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.
Strictly speaking, Newton was talking about his concept of force, not cause and effect relationships in general. If you push an object with a force of 5 Newtons, you feel the object pushing back at you with a force of 5 Newtons. But the object with lesser mass experiences more acceleration because a=F/m. That's why when human beings jump, it's our bodies that experience motion with respect to everything else instead of the entire planet. Because the dirt under your feet is plastic, it absorbs the force you've exerted and the planet experiences no motion at all. Hmm... That means the earth if had been hard and inflexible, it would have moved just a little every time animals and humans applied some force on it. If every human being started marching in one direction, the planet would have begun rotating in the other. I suppose they could try it with ants and a beach ball in zero gravity if there's a way to make all the ants move the same way. Nah, that would be weird and cruel to the ants, not to mention a trivial experiment that can only confirm what we already know to be a fact.
Have I ranted enough? As you can see, it's all very technical and has nothing to do with karma.
Very interesting "rant," kurra! Thanks for sharing your knowledge of Newton's law, I enjoyed your explanation.
My point was not that Newton's law of motion and the law of karma are "exactly" the same; it was that the expression of Newton's law ("for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction") happens to be an expression of the karmic law, in a nutshell.
This analogue provides a useful "bridge" for conveying the reality of karma to the doubting masses. It isn't necessary that the bridge be strong enough to hold up under "scientific" scrutiny: it's more of a "parable," a way of side-stepping the limitations of the intellect to convey a universal truth.
To me, the most interesting thing about the analogy is that Newton's law is well-known and accepted, but the law of karma (which is visible in many ways, all through creation) is "doubted," as Simon mentioned. I believe this is because we have placed too much weight on the material end of the reality spectrum, and too little on the metaphysical; though thankfully, that imbalance is slowly being corrected.
That's okay, I know. And I'm fine with loose analogies too. I just wanted to remind ourselves that Newton had something else in mind entirely when he was talking about "equal and opposite reactions".
I would consider the tree to have intent, or its leaves would grow randomly or only spontaneously. However, plants grow receptors toward light, as they intend to absorb. However, this intent does not mean they have a self-identity... or in your terms an agent, or even a hidden agent, but rather intention is part of the chain of action that sees a desire manifest. In the case of your description, the intent would be born of a spontaneous resonance in the moment, rather than an intention born of a formulated expectation.
Buddha ate, which means he intended nourishment. This does not mean the intention co-dependently arose with an agent or a hidden agent.
It appears to me that an arising intent has no origin. In other words there is a seamless flow out of which an arisen intention is distinguished as a discrete object of mind. This distinguishing is part and parcel with self distinguishing. The karmic universe is how the universe looks from a point of self-contraction. Instead of unselfconscious flow there is self-conscious intention. This knot of self-consciousness is experienced as the author of intention and the receiver of intention's rebound. When there is no self-view there is no author and no rebound.
.... Conventionally, from the "outside" the Buddha decides to eat.
Yea, trying to create good karma is an oxymoron. The effort has a preconceived idea of what is good, and therefore bad. Which of course is dualism and will have the appropriate results. "No good deed goes unpunished" kind of thing. Practicing "no-self" we just behave spontaneously and keep practicing. That leaves the situation open for compassion to naturally be the response. Sometimes that compassion might be conceived as bad by the standards and mores of the culture. People believe in good and bad, and compassion often breaks this down. There is no need to get caught up in the dualism though.
It appears to me that an arising intent has no origin. In other words there is a seamless flow out of which an arisen intention is distinguished as a discrete object of mind. This distinguishing is part and parcel with self distinguishing. The karmic universe is how the universe looks from a point of self-contraction. Instead of unselfconscious flow there is self-conscious intention. This knot of self-consciousness is experienced as the author of intention and the receiver of intention's rebound. When there is no self-view there is no author and no rebound.
.... Conventionally, from the "outside" the Buddha decides to eat.
I appreciate the skillful view of what you're presenting. I noticed that what I call intention, you call 'seamless flow', and to you there can be no intention without self, because intention is defined as something the self identifies as a discrete object.
The Buddha would certainly be outside the loop of formulation. What language would you use to describe the impetus behind the words he said... spontaneity? Well aimed randomness?
Yea, trying to create good karma is an oxymoron. The effort has a preconceived idea of what is good, and therefore bad. Which of course is dualism and will have the appropriate results. "No good deed goes unpunished" kind of thing. Practicing "no-self" we just behave spontaneously and keep practicing. That leaves the situation open for compassion to naturally be the response. Sometimes that compassion might be conceived as bad by the standards and mores of the culture. People believe in good and bad, and compassion often breaks this down. There is no need to get caught up in the dualism though.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, dennis60: I appreciate (and agree with) what you're saying here, about practicing no-self and living spontaneously.
