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.
It is interesting since what kind of kamma is generated is considered to depend on intention. So, if one has society's permission to kill and fully considers that killing justified, one's intention may be good and so may generate good kamma, assuming for the sake of argument that kamma exists. Isn't that an oddity?
Perhaps the focus should be on right intention according to the noble 8 fold path - but I can see what you mean. The mass murderer analogy is perhaps a bit obscure - I brought it up - but cetainly Doctors knowingly administering too much morphine to ease extreme suffering for the dying is an unmentioned reality. Not exactly killing a person but hastening the inevitable. This is done for compassionate reasons.
Also, there are good and sufficient reasons for cleaning up one's mind without the concept of kamma.
This is also another reason I started this thread. I see some posts about creating good karma, balancing karma etc, but surely if we follow the ethical lifestyle the Buddha laid out for us we should only be generating good karma anyway. So, rather than worrying about what sort of karma we are generating, it must be better to concern ourselves with how well we're following the ethics of the Buddha, right?
Which, in theory, makes having the concept of karma as a doctrine of Buddhism ultimately pointless. Either you're following the Buddha's teachings or you aren't. If we aren't then we should only be worried about altering our lifestyles to better attune to the teachings, not about whether our actions will alter our karma. IMO.
This is also another reason I started this thread. I see some posts about creating good karma, balancing karma etc, but surely if we follow the ethical lifestyle the Buddha laid out for us we should only be generating good karma anyway. So, rather than worrying about what sort of karma we are generating, it must be better to concern ourselves with how well we're following the ethics of the Buddha, right?
Which, in theory, makes having the concept of karma as a doctrine of Buddhism ultimately pointless. Either you're following the Buddha's teachings or you aren't. If we aren't then we should only be worried about altering our lifestyles to better attune to the teachings, not about whether our actions will alter our karma. IMO.
I very much agree. Whether or not kamma is an Imponderable is actually irrelevant, because it is unknowable in any case. This makes believing it an article of faith, and faith is not required in Buddhism. We study and practice, read and listen, and reap the benefits. That is all we need to do.
This is also another reason I started this thread. I see some posts about creating good karma, balancing karma etc, but surely if we follow the ethical lifestyle the Buddha laid out for us we should only be generating good karma anyway. So, rather than worrying about what sort of karma we are generating, it must be better to concern ourselves with how well we're following the ethics of the Buddha, right?
Which, in theory, makes having the concept of karma as a doctrine of Buddhism ultimately pointless. Either you're following the Buddha's teachings or you aren't. If we aren't then we should only be worried about altering our lifestyles to better attune to the teachings, not about whether our actions will alter our karma. IMO.
Yet you need to know what the results of negative and positive actions are, and the process by which reincarnation happens etc. If it wasn't there, then there would be questions. When people begin on the Buddhist path, these things need explanation.
There are also practices for generating good karma. Do we need this? The Buddha's example is that it took many lifetimes for him to develop the positive karma to become the Buddha.
The Buddha thought it appropriate to teach, and so what's the problem?
But I find it very difficult to accept a concept of karma that stretches beyond that into realms more spiritual and esoteric. I can't accept things unquestioningly (i.e. without understanding or experiencing them) anymore, I've done that a lot and it's hurt me psychologically.
If it's really so central to Buddhism that I believe in a metaphysical concept of karma, well I don't know what to do because the rest of the Buddha's teachings make so much sense to me.
Can I believe in karma in the form I can comfortably accept, as I've outlined above, and still successfully follow the Buddhist path? Or would I just be wasting my time as I'd constantly be misunderstanding?
Chrysalid,
Buddhism won't force anything on you in terms of laws or rules so you can relax and enjoy the teachings! It is very normal to go through questionning when entering this spiritual realm, which is a new development to most westerners. I remember (I am also a scientist) going through many of the same questions not too many years ago. I think relaxing your mind, not forcing it to accept everything right away will help you answer your own questions. It helps to get a good spiritual teacher to teach you to meditate properly as well.
As a scientist, you will eventually encounter some concepts that make sense "scientifically" within Buddhism. We are mostly unable to prove rebirth in a scientific way (this is the faith part of a spiritual path, and difficult to the scientist). But because the mind is something, it moves on after we pass - it cannot become nothing (akin to the first law of thermodynamics). It is something that bears imprints of your past "state of mind", experiences, actions, etc. (I think probably in the form of energy?? but maybe in ways that we can't explain yet).
