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.
So Buddhists believe that its possible for me to be reborn as a slug or a frog through bad karma? And through good karma I can be reborn as an elightened being? And that its possible for animals to reborn human?
Neither 'all buddhists believe this' or 'all buddhists believe that' could be possibly said with conviction and true observation. What do you think about it?
In my eyes karma helps me to believe that my actions make a difference. Otherwise I could easily keep doing stupid things. I do some of that anyway But with belief in karma I have more of a sense that my whole perspective could shift almost as if the world is reborn and not me. This extends to death in believing that any good action at death will also make a difference. I mean its hard to imagine doing much of anything gurgling out the last breath, but I mean actions close to death like bonding with loved ones and I think its good in itself to shoulder hardship and transform it into well whatever it turns into. To just keep working with the situation. If I didn't have such a strong self concept it would probably be easier for me to see how my actions near death were benefitial regardless of rebirth? But for me I like to think that I am going to benefit being my greedy self
I am a rationalist and an atheist. I simply cannot believe in nonsense concepts like reincarnation and karma. There is no natural justice or rebirth of the soul. However, I do find the teachings of the Buddha inspirational, and I do understanding that the eight fold path is the road to living an enlightened life. Isn't that enough? Why does there always have to be mumbojumbo getting in the way? I mean I respect Jesus and his teachings, but don't ask me to worship him. He was just a man; no one is any more than that.
I am a rationalist and an atheist. I simply cannot believe in nonsense concepts like reincarnation and karma. There is no natural justice or rebirth of the soul. However, I do find the teachings of the Buddha inspirational, and I do understanding that the eight fold path is the road to living an enlightened life. Isn't that enough? Why does there always have to be mumbojumbo getting in the way? I mean I respect Jesus and his teachings, but don't ask me to worship him. He was just a man; no one is any more than that.
"The fact that consciousness exists is a natural fact. Consciousness exists; that is it. Similarly, the continuum of consciousness is also a natural principle: consciousness maintains its continuity. To this we must add that in Buddhism, there is an understanding that consciousness cannot arise from nowhere or without a cause; and, at the same time, that consciousness cannot be produced from matter. This is not to say that matter cannot affect consciousness. However, the nature of consciousness is sheer luminosity, mere experience, it is the primordial knowing faculty, and therefore it cannot be produced from matter whose nature is different. It follows that since consciousness cannot arise without a cause, and since it cannot arise from a material cause, it must come from a ceasless continuum. It is on this permise that Buddhism accepts the existence of (beginningless) former lives."
-Dalai Lama
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Simon You're far from alone in this. This topic, if not the number 1 topic of discussion is certainly in the top 5. Stephen Batchelor is one of the main proponents of a non mystical Buddhism. Also there is the Secular Buddhist Association.
There is a more secular view of karma out there and the Buddhist view is rebirth not reincarnation a subtle but important difference, and there are secular views of rebirth as well. Much benefit and happiness can be obtained without a traditional belief in these things.
IMO the better approach than the certainty that they don't exist is the I don't know attitude. I also don't feel that the whole of the Buddhist path can be explored without these notions but thats only one view.
@Simon You're far from alone in this. This topic, if not the number 1 topic of discussion is certainly in the top 5. Stephen Batchelor is one of the main proponents of a non mystical Buddhism. Also there is the Secular Buddhist Association.
There is a more secular view of karma out there and the Buddhist view is rebirth not reincarnation a subtle but important difference, and there are secular views of rebirth as well. Much benefit and happiness can be obtained without a traditional belief in these things.
IMO the better approach than the certainty that they don't exist is the I don't know attitude. I also don't feel that the whole of the Buddhist path can be explored without these notions but thats only one view.
Yes, although rather than attach names to it, I would suggest it is the old argument about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Yes, although rather than attach names to it, I would suggest it is the old argument about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy.
Buddhist philosophy originates from its understanding of reality. So while they're not the same thing they also can't be completely divorced from one another.
Yes, although rather than attach names to it, I would suggest it is the old argument about whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy.