As for not needing to get caught up in the dualism: I agree, but at the same time we live in a dualistic universe. We have fashioned a world in which dualism is very much a reality--where "dark" and "light" are real forces at work, created and fed by our own thoughts and ideas. You and I participate in this dualistic reality every day, even as we acknowledge the deeper reality that underlies it, to which you refer.
We have not yet reached Nirvana: we are still in a karmic realm. Every day, in everything we do, we are in this karmic reality. It's not like the act of saying "stop thinking in terms of karma, and start practicing no-mind" suddenly deletes the law of karma from our universe. As long as we're in the physical realm, we are subject to karma. Understanding that we have a Buddha Nature is a step toward Enlightenment, but we still have one foot in the karmic realm.
This in no way contradicts the truth of what you say. Reality is at once unified (absolute) and fragmented (relative). Enlightenment, says the Buddha, is within us all, like a seed waiting to be nurtured and cultivated to fruition. At the same time, we live and move and have our being in a dualistic, karmic framework, known as "Planet Earth."
It so happens that in this thread I am focusing on the latter--on "optimizing" the karmic law to make practical progress along the Noble Eightfold Path--but I acknowledge what you and others have shared here, about transcending dualism and karma altogether, and I do not mean to contradict that at all. On the contrary, I factor all these wise insights into my ever-evolving consciousness, with gratitude.
Hi Zendo,
Very well put! I agree completely. I did not mean that we do not have to deal with the real dualism that we face all the time. Lets take today. I had this period of time where i felt real restless, and tired at the same time. I started to get frustrated, wanting it to go away. But I also realized it was temporary, impermanent, and i also did not focus into it (very much ). I think that is trying to practice the "middle way". Sometimes that balancing act gets unnerving and even sometimes we fall of the tight rope. Or run off the path into the bushes for a bit. But as the old saying goes, practice makes ( relative ) perfection, or at least were conscious of trying to keep our vehicle on the road.....
Hi Zendo,
Very well put! I agree completely. I did not mean that we do not have to deal with the real dualism that we face all the time. Lets take today. I had this period of time where i felt real restless, and tired at the same time. I started to get frustrated, wanting it to go away. But I also realized it was temporary, impermanent, and i also did not focus into it (very much ). I think that is trying to practice the "middle way". Sometimes that balancing act gets unnerving and even sometimes we fall of the tight rope. Or run off the path into the bushes for a bit. But as the old saying goes, practice makes ( relative ) perfection, or at least were conscious of trying to keep our vehicle on the road.....
That's awesome that you were able to use impermanence as a practical aid to maintaining balance: well done, my friend!
I love hearing about people's everyday practical experiences. Knowing the "doctrine" is important, but actually using that knowledge to live life in a conscious and enlightened way...that's what it's all about.
I appreciate the skillful view of what you're presenting. I noticed that what I call intention, you call 'seamless flow', and to you there can be no intention without self, because intention is defined as something the self identifies as a discrete object.
Intention is part of what constitutes a selfhood. There can't be one without the other. It is a bit like when you are a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Self sees karma.
The Buddha would certainly be outside the loop of formulation. What language would you use to describe the impetus behind the words he said... spontaneity? Well aimed randomness?
I would liken it to the creative process, which involves unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness. Things move, there is flow, but it is ownerless. Ownership shuts things down.
There are the ABC's we can share as Dharma outright. This point I'm making is debatable, not for me experientially, but as a proposition being made in this forum. Does it ring a bell for you?
i use the idea of equalizing and exchanging when im on the phone so im better at customer service. also i try to mantra compassion (bodhichitta) and just feel the word when between calls. This inevitably helps with my selfish "they should treat me better" attitude.
Nagarjuna talks about direct negations and implied negation for instance:
not practicing bodhichitta actually is a implied way of stating "i dont' care about anyone but me" this attitude is incompatible with enlightenment. and another way it implies is a negation of all the hard work of the three jewels , since it really isn't important to serve others that makes buddha's enlightenment false, dharma not neccessary and sanga full of it. What an implication !
With my wife i use the application of "patience"by shantideva
if its the nature of fire to burn why get mad that it burned you
if its the nature of the sky to be clear why get mad at the clouds when they are passing *.