The following video includes panel discussion I found very interesting between HH Dalai Lama and research scientists in Seattle WA in 2008. They were exchanging on what is the mind from both the spiritual and scientific perspactives.
and faith is not required in Buddhism. We study and practice, read and listen, and reap the benefits. That is all we need to do.
I would have to respectfully disagree with this ! I think blind faith - just believing in something because some power or someone tells you to is not what Buddhism is but there are many elements of faith in Buddhism. It is ok to question, though, and get accurate information from qualified teachers.
I think blind faith - just believing in something because some power or someone tells you to is not what Buddhism is but there are many elements of faith in Buddhism
I had a talk with a great dharma-buddy about this sort of blind-faith idea and 'how are we supposed to commit to a long haul path were there is often little to no concrete evidence', etc - and it came down to semantics again. I have forgotten much of the meat of the discussion, so I could be erroneous here but: Buddhism faith isn't necessarily a 'cross-your-fingers-and-hope' faith, it's more of a state of being calmly confident in yourself, and 'so-far-so-good' type. There's a sanskrit or pali word for it that I've forgotten, which would have made this reply much easier to follow :crazy:
I had a talk with a great dharma-buddy about this sort of blind-faith idea and 'how are we supposed to commit to a long haul path were there is often little to no concrete evidence', etc - and it came down to semantics again. I have forgotten much of the meat of the discussion, so I could be erroneous here but: Buddhism faith isn't necessarily a 'cross-your-fingers-and-hope' faith, it's more of a state of being calmly confident in yourself, and 'so-far-so-good' type. There's a sanskrit or pali word for it that I've forgotten, which would have made this reply much easier to follow :crazy:
Agreed. A lot of the concepts can't be realised until later, but this doesn't mean it is blind faith. The kind of reasoning that says - this teaching/ idea/ practice has helped me/ is correct according to my experience points to the validity of further aspects of the path.
Yet you need to know what the results of negative and positive actions are, and the process by which reincarnation happens etc.
Do we? Why? What effect does this knowledge have on our ability to comprehend the 4 noble truths and follow the 8-fold path? Does keeping a record of the good and bad things you do, and the consequences that follow, allow you to be more compassionate and wise than simply being good to reduce suffering?
There are also practices for generating good karma. Do we need this? The Buddha's example is that it took many lifetimes for him to develop the positive karma to become the Buddha.
Perhaps. I don't know about you, but when I was born a record of my karmic status wasn't delivered with me. Since I don't know how much karma I've "generated" over how many lifetimes, what's the point in even wondering? Better lead an ethical life regardless wouldn't you say?
The Buddha thought it appropriate to teach, and so what's the problem?
And if the Buddha taught us not to worry about our clothing and not to follow fashions because they are irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering, but then proceded to hand us a bowler hat and demand that we wear it at all times, would you not question the relevance if this instruction?
We are mostly unable to prove rebirth in a scientific way (this is the faith part of a spiritual path, and difficult to the scientist). But because the mind is something, it moves on after we pass - it cannot become nothing (akin to the first law of thermodynamics). It is something that bears imprints of your past "state of mind", experiences, actions, etc. (I think probably in the form of energy?? but maybe in ways that we can't explain yet).
If this is helpful to you, then it is not for me to discourage your belief.
However, I cannot believe this way, and it is because I disagree with your statement that the mind must pass on because of the 1st law of thermodynamics (which I've heard many times before, from people of many different religions).
The mind isn't a measurable or contained amount of energy, the mind is a continuously changing product of memory engrams and internal monologue (thought). Although we don't yet fully understand the biological mechanisms, we do know that both phenomena arise due to changes in the flow of electrical signals across neurons. These electrical signals are derived from an electrical potential across schwann cells, that is sustained by the conversion of chemical energy in the form of food and oxygen into electrical charge via the directed movement of ions.
Remove the input of chemical energy and the charge potential dissipates with the now free movement of ions across the plasma membrane. With the ceasing of electrical signals whatever remains of the mind is stored in the physical structure of the brain's neurons, the energy of which is released, not as some form of spirit, but as heat during the process of decay.
This explanation of kamma from Ajahn Buddhadasa might be helpful.
KAMMA
We come now to the word "kamma'' (Sanskrit, karma).