Buddhist philosophy originates from its understanding of reality. So while they're not the same thing they also can't be completely divorced from one another.
A question is whether religious Buddhists are seeing "reality" or fairly typical religious suppositions.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited March 2012
I am a rationalist and an atheist. I simply cannot believe in nonsense concepts like reincarnation and karma. There is no natural justice or rebirth of the soul.
@Simon, well, that just goes to show how much - or little - you know. going backwards; Buddhists also do not ascribe to a transmigrating soul. So we don't believe in a 'soul' either. Secondly, 'Karma' isn't 'natural justice'. Karmas, literally translated, just means 'Action' or 'cause'. so karma is not some kind of judicial, punitive sentence that metes out punishment for the bad things you do.
hopefully, that's cleared a couple of misconceptions up....
We don't believe in 'nonsense concepts' either. but it pays to first check your facts, before calling 3,000-year-old teachings 'nonsense'..... Welcome....
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
A question is whether religious Buddhists are seeing "reality" or fairly typical religious suppositions.
Its a fair point. Any stance about what happens after death is really a metaphysical position at this time. Buddhism does take a particular stance which it does back up with, IMO solid philosophical reasoning, though not concrete evidence.
... Secondly, 'Karma' isn't 'natural justice'. Karmas, literally translated, just means 'Action' or 'cause'. so karma is not some kind of judicial, punitive sentence that metes out punishment for the bad things you do.
hopefully, that's cleared a couple of misconceptions up....
...
I would say you are expressing one view within the overall Buddhist family. But many, if not most Thai Buddhists do believe that karma is (as you put it) "some kind of judicial, punitive sentence that metes out punishment for the bad things you do".
In care you're going to ask...I remain open-minded about the concept since no one has ever defined either view to my satisfaction.
A question is whether religious Buddhists are seeing "reality" or fairly typical religious suppositions.
Its a fair point. Any stance about what happens after death is really a metaphysical position at this time. Buddhism does take a particular stance which it does back up with, IMO solid philosophical reasoning, though not concrete evidence.
I have a problem with "solid philosophical reasoning" because it can change so much from one culture to another.
Do all Buddhists believe in rebirth and karma? Who knows?
Did the Buddha teach rebirth and karma? I believe you'll find your answers within the Pali Canon/TiPiţaka. On the very night of his enlightenment, the Buddha was able to visualize all his past lives. "Through many a birth (anekajati), wandered I, seeking the builder of this house. Sorroful indeed is birth again and again (dukkhajati-punappunam)."
Check the Dhammacakka Sutta - the Buddha's very first discourse - where he speaks to the Second Noble Truth and states: "This very craving is that which leads to rebirth."
good karma will not make you be reborn as an enlightened being, the point of becoming enlightened is that there is no further birth
also, there is no such thing as good karma or bad karma, there is skillful karma and unskillful karma (karma mean action)
also, the did not use the term "rebirth." The Buddha said there is birth contingent on becoming. Birth will continue to occur until becoming has met its cessation.
also, in the ultimate sense of things there is no "you," there are just a multitude of complex processes working in tandum to create the illusion of "you"
an important thing to remember when considering "rebirth" is to apply the lessons of the dhamma. You say "this is birth, the cause of birth is becoming, the cessation of becoming would constitute the cessation of birth, the path that leads to the cessation of birth is the noble eightfold path"
questions and speculations on former or future lives is an entanglement of unskillful views and will only lead to further suffering
I am a rationalist and an atheist. I simply cannot believe in nonsense concepts like reincarnation and karma. There is no natural justice or rebirth of the soul.
...We don't believe in 'nonsense concepts' either. but it pays to first check your facts, before calling 3,000-year-old teachings 'nonsense'..... Welcome....