This application is great. I love the realitivity and ultimate view in just two statements.
I can deal with my frusterations better with this application
I also like what sogyal rinpoche says about bodhichitta
Wisdom is what we do to improve our view, Compassion is what we do with others because of the view. This is awesome !
I like to busy myself with the view and when im infront of a person practice non objectifying compassion to accumulate merit to understand the view deeper.
There are the ABC's we can share as Dharma outright. This point I'm making is debatable, not for me experientially, but as a proposition being made in this forum. Does it ring a bell for you?
When I sit within your language, your words do make sense to me. What you call intention, I regard as self-centric or confused intention. What you've defined as "unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness" is what I regard as intent... the impetus behind action, independent of a self.
When you say "Intention is part of what constitutes a selfhood" I wonder if this is true, or if self-centric intent and the false view of self are both related to clinging to views, rather than to each other. Perhaps they are both symptoms of a common misunderstood quality?
An intention is formed with a goal in mind. What I was calling “seamless flow” (just pulled the term it out of my hat) has no goal. I can't see intention without a goal. Forming an intention to achieve a result is part and parcel with karma/self-view. That is how it looks to me.
Newton's laws are not what has been described. The first law is a foundation for the second and third laws. The second is the most important that says an object will continue indefinately without the force of an opposing movement. This means that karma will continue and build momentum but an opposing force must and by law slow it down. Hence Vice and Virtue one makes the continuim go faster and faster with more and more consequence the other cuts the root by slowing down the entire process with counter force.
The point is that intentionally creating good karma is better than intentionally creating bad karma, for sure, but practice leads beyond the activity of good and bad karma, this is true "Virtue". This is not far off, or big picture, it is immediate awakeness in cessation of suffering. We disagree on this I guess which is fine and all, but that is the point. The aspiration for awakening gives way to the experience. That experiential realization does not mean being "Enlightened" (in my view) because the tendency to contract around a self-view is still there. But while awake, it is like that.
but practice leads beyond the activity of good and bad karma
please explain this to me
this is true "Virtue".
I wonder if then virtue and vice are even distinguishable in your view. Its true that samsara is nirvana, but i don't think that the lines between virtue and vice are indistinguishable other wise why in the world would the buddha call the ten nonvirtues , nonvirtues? this doesn't make sense to me. I understand your trying to reconcile ideas of duality with cessation. But its important to not reify suffering and cessation. they are not two distinct things. but that doesn't mean virtue and vice are one in the same.
The point is that intentionally creating good karma is better than intentionally creating bad karma, for sure, but practice leads beyond the activity of good and bad karma, this is true "Virtue". This is not far off, or big picture, it is immediate awakeness in cessation of suffering. We disagree on this I guess which is fine and all, but that is the point. The aspiration for awakening gives way to the experience. That experiential realization does not mean being "Enlightened" (in my view) because the tendency to contract around a self-view is still there. But while awake, it is like that.
So you're saying that while my suggestion of planting good karmic seeds isn't a bad idea, there's a better way: to simply practice, and aspire to awaken, and that aspiration will lead naturally to enlightenment.
Am I interpreting that right? (If not, please kindly correct me. Thanks!)
I have a problem with the word "enlightenment," because it has a connotation of finality. But behaviors which flow naturally from a relaxed, spacious awareness are better than behaviors arising from some explicit intention to goodness.
An intention is formed with a goal in mind. What I was calling “seamless flow” (just pulled the term it out of my hat) has no goal. I can't see intention without a goal. Forming an intention to achieve a result is part and parcel with karma/self-view. That is how it looks to me.
How do you see intention?
I see intention as the impetus behind the motion of life. When it is perfectly clear and resonant, it is of course devoid of any self... that's a pretty basic description of all phenomena. That's not to say it has no direction... I feel it would be difficult to maintain a view that life exists without direction. I feel I've pointed toward what I consider intent, from a few angles.
For instance, when the Dharma was first spoken, we could say the Buddha did not have any intent. There was no Buddha, only awake. However, we also can't say that what was said was random, or it would have been gibberish.
There was no director, but there was direction... no formulator, but a formulation. You can regard it as you said the "unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness" that motivated the transferring of the dharma, or a bodhisattva to pull a person from a busy street. If the acts are not random, there must be an order... even if it arises without an actor.
I have a problem with the word "enlightenment," because it has a connotation of finality. But behaviors which flow naturally from a relaxed, spacious awareness are better than behaviors arising from some explicit intention to goodness.