When ordinary people say, "That's kamma"! they mean ''Too bad"! Bad luck as punishment for sins previously committed is the meaning given to the word "kamma" by ordinary people. But in Dhamma language the word "kamma'' refers to something different. It refers to action, Bad action is called black kamma; good action is called white kamma. Then there is another remarkable kind of kamma which is neither black nor white, a kamma that serves to neutralize the other two kinds. Unfortunately, the more people hear about it, the less they understand it. This third kind of kamma is the realization of not-self (anatta) and emptiness (sunnata), so that the "self" is done away with. This kind of action may be called Buddhist kamma, the real kamma, the kind of kamma that the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught the transcending of all kamma.
Most people are interested only in black kamma and white kamma, bad kamma and good kamma, They take no interest in this third kind of kamma which is neither black nor white, neither bad nor good, which consists in complete freedom from selfhood and leads to the attainment of Nibbana. It wipes out every kind of bad and good kamma. People don't understand the method for wiping out kamma completely. They don't know that the way to put an end to all kamma is through this special kind of kamma, which consists in applying the Buddha's method. That method is none other than the Noble Eightfold Path.
The practice of the Noble Eightfold Path is kamma neither black nor white, and it is the end of all kamma. This is kamma in Dhamma language. It is very different from the "kamma" of immature people, who exclaim "That's Kamma"! meaning only "Too bad"! or "Bad luck"! Kamma understood as bad luck is the kamma of everyday language.
I can see why Buddha integrated karma and rebirth into his teachings, they were widespread beliefs in his time, as accepted as concepts like gravity and germ-theory are today. But if Buddha had been born in a Christian nation, or a secular nation, do you think he would have taught them? I don't.
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 August 2010
Reincarnation was an accepted premise in Christianity until the 13th century although Ecclesiastical authorities attempted - and for a time, succeeded - in dissuading people from considering it. reincarnation ,in Christ's time was an accepted premise.
the doctrine of rebirth is not only likely to have been a familiar concept in 1st century Israel, but actually seems to have been widely considered a distinct possibility. Even though the idea later became a heresy to the people of the Christian Empire, during the life of Jesus, at least, reincarnation was an open question in the minds of many.
I would have to respectfully disagree with this ! I think blind faith - just believing in something because some power or someone tells you to is not what Buddhism is but there are many elements of faith in Buddhism. It is ok to question, though, and get accurate information from qualified teachers.
Not for me. For me, it is trying it, seeing good results, and therefore trusting that this process may continue. It is a stepwise process that is virtually risk-free. I know it is said that faith in Buddhism can take you further faster, but it can also take you in the wrong direction further and faster. Qualified teachers often speak both well and ill. It is on us to decide which is which.
Do we? Why? What effect does this knowledge have on our ability to comprehend the 4 noble truths and follow the 8-fold path? Does keeping a record of the good and bad things you do, and the consequences that follow, allow you to be more compassionate and wise than simply being good to reduce suffering?
So people need to know the hair colour of the archer who fired the poisoned arrow do they?
Perhaps. I don't know about you, but when I was born a record of my karmic status wasn't delivered with me. Since I don't know how much karma I've "generated" over how many lifetimes, what's the point in even wondering? Better lead an ethical life regardless wouldn't you say?
And if the Buddha taught us not to worry about our clothing and not to follow fashions because they are irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering, but then proceded to hand us a bowler hat and demand that we wear it at all times, would you not question the relevance if this instruction?
"Do we? Why? What effect does this knowledge have on our ability to comprehend the 4 noble truths and follow the 8-fold path? Does keeping a record of the good and bad things you do, and the consequences that follow, allow you to be more compassionate and wise than simply being good to reduce suffering?"
Do you not think understanding the reasoning behind stopping negative actions and doing virtuous actions is necessary?
"So people need to know the hair colour of the archer who fired the poisoned arrow do they?"
This analogy is taught to encourage people to practice now and not seek answer to the imponderables such as first origins and the comlexities of Karma. It doesn't refer to understanding the process of karma itself.
"Perhaps. I don't know about you, but when I was born a record of my karmic status wasn't delivered with me. Since I don't know how much karma I've "generated" over how many lifetimes, what's the point in even wondering? Better lead an ethical life regardless wouldn't you say"
Me neither, but the inference from my experience of life is that I need to develop positivity. Remember, I'm not saying just ponder karma and don't practice the 8 fold path, I'm saying it is integral to understanding the teachings.
"And if the Buddha taught us not to worry about our clothing and not to follow fashions because they are irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering, but then proceded to hand us a bowler hat and demand that we wear it at all times, would you not question the relevance if this instruction?"