@federica I agree he didn't articulate his point in the most skillful way, but his point I think was valid. If we check the facts, we see that this reality is wholly material. That obviously conflicts with most of the traditional beliefs on Karma, Reincarnation and Rebirth. On the other hand, millenia ago it was fact that the world is flat. So I'm trying to remain Agnostic concerning these. To answer @BuddhaOdin ; Many Buddhist do. Many do not. I think that while these can be very important to certain traditions, I do not think they are relevant when speaking about enlightenment. Whether one holds these concepts to be true or not, understanding the noble truths, undertaking the Eightfold Path with diligence, and staying consistent in one's practice will lead to a great reduction, or even extinguishing, of Dukkha.
calling the universe "material" is just a form of reification
at the quatum level there is no such thing as "material" it's just a bunch of processes working together that look "material" to those who are blind to the true nature of reality
calling the universe "material" is just a form of reification
at the quatum level there is no such thing as "material" it's just a bunch of processes working together that look "material" to those who are blind to the true nature of reality
calling the universe "material" is just a form of reification
at the quatum level there is no such thing as "material" it's just a bunch of processes working together that look "material" to those who are blind to the true nature of reality
By material I mean to have mass. Everything has mass. If something didn't have mass, gravity would not effect it, and gravity effects even light. So everything in reality is material.
Mass does not imply any reified physical entity, mass is also a process
If you don't understand what I'm saying I can't explain it, I'm not a physicist
I think that if someone doesn't believe in the simple truth of cause and effect (the law of karma) then they are fools and definitely not buddhist by any stretch of the imaginationkarma is not some magical, universal, ethical code, it just IS. Action occurs, and there is a result of that action (karma -> frution) simple as that.
Mass does not imply any reified physical entity, mass is also a process
If you don't understand what I'm saying I can't explain it, I'm not a physicist
I think that if someone doesn't believe in the simple truth of cause and effect (the law of karma) then they are fools and definitely not buddhist by any stretch of the imaginationkarma is not some magical, universal, ethical code, it just IS. Action occurs, and there is a result of that action (karma -> frution) simple as that.
1. With all due respect, I don't think it's your place to decide who's Buddhist, and I don't think it's very wise to call others a fool (besides not being "right speech". Besides which, one can follow many Buddhist principles without buying into the whole religion. 2. Having said that, in general I agree that there is karma. Whether it's internal or external, I remain open-minded and have seen neither position explained to my satisfaction. And, there are certainly negative and positive actions that appear to have no result at all, another gap in our understanding of karma. 3. You go from phrases like "reification" and "quantum level" to "karma...just is". I kinda think you don't have it figured out either. And note I said "either", meaning many of us, including me, are in the same boat.
So, what will your karma be for excluding people from Buddhism and calling others fools?
that sounded kind of condescending, sorry iom a debt collector and have been sitting her for 9 hours lol
all im saying is that the world is not as "material" as it appears and that karma is not some kind of token system, all it means is that harmful actions yield harmful results and non-harmful actions yield non-harmful effects
in regards to birth, the state of becoming is why birth continues to occur
if you don't believe in becoming and birth then that, in my opinion, would make you a nihilist and the buddha very strictly denied all annhialationist theories stating that they are just as erroneous as eternalistic theories. I think the concept of birth arising dependent upon becoming is very very difficult to truly understand, and should not be confused with invalid eternalist theories of reincarnation, etc.
the reason I think denying the existence of cause and effect is foolish is because it is so obviously evident in all things
i think a lot of people make karma out to be something that it isn't, specifically they think it is like a special essence or tally or something andthat each action yields good or bad "karma"
but the way the buddha describes it is that the action itself is the karma and the effect it yields is the fruition of that karma
also, i may not be the best at expressing things, but I personally feel like I have a very firm grasp on a lot, the fact that I can't explain things well is why I usually try to stay away from conversations like these, I feel like I just end up trying to defend myself
the reason I think denying the existence of cause and effect is foolish is because it is so obviously evident in all things
i think a lot of people make karma out to be something that it isn't, specifically they think it is like a special essence or tally or something andthat each action yields good or bad "karma"
but the way the buddha describes it is that the action itself is the karma and the effect it yields is the fruition of that karma
also, i may not be the best at expressing things, but I personally feel like I have a very firm grasp on a lot, the fact that I can't explain things well is why I usually try to stay away from conversations like these, I feel like I just end up trying to defend myself
Ok...getting better!