So you're saying that while my suggestion of planting good karmic seeds isn't a bad idea, there's a better way: to simply practice, and aspire to awaken, and that aspiration will lead naturally to enlightenment.
Am I interpreting that right? (If not, please kindly correct me. Thanks!)
Yes. Will lead to awakeness and cessation of suffering, and activity without a self centre. Much of my life is self centered and focused on effort at being/making goodness, but there are also times of awakeness, non-suffering, and genuine spontaneous action. Thats all. I see the difference. When I say "Virtue" it is not opposed to vice but more the "Bright Virtue" of Bankei. The only canonical source I can think of is the Diamond Sutra. That ring true to this. It isn't an exhalted claim or "Enlightenment", but it is the world of the Third Noble Truth.
I have a problem with the word "enlightenment," because it has a connotation of finality. But behaviors which flow naturally from a relaxed, spacious awareness are better than behaviors arising from some explicit intention to goodness.
What do you mean by "relaxed, spacious awareness"?
Yes. Will lead to awakeness and cessation of suffering, and activity without a self centre. Much of my life is self centered and focused on effort at being/making goodness, but there are also times of awakeness, non-suffering, and genuine spontaneous action. Thats all. I see the difference. When I say "Virtue" it is not opposed to vice but more the "Bright Virtue" of Bankei. The only canonical source I can think of is the Diamond Sutra. That ring true to this. It isn't an exhalted claim or "Enlightenment", but it is the world of the Third Noble Truth.
I agree with this Richard, and I thank you for clarifying it.
I feel it would be difficult to maintain a view that life exists without direction.
I agree. I think it's possible to fall into a trap with the "spontaneous flow" approach, i.e. the sense of direction gets lost.
It would be great if we could all live in monasteries, and not have to worry about "where we're going" or "setting goals," because our whole being could be focused on and devoted to meditation and practice. In such a setting, the "spontaneous flow" approach is ideal.
But in the "real world," in the midst of the samsaric/karmic realm, if you don't have a sense of direction, of purpose, you will encounter great difficulties.
We have one foot in each world, and we must find a way to balance them.
I agree. I think it's possible to fall into a trap with the "spontaneous flow" approach, i.e. the sense of direction gets lost.
It would be great if we could all live in monasteries, and not have to worry about "where we're going" or "setting goals," because our whole being could be focused on and devoted to meditation and practice. In such a setting, the "spontaneous flow" approach is ideal.
But in the "real world," in the midst of the samsaric/karmic realm, if you don't have a sense of direction, of purpose, you will encounter great difficulties.
We have one foot in each world, and we must find a way to balance them.
Yes. Will lead to awakeness and cessation of suffering, and activity without a self centre. Much of my life is self centered and focused on effort at being/making goodness, but there are also times of awakeness, non-suffering, and genuine spontaneous action. Thats all. I see the difference. When I say "Virtue" it is not opposed to vice but more the "Bright Virtue" of Bankei. The only canonical source I can think of is the Diamond Sutra. That ring true to this. It isn't an exhalted claim or "Enlightenment", but it is the world of the Third Noble Truth.
Whenever I think about this topic the Taoist concept of "Wu-Wei" comes to mind. It's translated as the "action of non-action" or the "direction of no-direction". Although it is a Taoist concept I think it is quite compatible with Buddhism and sheds light on what "spontaneous action" really means.
The Buddha taught that our ultimate goal is to move beyond the karmic realm altogether, to a state of being known as Nirvana, the "deathless state," free of the cycle of rebirth and suffering. And what a glorious day it will be when we reach that blessed shore!
But the process of attaining Buddhahood may take many lifetimes, and meanwhile we are bound to a karmic existence: our actions (positive and negative) reverberate from past into present, present into future, and the karmic cycle goes on.
It is clear that as long as we are bound to this karmic existence, the very best we can do is learn to master it: to bring our karma out of the realm of unconscious passivity, and into the sphere of deliberate intent. Since we know that negative thoughts and actions lead to negative outcomes, and positive thoughts and actions lead to positive outcomes, we should take control of that process: seize the ship's wheel and consciously steer our karma into good waters, by choosing positive thoughts and actions as often as possible.
Having observed this process in my own experience countless times, I am now (finally!) striving to cultivate the practice of "deliberate karma" in my own life. I hope to find kindred spirits in this community: people who, like myself, have awakened to the possibility of "taking the reins" and guiding our karma where we want it to go.
If this principle resonates with you, please share your thoughts about it here. We can encourage each other on the path, share ideas for practicing deliberate karma, and reinforce the empowering (and quintessentially Buddhist!) idea of taking control of our own destiny.