The Buddha told us to investigate the teachings and be a light to ourselves. We should question and investigate everything.
I think we'd generally agree - there's just this point about the relevance of karma.
However, I cannot believe this way, and it is because I disagree with your statement that the mind must pass on because of the 1st law of thermodynamics (which I've heard many times before, from people of many different religions).
The mind isn't a measurable or contained amount of energy, the mind is a continuously changing product of memory engrams and internal monologue (thought). Although we don't yet fully understand the biological mechanisms, we do know that both phenomena arise due to changes in the flow of electrical signals across neurons. These electrical signals are derived from an electrical potential across schwann cells, that is sustained by the conversion of chemical energy in the form of food and oxygen into electrical charge via the directed movement of ions.
Remove the input of chemical energy and the charge potential dissipates with the now free movement of ions across the plasma membrane. With the ceasing of electrical signals whatever remains of the mind is stored in the physical structure of the brain's neurons, the energy of which is released, not as some form of spirit, but as heat during the process of decay.
This is surely speculation. I don't mean your scientific description, but the assumption that this covers all bases. Perhaps the kind of energy described by Soleil hasn't been detected yet - which is also speculation. It may also be the case that the description "energy" may refer to something else. Again speculation.
I can see why Buddha integrated karma and rebirth into his teachings, they were widespread beliefs in his time, as accepted as concepts like gravity and germ-theory are today. But if Buddha had been born in a Christian nation, or a secular nation, do you think he would have taught them? I don't.
I think he would. The Buddha's teachings are an integrated network of instructions and practices. The concept of re-incarnation needs the law of karma for it to work. If you left it out of the teachings the first question would be - "How does reincarnation work? What is the process?"
If you follow the 8-fold path, then you would naturally develop positive karma, but you wouldn't understand how and also why - with reference to fortunate rebirths.
There are also purification practices in Mahayana Buddhism that purify the mind of negative karma. Soyou need the concept in order to do something about it.
Karma is also one of the reasons why there is no belief in a creator god in Buddhism. The law of karma and the process of rebirth eliminates the need for such an idea. A creator god is redundant.
Do you not think understanding the reasoning behind stopping negative actions and doing virtuous actions is necessary?
Honestly, if the answer is karma, then no. I can see why doing virtuous actions is better than doing negative ones without needing a cosmic force enforcing a balance.
This analogy is taught to encourage people to practice now and not seek answer to the imponderables such as first origins and the comlexities of Karma. It doesn't refer to understanding the process of karma itself.
My answer was in direct response to what you said about people entering Buddhism with questions. If we accept karma on faith, then we are not analysing things according to our own reason, we're not being lamps unto ourselves. If we start out on the Buddhist path needed questions of cosmic scope being answered, we are falling victim to the poisoned arrow. That's my opinion anyway.
Me neither, but the inference from my experience of life is that I need to develop positivity. Remember, I'm not saying just ponder karma and don't practice the 8 fold path, I'm saying it is integral to understanding the teachings.
I disagree, I see it as an addendum. I can make perfect sense of the Buddha's teachings on suffering, it's origin and it's cessation without karma being a necessity.
The Buddha told us to investigate the teachings and be a light to ourselves. We should question and investigate everything.
I think we'd generally agree - there's just this point about the relevance of karma.
And through debate we learn. I haven't got anything against people believing in karma, I just dislike the implication that to be a "true" Buddhist I need to believe in it too, and that implication is there despite what people have said in this thread.
This is surely speculation. I don't mean your scientific description, but the assumption that this covers all bases. Perhaps the kind of energy described by Soleil hasn't been detected yet - which is also speculation. It may also be the case that the description "energy" may refer to something else. Again speculation.
You're aware of Occam's Razor I am sure. If we apply it to this situation, what is the outcome?
I think he would. The Buddha's teachings are an integrated network of instructions and practices. The concept of re-incarnation needs the law of karma for it to work. If you left it out of the teachings the first question would be - "How does reincarnation work? What is the process?"
The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.”
I see the truth in this. I don't see the truth in extending this philosophy beyond the moment of brain death.
Karma is also one of the reasons why there is no belief in a creator god in Buddhism. The law of karma and the process of rebirth eliminates the need for such an idea. A creator god is redundant.
My own understanding is that there is no creator God in Buddhism, neither is there not a creator God in Buddhism. Some people need a God to make the world a fair place, to deal out rewards and punishments according to our deeds. Others leave that to some cosmic karmic force.