I think here's 2 problems with karma. The first is that Buddhists can't agree on what it is. Western Buddhists seem more in the camp that it's internal. At least in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia it seems that more people believe it's an inexplicable external force. Don't ask me which it is. I remain opne-minded.
Second, there are many times that appears that someone's very bad or very good actions have no karmic result. Let's say it's an internal force, but that the person is amoral?
Do I believe there is, generally, such a thing as karma? Yes. Do I understand how it works? Nope. Seems pretty loosey-goosey. Sort of like when Christians pray to God and it doesn't happen and then they say, "Well, God works in mysterious ways."
Theres always a gap between when karma blossoms because it requires conditions to be met.
No one is always bad, good or neutral. Thus its really hard to link karmic correlations.
Just a casual sharing.
Fine. Explain the fine details of how it works.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I think here's 2 problems with karma. The first is that Buddhists can't agree on what it is. Western Buddhists seem more in the camp that it's internal. At least in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia it seems that more people believe it's an inexplicable external force. Don't ask me which it is. I remain opne-minded.
Second, there are many times that appears that someone's very bad or very good actions have no karmic result. Let's say it's an internal force, but that the person is amoral?
Do I believe there is, generally, such a thing as karma? Yes. Do I understand how it works? Nope. Seems pretty loosey-goosey. Sort of like when Christians pray to God and it doesn't happen and then they say, "Well, God works in mysterious ways."
Not really trying to convert you here, just to explain. It might be better to explain the 'western' view of karma as psychological rather than internal. I believe karma only occurs in the mind, but the view of mind that I have isn't quite the same as the western one.
To the second point, with rebirth there's no need for karma to ripen immediately. Just because we throw a rock up into the air and forget about it doesn't mean when it hits us in the head it was uncaused.
Karma is explained pretty thoroughly from what I've learned. Not that its been proved scientifically but the only part that goes into the 'shrug' category is the specific workings out of karma (like how particular karmic actions of gamblers at a horse race and the karma of the owners effect the outcome of a race.)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Here's an explanation of the workings of karma (again, not scientifically proven)
I think here's 2 problems with karma. The first is that Buddhists can't agree on what it is. Western Buddhists seem more in the camp that it's internal. At least in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia it seems that more people believe it's an inexplicable external force. Don't ask me which it is. I remain opne-minded.
Second, there are many times that appears that someone's very bad or very good actions have no karmic result. Let's say it's an internal force, but that the person is amoral?
Do I believe there is, generally, such a thing as karma? Yes. Do I understand how it works? Nope. Seems pretty loosey-goosey. Sort of like when Christians pray to God and it doesn't happen and then they say, "Well, God works in mysterious ways."
Not really trying to convert you here, just to explain. It might be better to explain the 'western' view of karma as psychological rather than internal. I believe karma only occurs in the mind, but the view of mind that I have isn't quite the same as the western one.
To the second point, with rebirth there's no need for karma to ripen immediately. Just because we throw a rock up into the air and forget about it doesn't mean when it hits us in the head it was uncaused.
Karma is explained pretty thoroughly from what I've learned. Not that its been proved scientifically but the only part that goes into the 'shrug' category is the specific workings out of karma (like how particular karmic actions of gamblers at a horse race and the karma of the owners effect the outcome of a race.)
It isn't that I necessarily disagree with anything you say. As I said, I believe there is karma. I see evidence of it. But I also see no proof, and I feel it is a matter of faith, which again gets into the religion of Buddhism. I have no problem with whether one sees Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy, providing one knows the difference between the two.
I also am just learning how karma operates so i cannot claim that i understand it.
Also i was arrogant before and assumed i understood karma. Still don't get it.
