dying '

as in a vicious cycle?
that is not possible both physically n spiritually.

Tosh

jll said:

no, there is no confusion, karma as buddha taught, is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

the confusion is in your understanding of buddhism.

I'm not sure my confusion is in my understanding of Buddhism. And different Buddhists sects will disagree on the finer points of Karma too.

You know, earlier today, I hit my thumb with a hammer - by accident - now according to some Buddhist understandings of karma, that happened because I hit someone else's thumb with a hammer, in this or a previous life.

But that sounds a little daft to me; I think it just happened because accidents happen; and there was no moral component to this accident.

And let's remember, the doctrine of karma did not emerge into existence as a fully developed doctrine, like some Christian revelation from God; it's been a evolution of thought. The notion of karma pre-existed the Buddha; he used the current religious expressions of his day to explain his take on karma.

Personally, I don't twist myself up in knots about understanding it; on my foundation course I was taught only a Buddha fully understands karma. But I know if I want good results, I need to have/do good actions/thoughts. But I don't delude myself; I know no matter how good my practise, I can still get hit by a bus.

music

Tosh said:

ourself said:

Karma is the natural way of causation. To claim there are effects without causes is ridiculous.

I think some confusion is that karma is always linked with some kind of morality, like it's a cosmic force of justice.

But sometimes, as has been shown above, 'poo happens'.

The buddha would ask: Did the poo arise independently? Lol.

David

hermitwin said:

'If an infant dying is the result of prior bad karma or the lack of having compassion in a past life, then logically, that infant will be in a repetitive cycle of dying '

as in a vicious cycle?
that is not possible both physically n spiritually.

That's my point.

@Tosh;

I think we can learn from any instance of karma... I've hit my thumb with many a hammer and it could have been avoided every time if I was being more mindful.

vinlyn

It's interesting that so many posts in this thread are rather definitive statements about what karma is and how it works...and yet so much in disagreement.

I'm glad to see at least a couple of people began their posts with words like, "I think...".

driedleaf

I think...sometimes people look too deeply for a cause when the actual cause is right there in front of them. Hitting your thumb with a hammer? The cause of that is not being mindful enough about using a hammer. Crushed by a falling piano? Not being mindful enough to notice a piano tied to a rope up above. Rare that someone would tie a piano to rope without an intention for it to fall on someone, but I could be wrong. I realize how important mindfulness is now thanks to this thread.

how

@vinlyn
I'm glad to see at least a couple of people began their posts with words like,
"I think...".

Canadians often say "I think" as a way of softening an assertion. It's purpose is just a reflex social lubricant that gives a spin of "gentleness" to a statement. I think it encourages less of an countering ego response from the listener. Of course, after a while it can become "have a nice day", with optional sincerity.

I believe that every poster on this site would happily give you permission to automatically imagine an "I think" heading in front of all of their postings, if only to make you glad.
and
think how revealing a thread would be from those who wouldn't.

& yes ...certainty is just another fools errand.