I'm not sure if others have already answered this way, its late and time for meditation/bed so I cannot read the other answers . The problem with this logic is that one could be born in a god realm where one will forget the dharma until the good karma is used up. To work towards enlightenment you must aspire to do it as a human as this is the most beneficial realm for practise. Though having said this there are pure realms where one can aspire to be born. So the positive options that I see are: 1) Rebirth in pure realm, 2) Aspire to reborn as human, 3) Become enlightened in this lifetime.
Several traditions say that 3) is possible. Mahayana is specifically aimed at 2) and has skilful means (Boddhicitta) to help one be reborn as a human. There are traditions that use various methods to arrive at 1).
Deliberately accumulating positive karma needs to be done in the context of skilful means, otherwise a beneficial birth will ensue but result in forgetting the dharma until the time of death, when it will be too late.
Hope this adds somewhat. Its a bit brief and not well thought out, for instance I haven't worked out where the more traditional schools fit into this equation. Though its my belief that the intention of the practitioner is independent of the actual vehicle or tradition practised. Anyway its very late now and I'll leave it as is.
Comments
My point was not that Newton's law of motion and the law of karma are "exactly" the same; it was that the expression of Newton's law ("for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction") happens to be an expression of the karmic law, in a nutshell.
This analogue provides a useful "bridge" for conveying the reality of karma to the doubting masses. It isn't necessary that the bridge be strong enough to hold up under "scientific" scrutiny: it's more of a "parable," a way of side-stepping the limitations of the intellect to convey a universal truth.
To me, the most interesting thing about the analogy is that Newton's law is well-known and accepted, but the law of karma (which is visible in many ways, all through creation) is "doubted," as Simon mentioned. I believe this is because we have placed too much weight on the material end of the reality spectrum, and too little on the metaphysical; though thankfully, that imbalance is slowly being corrected.
It appears to me that an arising intent has no origin. In other words there is a seamless flow out of which an arisen intention is distinguished as a discrete object of mind. This distinguishing is part and parcel with self distinguishing. The karmic universe is how the universe looks from a point of self-contraction. Instead of unselfconscious flow there is self-conscious intention. This knot of self-consciousness is experienced as the author of intention and the receiver of intention's rebound. When there is no self-view there is no author and no rebound.
.... Conventionally, from the "outside" the Buddha decides to eat.
...Thats how it looks from here anyway.
I appreciate the skillful view of what you're presenting. I noticed that what I call intention, you call 'seamless flow', and to you there can be no intention without self, because intention is defined as something the self identifies as a discrete object.
The Buddha would certainly be outside the loop of formulation. What language would you use to describe the impetus behind the words he said... spontaneity? Well aimed randomness?
As for not needing to get caught up in the dualism: I agree, but at the same time we live in a dualistic universe. We have fashioned a world in which dualism is very much a reality--where "dark" and "light" are real forces at work, created and fed by our own thoughts and ideas. You and I participate in this dualistic reality every day, even as we acknowledge the deeper reality that underlies it, to which you refer.
We have not yet reached Nirvana: we are still in a karmic realm. Every day, in everything we do, we are in this karmic reality. It's not like the act of saying "stop thinking in terms of karma, and start practicing no-mind" suddenly deletes the law of karma from our universe. As long as we're in the physical realm, we are subject to karma. Understanding that we have a Buddha Nature is a step toward Enlightenment, but we still have one foot in the karmic realm.
This in no way contradicts the truth of what you say. Reality is at once unified (absolute) and fragmented (relative). Enlightenment, says the Buddha, is within us all, like a seed waiting to be nurtured and cultivated to fruition. At the same time, we live and move and have our being in a dualistic, karmic framework, known as "Planet Earth."
It so happens that in this thread I am focusing on the latter--on "optimizing" the karmic law to make practical progress along the Noble Eightfold Path--but I acknowledge what you and others have shared here, about transcending dualism and karma altogether, and I do not mean to contradict that at all. On the contrary, I factor all these wise insights into my ever-evolving consciousness, with gratitude.
Very well put! I agree completely. I did not mean that we do not have to deal with the real dualism that we face all the time. Lets take today. I had this period of time where i felt real restless, and tired at the same time. I started to get frustrated, wanting it to go away. But I also realized it was temporary, impermanent, and i also did not focus into it (very much ).
I love hearing about people's everyday practical experiences. Knowing the "doctrine" is important, but actually using that knowledge to live life in a conscious and enlightened way...that's what it's all about.