But see, from my perspective, that's the problem of considering karma fact. Different people can explain electricity and show it working. Different people can explain oreo cookies and show people eating them. But different people explain karma in completely different ways and can't show it working. My Thai friends (and a few monks along the way) have explained it as an external force. People on this forum tend to explain it as an internal force. One group is wrong. Period.
So, I remain believing there is karma, but not knowing which it is (internal or external), and not able to explain it to anyone else. And, BTW, over the years I have read a number of Thai Buddhist books by rather venerable monks which explain it as something external. Again, I'm not saying they're right...or they're wrong. But when I hear people talking about the Law Of Karma...well, it's not a "law" in any sense of the word.
Yeah buddhism is a personal journey. If it helps yourself then its worth spreading. Until then we experiment And keep our minds open.
But i was given a retty convincing break down by lama marut. Either everything is random, based on causality, or predetermined. Has to be one of these.
Randomness or nihilism is out of question imho. So is pre determination.
So causality for myself is the only rational conclusion. And life does back it up. So confidence in is karma is large.
But the mechanics in some sense are irrelevant. The buddhist path is built around the freedom from suffering. This metaphysical views are meaningless.
The great thing or news is that suffering is caused. On that basis alone i have confidence that karma is real.
the reason I think denying the existence of cause and effect is foolish is because it is so obviously evident in all things
i think a lot of people make karma out to be something that it isn't, specifically they think it is like a special essence or tally or something andthat each action yields good or bad "karma"
but the way the buddha describes it is that the action itself is the karma and the effect it yields is the fruition of that karma
also, i may not be the best at expressing things, but I personally feel like I have a very firm grasp on a lot, the fact that I can't explain things well is why I usually try to stay away from conversations like these, I feel like I just end up trying to defend myself
Ok...getting better!
I think here's 2 problems with karma. The first is that Buddhists can't agree on what it is. Western Buddhists seem more in the camp that it's internal. At least in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia it seems that more people believe it's an inexplicable external force. Don't ask me which it is. I remain opne-minded.
Second, there are many times that appears that someone's very bad or very good actions have no karmic result. Let's say it's an internal force, but that the person is amoral?
Do I believe there is, generally, such a thing as karma? Yes. Do I understand how it works? Nope. Seems pretty loosey-goosey. Sort of like when Christians pray to God and it doesn't happen and then they say, "Well, God works in mysterious ways."
I personally believe that karma works in many ways, some we can understand and see in every day life, simple cause and effect, and other ways in which we cannot comprehend. Heck, there are so many phenomena that occur in the universe that we do not understand in this day and age, let alone the inner workings of karma. The buddha was supose to have seen how it all worked when he was awoken, seeing previous lives etc. I have said this before and I will again because I feel like it If you take that karma is a natural casual law and it exists, then that is it, take it. Physical rebirth is something you can drop or take, but if you believe in it it does not matter because that is not happening right now. The only things happening right now is your actions and you creating karma (maybe also being affected by past karma which you can do nothing about anyway), so just work in the now and if rebirth is a reality, then well you will have set yourself up for the best possible outcome if you work hard in the now with all the 8 'rights' in the 8foldpath.
What was the Dalai Lama on about when he said this; " consciousness cannot be produced from matter." Consciousness is produced from matter. Grey matter. Where else could our consciousness possibly be produced from? On these grounds, I believe that when we die, our consciousness is extinguished. It's why people cry at funerals. I think, personally, that everyone knows deep down that when you die it's game over.
So Buddhists believe that its possible for me to be reborn as a slug or a frog through bad karma? And through good karma I can be reborn as an elightened being? And that its possible for animals to reborn human?
I'm a Buddhist and I don't believe that exactly. I believe if there IS rebirth/reincarnation (I'm not going to make any distinctions right now) you would not come back as a 'lesser being' such as an animal or insect if you are leaving the earth now as a human. I just don't think that's how it works...it doesn't make sense to me for a whole lot of reasons... An animal being reborn into human form? That I might see as a spiritual evolution forward. But the other way? No, I would see that as some sort of "punishment" like "go back to square one, and start all over. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200". (Monopoly reference) I think it's enough just to redo human form again and again until it's done right. I can't see having a human start over as a gnat or a butterfly which only lives a few days and is dead again.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
What was the Dalai Lama on about when he said this; " consciousness cannot be produced from matter." Consciousness is produced from matter. Grey matter. Where else could our consciousness possibly be produced from? On these grounds, I believe that when we die, our consciousness is extinguished. It's why people cry at funerals. I think, personally, that everyone knows deep down that when you die it's game over.