People in this thread have said that karma is not a judge, it does not reward or punish, it is just the results of our actions. I can apply that logic in my daily life. I don't see the reason, nor the need, for the results of my actions to leave my body at death and drift on a spiritual wind until they find a new host baby to infest.
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>Karma and Fruit
A round of karma and of fruit;
The fruit from karma doth arise,
From karma then rebirth doth spring;
And thus the world rolls on and on.
No doer is there does the deed,
Nor is there one who feels the fruit;
Constituent parts alone roll on and on;
This view alone is orthodox.
And thus the deed, and thus the fruit
Roll on and on, each from its cause;
As of the round of tree and seed,
No one can tell when they began.
Nor is the time to be perceived
In future births when they shall cease.
The heretics perceive not this,
And fail of mastery o'er themselves.
Visuddhi-Magga (4)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
I understand that I will reap the fruit of my actions, and whether the fruit is wholesome or rotten depends on the intention behind my actions. I accept that my actions will have influence beyond my sphere of knowledge, and affect the world after I am gone. I recognise that the fruit of my action may not come back to me immediately, but may mature and affect my future mind in 10 years, or when I am an elderly man.
If I understand this but don't accept that my actions have a mystical component that is not subject to mortality, that moves from one host to another until it matures, and if not accepting this makes me a heretic, then I am happily a heretic.
"Honestly, if the answer is karma, then no. I can see why doing virtuous actions is better than doing negative ones without needing a cosmic force enforcing a balance."
I don't ssee why you would need a cosmic force. Karma is described as a natural process, but one that contributes to the Buddhist's ultimate aim. If you accept reincarnation, then Karma is important. It puts the path in perspective over a number of lives."
"My answer was in direct response to what you said about people entering Buddhism with questions. If we accept karma on faith, then we are not analysing things according to our own reason, we're not being lamps unto ourselves. If we start out on the Buddhist path needed questions of cosmic scope being answered, we are falling victim to the poisoned arrow. That's my opinion anyway."
I don't think any Buddhist woud ask you to accept Karma on faith - it's about experience and what makes sense. I don't think the Buddha's path makes sense without reincarnation and the process of Karma.
"I disagree, I see it as an addendum. I can make perfect sense of the Buddha's teachings on suffering, it's origin and it's cessation without karma being a necessity."
How can the process of reincarnation through Karma be an addendum?
"And through debate we learn. I haven't got anything against people believing in karma, I just dislike the implication that to be a "true" Buddhist I need to believe in it too, and that implication is there despite what people have said in this thread."
I wonder who said you weren't a true Buddhist? The debate here is the importance of Karma as integral to understanding the path. What you choose to believe/ practice etc is your own affair.
In the tradition I follow, we have 21 meditations on the path Lam Rim. If you are familiar with it then apologies. Karma is one of the meditations included within the 21 because of is importance in appreciating reincarnation, the results of our actions etc.
"You're aware of Occam's Razor I am sure. If we apply it to this situation, what is the outcome?"
It is my understanding that Occam's razor is about scientific logic, not speculatve science.
The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.”
I see the truth in this. I don't see the truth in extending this philosophy beyond the moment of brain death."
From this I presume that you don't accept reincarnation. Buddhism becomes a noble way of life then, but what about Enlightenment?
"My own understanding is that there is no creator God in Buddhism, neither is there not a creator God in Buddhism. Some people need a God to make the world a fair place, to deal out rewards and punishments according to our deeds. Others leave that to some cosmic karmic force."
I think you are implying that cosmic karmic force - God. This is denied, and as I said, it is decribed as a natural process.
"People in this thread have said that karma is not a judge, it does not reward or punish, it is just the results of our actions. I can apply that logic in my daily life. I don't see the reason, nor the need, for the results of my actions to leave my body at death and drift on a spiritual wind until they find a new host baby to infest."
Funnily enough the results of Karma are said to not be apparent in daily life - unless a deed that is either really bad or very good is committed. They don't ripen immediately, apparently.
"a new host baby to infest"
This seems a bit hostile to the idea of reincarnation. An open mind, or leaving stuff in abeyance would be better until you find the truth or untruth of it for yourself , but it does seem as if you've made up your mind.
In the tradition I follow, we have 21 meditations on the path Lam Rim. If you are familiar with it then apologies. Karma is one of the meditations included within the 21 because of is importance in appreciating reincarnation, the results of our actions etc.
