A couple of questions regarding karma
Silouan
Veteran
I think it can be generally said that according to Buddhism the human being can be resolved into a number of elements which possess no permanent existence, and that it is on the account of this transitory nature that none of these elements can be considered as the self or ego, so there is nothing to be reborn.
However, why does a conception of the mind like that of deed or performance, in other word karma, afforded the faculty of being reborn when the same is denied of all the elements of the human being which we are aware of through our senses and self-consciousness, and if we look at the law of karma as an instance of physical law, which is without beginning, how can the memory or objective effect of a deed persist from an infinite/eternal past?
Comments
I'm not entirely sure, but I'd say it's because of conditionality, same as with physical laws. Just as events that took place during the Big Bang continue to influence and shape the nature and structure of the universe today (acting as 'memories' of the Big Bang, if you will), intentional actions can shape the nature and structure of the succession of lives.
I tend to view rebirth as a casual, self-sustaining process, with causes creating effects, and effects acting as causes, creating feedback loops. If one admit the possibility of immaterial causes and not just material ones (assuming that a clear distinction between the two can even be made), then the continuation of said process isn't limited by or to a single material body. And if one believes Bertrand Russell, the more we understand about matter (i.e., energy), the more the word itself becomes "no more than a conventional shorthand for stating causal laws concerning events" (An Outline of Philosophy).
It could be that this mental energy decays or evaporates and doesn't go beyond its expression in our physical actions (i.e., doesn't carry on in anyway after death), or it could be that we simply don't yet understand how it can condition future becoming and experience.
@Silouan
I believe the Buddha was credited with saying that this question was not worthy of being elaborated on because it did not lead one along the path towards of sufferings cessation.
I usually see this question arising from those looking for some way around the Buddha's lack of interest in the concept of a soul.
IMO
The ego or self just reflects the karmic inertia that temporarily expresses itself here as life. This inertial force can be added to, maintained or resolved.
One can view this through our self colored glasses which says that we and our life are eminently important and how could our existence not continue forever
or
you could consider that the resolving of this present manifestation of karmic ignorance is really the spiritually adult job to take on without the need for some reassurance that an everlasting reward (a soul) will be meted out for good behavior.
I used to fight the concept of karma tooth and nail as 'a fundamental law of nature'. However, I have come to see it in another way (it is a law unto the self):
Karma or action arises, and ultimately is conditioned and caused by ignorance.
Ego is the delusion of a self that arises dependent on the causes and conditions of ignorance.
As we appear to be completely ignorant of our true nature and remain in the delusion of the ego, and the ego skilfully rejects anything that denies or does not affirm it. It is safe to assume, that Ego is dependent on Karma.
So ultimately, our awareness or buddha nature (which is ultimately unconditioned) is independent of karma.
So to put it another way, if ego reigns, karma has full force to act, if ego is empty, so is karma.
These are just thoughts by the way, not sure if they are of any help.
Metta
Keep this question lightly. I'm not sure what it will reveal to you. The skhandas are impermanent. So does that mean that we are impermanent? Buddha said the skhandas were not a self.
Dunno. Don't care.
Great question for those who do . . .
Thank you all for responding. I do have an idea formulating around mathematics and information influenced by my budding exploration of works by Eugene Wigner and Claude Shannon, but it is in such infancy at this point to even suggest.
@how I don't see the soul in the same manner as the Buddha in that it is some form of everlasting self identity that is clung to or a reward.
The soul can only really be spoken of in relation with the body and not as some distinct eternal entity. It is for the purpose of analysis that the soul and body are spoken of separately, and for me they are dynamic changing energies that reveal and express personhood, but they don't define it. If that were the case then when someone experienced a decline in mental faculty do to illness or old age for instance, or if one was born with a physical handicap we could make an argument that at a certain point a person could be considered no longer a person or not at all from the outset, so I'm not seeking reassurance of a soul that is eternal and everlasting. This would be a contradiction for that which is temporal, subject to change, and empty can not also be eternal and beyond them.
I think the Buddha was also credited with saying not to accept things just because he says so, but to put them to the test. I currently don't believe that the universe is eternal and without beginning, as the scientific community also seems to support for now, and for me that is the very reason why everything is impermanent and transitory, but putting that aside and examining karma within its own conceptual framework I see what appears to be a contradiction between it and other Buddhist doctrines, so I seek clarification and therefore don't consider the inquiry as not worthy of being elaborated on because it does not lead to toward the cessation of suffering but potentially quite the opposite.
If something rationally makes sense to me then I will accept it but not blindly. Karma on some levels makes sense to me and in other ways, as I previously pointed out, doesn't for now but I'm not going to easily dismiss the concept because of that. I will explore it further.
Those interested in reading a scientific article on a universe with a beginning here is a link:
technologyreview.com/view/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/
Jeffrey said: > Keep this question lightly. I'm not sure what it will reveal to you. The skhandas are impermanent. So does that mean that we are impermanent? Buddha said the skhandas were not a self.>
@Jeffrey It reveals that there is neither permanence or impermanence.
The teaching of kamma is to set one on the right path of doing good and avoiding bad deeds, a factor of N8FP. To expect that kamma will "right" the "wrongs" is not the way to freedom from dukkha.
In terms of the 4NT, there is only dukkha, its end and the way to achieve this.
Consider this -
and this
Hi,
there are two selfes in buddhism. The first is the material self and the second is
the spiritual one, that is going on with existence even if the body is dead.
Karma is spreading into the next life, it´s the accounting of good and bad deeds.
In buddhist Karma you stay on the level you had before if the result of accounting is
not positive. You can see your carmic status if you look at the 32 physical signsof a great man.
anando
That is not Buddhadharma. That is gnosticism. NO Buddhist school teaches a ' material self and a spiritual self.'