That conciousness is a product of the brain is still an assumption by science, maybe an educated, sensible one but there is no Theory yet of how or why things appear to us in our minds.
Professor of philosophy at Australian National University David Chalmers refers to this as the "hard problem of consciousness". Check out this brief interview for a fuller exploration of the idea.
Comments
Maybe that would be good.
:crazy:
Neither 'all buddhists believe this' or 'all buddhists believe that' could be possibly said with conviction and true observation. What do you think about it?
I mean I respect Jesus and his teachings, but don't ask me to worship him. He was just a man; no one is any more than that.
-Dalai Lama
There is a more secular view of karma out there and the Buddhist view is rebirth not reincarnation a subtle but important difference, and there are secular views of rebirth as well. Much benefit and happiness can be obtained without a traditional belief in these things.
IMO the better approach than the certainty that they don't exist is the I don't know attitude. I also don't feel that the whole of the Buddhist path can be explored without these notions but thats only one view.
going backwards;
Buddhists also do not ascribe to a transmigrating soul. So we don't believe in a 'soul' either.
Secondly, 'Karma' isn't 'natural justice'.
Karmas, literally translated, just means 'Action' or 'cause'.
so karma is not some kind of judicial, punitive sentence that metes out punishment for the bad things you do.
hopefully, that's cleared a couple of misconceptions up....
We don't believe in 'nonsense concepts' either.
but it pays to first check your facts, before calling 3,000-year-old teachings 'nonsense'.....
Welcome....
In care you're going to ask...I remain open-minded about the concept since no one has ever defined either view to my satisfaction.
Did the Buddha teach rebirth and karma? I believe you'll find your answers within the Pali Canon/TiPiţaka. On the very night of his enlightenment, the Buddha was able to visualize all his past lives. "Through many a birth (anekajati), wandered I, seeking the builder of this house. Sorroful indeed is birth again and again (dukkhajati-punappunam)."
also, there is no such thing as good karma or bad karma, there is skillful karma and unskillful karma (karma mean action)
also, the did not use the term "rebirth." The Buddha said there is birth contingent on becoming. Birth will continue to occur until becoming has met its cessation.
also, in the ultimate sense of things there is no "you," there are just a multitude of complex processes working in tandum to create the illusion of "you"
an important thing to remember when considering "rebirth" is to apply the lessons of the dhamma. You say "this is birth, the cause of birth is becoming, the cessation of becoming would constitute the cessation of birth, the path that leads to the cessation of birth is the noble eightfold path"
questions and speculations on former or future lives is an entanglement of unskillful views and will only lead to further suffering
To answer @BuddhaOdin ; Many Buddhist do. Many do not. I think that while these can be very important to certain traditions, I do not think they are relevant when speaking about enlightenment. Whether one holds these concepts to be true or not, understanding the noble truths, undertaking the Eightfold Path with diligence, and staying consistent in one's practice will lead to a great reduction, or even extinguishing, of Dukkha.
at the quatum level there is no such thing as "material" it's just a bunch of processes working together that look "material" to those who are blind to the true nature of reality
:eek2:
At least, that's what science points towards now.
If you don't understand what I'm saying I can't explain it, I'm not a physicist
I think that if someone doesn't believe in the simple truth of cause and effect (the law of karma) then they are fools and definitely not buddhist by any stretch of the imaginationkarma is not some magical, universal, ethical code, it just IS. Action occurs, and there is a result of that action (karma -> frution) simple as that.