It's my understanding that Tibetan Buddhism is more esoteric than other schools, so I can understand why karma and reincarnation is so important for your practice.
From this I presume that you don't accept reincarnation. Buddhism becomes a noble way of life then, but what about Enlightenment?
Buddha achieved it in six years, according to the conventional story of his life.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, and for me to better understand your position, if we were to remove the concepts of karma and enlightenment from the Buddha's teachings, what would you say is left, specifically?
I think you are implying that cosmic karmic force - God. This is denied, and as I said, it is decribed as a natural process.
I guess people differ with what they regard as a natural process. For me, anything that involves the transmigration of lifeforce or soul or memory or personality etc from one body to another is beyond natural, it is supernatural.
Funnily enough the results of Karma are said to not be apparent in daily life - unless a deed that is either really bad or very good is committed. They don't ripen immediately, apparently.
I've heard the opposite it true, that our present deeds can affect us just as powerfully as past ones.
This seems a bit hostile to the idea of reincarnation. An open mind, or leaving stuff in abeyance would be better until you find the truth or untruth of it for yourself , but it does seem as if you've made up your mind.
That's true, perhaps my mind will open to the possibility further down the road. Would you say your mind is open to the possibility that karma and reincarnation are figurative, not literal?
I don't think this assertion makes sense without some kind of supporting argument.
The story of The Buddha relates that his accumulation of positive Karma over a number of lives created the conditions for him to attain Buddhahood. There is a story that says as a beggar boy, wishing to offer to the previous Buddha, he offered a bowl of dust visualised as gold. The Buddha of that era then predicted that he would become a future Buddha.
Also, in the Therevada, a stream enterer is said to be reborn no more than 7 times before attaining Enlightenment.
There are also texts which describe the process of death and rebirth such as The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.
It can be applied to any situation, it just states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
How can a speculation be the simplest explanation? I don't agree with your thoughts on that. No matter. i'm thinking about your question and will respond later.
The story of The Buddha relates that his accumulation of positive Karma over a number of lives created the conditions for him to attain Buddhahood. There is a story that says as a beggar boy, wishing to offer to the previous Buddha, he offered a bowl of dust visualised as gold. The Buddha of that era then predicted that he would become a future Buddha.
Also, in the Therevada, a stream enterer is said to be reborn no more than 7 times before attaining Enlightenment.
There are also texts which describe the process of death and rebirth such as The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.
Stories, sayings, and descriptions. None of these are arguments. How about the story of the Buddha as told in Confession of a Buddhist Atheist? Why doesn't that make sense without the notion of reincarnation/rebirth?
How can a speculation be the simplest explanation? I don't agree with your thoughts on that. No matter. i'm thinking about your question and will respond later.
If we're talking about karma and rebirth, which we are, then we have two basic explanations. One is that the energy that was once used to generate thought and memory is lost as heat after death. The other explanation is that the energy of thought and memory is somehow "special" and survives death in the same form, travels to another body and attaches itself to a new brain.
Occams razor suggests the former is more likely to be true, that is all.
If we're talking about karma and rebirth, which we are, then we have two basic explanations. One is that the energy that was once used to generate thought and memory is lost as heat after death. The other explanation is that the energy of thought and memory is somehow "special" and survives death in the same form, travels to another body and attaches itself to a new brain.
Occams razor suggests the former is more likely to be true, that is all.
Ockham's razor does not cut this one, any more than it does, say, whether the earth goes round the sun or v.v. It is a philosophical technique, not a scientific one.
"Buddha achieved it in six years, according to the conventional story of his life.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, and for me to better understand your position, if we were to remove the concepts of karma and enlightenment from the Buddha's teachings, what would you say is left, specifically?"
Without Karma you still have a problem which isn't addresed - similar to the problem of evil for theists. That is the randomness of natual disasters, and when horrible events occur such as murder. Without Karma which traverses lives there is dificulty accounting for this when it happens to people who don't seem to deserve it, babies etc.
As for reincarnation, what is the nature of all the other beings on earth? Buddhism specifically regards all sentient beings as having Buddha-potential. Also what is the aim of Buddhism? You suggest that with no Karma and reincarnation it is a personal life of morality and a lack of extremes, but what for? With a one life view, it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that a hedonistic way of life would be better because it ultimately dosn't matter. Of course the Buddhist way of life contributes to contentment and society,but it is a very limited view.