I would liken it to the creative process, which involves unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness. Things move, there is flow, but it is ownerless. Ownership shuts things down.
There are the ABC's we can share as Dharma outright. This point I'm making is debatable, not for me experientially, but as a proposition being made in this forum. Does it ring a bell for you?
Nagarjuna talks about direct negations and implied negation for instance:
not practicing bodhichitta actually is a implied way of stating "i dont' care about anyone but me" this attitude is incompatible with enlightenment. and another way it implies is a negation of all the hard work of the three jewels , since it really isn't important to serve others that makes buddha's enlightenment false, dharma not neccessary and sanga full of it. What an implication !
if its the nature of fire to burn why get mad that it burned you
if its the nature of the sky to be clear why get mad at the clouds when they are passing *.
This application is great. I love the realitivity and ultimate view in just two statements.
I can deal with my frusterations better with this application
*paraphrase
Wisdom is what we do to improve our view, Compassion is what we do with others because of the view. This is awesome !
I like to busy myself with the view and when im infront of a person practice non objectifying compassion to accumulate merit to understand the view deeper.
When I sit within your language, your words do make sense to me. What you call intention, I regard as self-centric or confused intention. What you've defined as "unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness" is what I regard as intent... the impetus behind action, independent of a self.
When you say "Intention is part of what constitutes a selfhood" I wonder if this is true, or if self-centric intent and the false view of self are both related to clinging to views, rather than to each other. Perhaps they are both symptoms of a common misunderstood quality?
With warmth,
Matt
How do you see intention?
(If indeed you are trying to make a point--which I probably shouldn't assume!)
please explain this to me
I wonder if then virtue and vice are even distinguishable in your view. Its true that samsara is nirvana, but i don't think that the lines between virtue and vice are indistinguishable other wise why in the world would the buddha call the ten nonvirtues , nonvirtues? this doesn't make sense to me. I understand your trying to reconcile ideas of duality with cessation. But its important to not reify suffering and cessation. they are not two distinct things. but that doesn't mean virtue and vice are one in the same.
So you're saying that while my suggestion of planting good karmic seeds isn't a bad idea, there's a better way: to simply practice, and aspire to awaken, and that aspiration will lead naturally to enlightenment.
Am I interpreting that right? (If not, please kindly correct me. Thanks!)
I see intention as the impetus behind the motion of life. When it is perfectly clear and resonant, it is of course devoid of any self... that's a pretty basic description of all phenomena. That's not to say it has no direction... I feel it would be difficult to maintain a view that life exists without direction. I feel I've pointed toward what I consider intent, from a few angles.
For instance, when the Dharma was first spoken, we could say the Buddha did not have any intent. There was no Buddha, only awake. However, we also can't say that what was said was random, or it would have been gibberish.
There was no director, but there was direction... no formulator, but a formulation. You can regard it as you said the "unselfconscious precision within choiceless awareness" that motivated the transferring of the dharma, or a bodhisattva to pull a person from a busy street. If the acts are not random, there must be an order... even if it arises without an actor.
It would be great if we could all live in monasteries, and not have to worry about "where we're going" or "setting goals," because our whole being could be focused on and devoted to meditation and practice. In such a setting, the "spontaneous flow" approach is ideal.
But in the "real world," in the midst of the samsaric/karmic realm, if you don't have a sense of direction, of purpose, you will encounter great difficulties.
We have one foot in each world, and we must find a way to balance them.
Whenever I think about this topic the Taoist concept of "Wu-Wei" comes to mind. It's translated as the "action of non-action" or the "direction of no-direction". Although it is a Taoist concept I think it is quite compatible with Buddhism and sheds light on what "spontaneous action" really means.
I'm not sure if others have already answered this way, its late and time for meditation/bed so I cannot read the other answers
Several traditions say that 3) is possible. Mahayana is specifically aimed at 2) and has skilful means (Boddhicitta) to help one be reborn as a human. There are traditions that use various methods to arrive at 1).
Deliberately accumulating positive karma needs to be done in the context of skilful means, otherwise a beneficial birth will ensue but result in forgetting the dharma until the time of death, when it will be too late.
Hope this adds somewhat. Its a bit brief and not well thought out, for instance I haven't worked out where the more traditional schools fit into this equation. Though its my belief that the intention of the practitioner is independent of the actual vehicle or tradition practised. Anyway its very late now and I'll leave it as is.
Cheers, WK
Where can you go? The Dharma is here.