2. Having said that, in general I agree that there is karma. Whether it's internal or external, I remain open-minded and have seen neither position explained to my satisfaction. And, there are certainly negative and positive actions that appear to have no result at all, another gap in our understanding of karma.
3. You go from phrases like "reification" and "quantum level" to "karma...just is". I kinda think you don't have it figured out either. And note I said "either", meaning many of us, including me, are in the same boat.
So, what will your karma be for excluding people from Buddhism and calling others fools?
all im saying is that the world is not as "material" as it appears and that karma is not some kind of token system, all it means is that harmful actions yield harmful results and non-harmful actions yield non-harmful effects
in regards to birth, the state of becoming is why birth continues to occur
if you don't believe in becoming and birth then that, in my opinion, would make you a nihilist and the buddha very strictly denied all annhialationist theories stating that they are just as erroneous as eternalistic theories. I think the concept of birth arising dependent upon becoming is very very difficult to truly understand, and should not be confused with invalid eternalist theories of reincarnation, etc.
i think a lot of people make karma out to be something that it isn't, specifically they think it is like a special essence or tally or something andthat each action yields good or bad "karma"
but the way the buddha describes it is that the action itself is the karma and the effect it yields is the fruition of that karma
also, i may not be the best at expressing things, but I personally feel like I have a very firm grasp on a lot, the fact that I can't explain things well is why I usually try to stay away from conversations like these, I feel like I just end up trying to defend myself
I think here's 2 problems with karma. The first is that Buddhists can't agree on what it is. Western Buddhists seem more in the camp that it's internal. At least in Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia it seems that more people believe it's an inexplicable external force. Don't ask me which it is. I remain opne-minded.
Second, there are many times that appears that someone's very bad or very good actions have no karmic result. Let's say it's an internal force, but that the person is amoral?
Do I believe there is, generally, such a thing as karma? Yes. Do I understand how it works? Nope. Seems pretty loosey-goosey. Sort of like when Christians pray to God and it doesn't happen and then they say, "Well, God works in mysterious ways."
No one is always bad, good or neutral. Thus its really hard to link karmic correlations.
Just a casual sharing.
To the second point, with rebirth there's no need for karma to ripen immediately. Just because we throw a rock up into the air and forget about it doesn't mean when it hits us in the head it was uncaused.
Karma is explained pretty thoroughly from what I've learned. Not that its been proved scientifically but the only part that goes into the 'shrug' category is the specific workings out of karma (like how particular karmic actions of gamblers at a horse race and the karma of the owners effect the outcome of a race.)
http://viewonbuddhism.org/karma.html
Heres a good video on dependent origination. She describes the process of becoming and causality.
I also am just learning how karma operates so i cannot claim that i understand it.
Also i was arrogant before and assumed i understood karma. Still don't get it.
So, I remain believing there is karma, but not knowing which it is (internal or external), and not able to explain it to anyone else. And, BTW, over the years I have read a number of Thai Buddhist books by rather venerable monks which explain it as something external. Again, I'm not saying they're right...or they're wrong. But when I hear people talking about the Law Of Karma...well, it's not a "law" in any sense of the word.
And keep our minds open.
But i was given a retty convincing break down by lama marut. Either everything is random, based on causality, or predetermined. Has to be one of these.
Randomness or nihilism is out of question imho. So is pre determination.
So causality for myself is the only rational conclusion. And life does back it up. So confidence in is karma is large.
But the mechanics in some sense are irrelevant. The buddhist path is built around the freedom from suffering. This metaphysical views are meaningless.
The great thing or news is that suffering is caused. On that basis alone i have confidence that karma is real.
But its just one opinion. Haha
I just don't think that's how it works...it doesn't make sense to me for a whole lot of reasons...
An animal being reborn into human form? That I might see as a spiritual evolution forward. But the other way? No, I would see that as some sort of "punishment" like
"go back to square one, and start all over. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200". (Monopoly reference)
Professor of philosophy at Australian National University David Chalmers refers to this as the "hard problem of consciousness". Check out this brief interview for a fuller exploration of the idea.
now I just need to live by it a little more :P