From the mahayana perspective, the Bodhisattva ideal - to strive for the liberation of all beings - makes no sense.
Wthout karma or reincarnation, there is no motivation to strive for self improvement, except on a superficial social level.
"Buddha achieved it in six years, according to the conventional story of his life.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, and for me to better understand your position, if we were to remove the concepts of karma and enlightenment from the Buddha's teachings, what would you say is left, specifically?"
Without Karma you still have a problem which isn't addresed - similar to the problem of evil for theists. That is the randomness of natual disasters, and when horrible events occur such as murder. Without Karma which traverses lives there is dificulty accounting for this when it happens to people who don't seem to deserve it, babies etc.
As for reincarnation, what is the nature of all the other beings on earth? Buddhism specifically regards all sentient beings as having Buddha-potential. Also what is the aim of Buddhism? You suggest that with no Karma and reincarnation it is a personal life of morality and a lack of extremes, but what for? With a one life view, it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that a hedonistic way of life would be better because it ultimately dosn't matter. Of course the Buddhist way of life contributes to contentment and society,but it is a very limited view.
From the mahayana perspective, the Bodhisattva ideal - to strive for the liberation of all beings - makes no sense.
Wthout karma or reincarnation, there is no motivation to strive for self improvement, except on a superficial social level.
This is the precise argument that the "heaven or hell hereafter" use and one on which I have pondered for a long time, particularly in debate with those who deny the metaphysical notions of karma, rebirth, heaven or hell. Why act ethically?
We can find strong arguments in favour in the philosophers, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza and many others, to the extent that the evolutionary biologists have come up with the notion (unproven save as post hoc ergo propter hoc) that ethical behaviour has an evolutionary value.
In the end, however, and fully in the tradition of the Kalama discourse, I have tried both: to act for my own pleasure, irrespective of the effect on others, and to act for others, against my personal comfort. The psycho-emotional results have been interesting. I notice that my resultant state is preferable when I choose the ethical. Thus, simply from the point of view of personal interest and reduction of dukkha, service to others and moral action make - in my own life; I'll not judge for others - life better.
I think it is somewhat disingenuous to translate/explain karma simply as "cause and effect". It is not surprising that you perceive elements of judgment, Chrysalid, and you are not alone. After all, we read about "good", "bad" and even "neutral" karma, terms which automatically imply judgment and criticism.
Just like the Psalmist, I notice that "the wicked" manage to flourish like the green bay tree, which is why some notion of an afterlife or rebirth into less pleasant conditions has to be imported to bring satisfy an illusion of fairness. Unfortunately, as our parents used to tell us, life isn't fair. So, if someone gets a raw deal (death, disaster, bereavement, indigence), it is easier to blame a previous life and accumulated karma than to acknowledge randomness.
Ockham's razor does not cut this one, any more than it does, say, whether the earth goes round the sun or v.v. It is a philosophical technique, not a scientific one.
I don't think that is correct, at least not the division between philosophy and science. Some of the best metaphysics is coming out of science at the moment, and not official philosophy. Plus, as far as I know, Ockham's razor is a principle used in science as much as it is in philosophy. Your scientific explanations are expected to strive towards the simpler answer within the confines of still being an explanation (in other words, it still has to explain the observed phenomena).
Ockham's razor does not cut this one, any more than it does, say, whether the earth goes round the sun or v.v. It is a philosophical technique, not a scientific one.
Actually Occam's Razor is used across multiple fields, it is used in science (frequently in medicine), religion, philosophy; you name it. Anywhere where a problem is observed and two or more solutions are suggested.
I this case we have these;
But because the mind is something, it moves on after we pass - it cannot become nothing (akin to the first law of thermodynamics). It is something that bears imprints of your past "state of mind", experiences, actions, etc. (I think probably in the form of energy?? but maybe in ways that we can't explain yet).
With the ceasing of electrical signals whatever remains of the mind is stored in the physical structure of the brain's neurons, the energy of which is released, not as some form of spirit, but as heat during the process of decay.
Soleil's explanation, which Paulclem took up from, is more complex. It requires many unknown variables - an unknown form of energy, an unknown form of conveyance from host to host, an unknown mechanism of memory imprinting.
Mine is simpler as it suggests the energy that once produced mind transmutes into heat. Occam's Razor favors my explanation because of this simplicity.
Without Karma you still have a problem which isn't addresed - similar to the problem of evil for theists. That is the randomness of natual disasters, and when horrible events occur such as murder. Without Karma which traverses lives there is dificulty accounting for this when it happens to people who don't seem to deserve it, babies etc.
Thanks for answering my question Paul.
Then why account for it? Did Buddha ever teach that the world was an essentially fair place to live?
The way I see it, the cosmos is indifferent to the lives of human beings, and other living things. Outside of our planet it is positively hostile.
To paraphrase a cliche, "poop happens". Tectonic plates shift causing earthquakes and tsunami's, not because of communal karma, but because they float on liquid magma and rub against each other.
People murder because they suffer. Their minds are filled with hate and greed, jealousy and delusion. Murder occurs not because the victim deserved it due to their karma, but because of the dukkha of the murderer.
As for reincarnation, what is the nature of all the other beings on earth? Buddhism specifically regards all sentient beings as having Buddha-potential. Also what is the aim of Buddhism? You suggest that with no Karma and reincarnation it is a personal life of morality and a lack of extremes, but what for? With a one life view, it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that a hedonistic way of life would be better because it ultimately dosn't matter. Of course the Buddhist way of life contributes to contentment and society,but it is a very limited view.
The Buddha himself said he taught only the nature of suffering, it's origin, its cessation, and the path to cessation. The rest is decoration in my opinion.
The nature of the other beings on the Earth is that they are animals who suffer. Humans are lucky in that we have the mental capacity to overcome this suffering. Animals lack this capacity and so their only hope is to benefit from our compassion. Is this fair? No, but who said life was fair?
I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way.
Wthout karma or reincarnation, there is no motivation to strive for self improvement, except on a superficial social level.
If I had no motivation to improve myself in this life, why would I bother to improve myself in the next life? Better to strive to end my suffering now, while I have the awareness to do so, than take a chance and leave it to some potential future incarnation.
Soleil's explanation, which Paulclem took up from, is more complex. It requires many unknown variables - an unknown form of energy, an unknown form of conveyance from host to host, an unknown mechanism of memory imprinting.
Mine is simpler as it suggests the energy that once produced mind transmutes into heat. Occam's Razor favors my explanation because of this simplicity.
The emphasis in Buddhism is to try out for yourself and see what works. You could well be correct for all I know. I come at Buddhism from a non scientific background. It is interesting that Buddhism facilitates a common ground for debate for diverse interests.
Samsara - it's not a question of fair or unfair. The teaching says that we cause our own suffering. You're right- poop happens becase we are ignorent humans in the human condition. Our condition is determined by our karma - environmental or whatever. Yes there are tectonic plates - they are in the nature of the earth. Wherther or not you are affected by them, or war, or flood - depends upon where you are born. Clearly some are more fortunate in this respect than others, and while it is difficult to pin down - indeed it is an imponderable - fairness or not is not in question.
"Their minds are filled with hate and greed, jealousy and delusion. Murder occurs not because the victim deserved it due to their karma, but because of the dukkha of the murderer."
Yes their minds are filled with hate - in particular Karmic circumstances where their negative Karma is ripening. Clearly they aren't filled with hate all the time or with everyone they meet. Deserved is judgemental, and the emphasis is not upon what a being has done in the past - but there is some Karmic relatinship between the perpetrator and the victim. Who is to say what the details of this are? If you can't accept reincarnation, then this obviously makes no sense, and it is just unfortunate. I feel that is an inadequate expanation for our condition though.
"The Buddha himself said he taught only the nature of suffering, it's origin, its cessation, and the path to cessation. The rest is decoration in my opinion."
He did not just teach about the above, but traditionally gave 64,000 teachings each dealing with the afflictions of the mind. If it is decoration, then it is very powerful. HH The Dalai Lama is a good example of it's embodiment.
"The nature of the other beings on the Earth is that they are animals who suffer. Humans are lucky in that we have the mental capacity to overcome this suffering. Animals lack this capacity and so their only hope is to benefit from our compassion. Is this fair? No, but who said life was fair?
I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way."
This is a very unsatisfactory explanation in my view. Lucky is not a concept that ca come close to the uncountable suffering that animals endure. How can the billions of wild animals, fish, insects etc let alone those factory farmed, benefit from human compassion? The Buddha's view of animals is that they too have Buddha potential, and are subject to karma - hence those who benefit from us and those who don't- and in time can attain Enlightenment. Nature is red in tooth and claw, there is slaughter in the seas, but I can't accept that that is it for the majority of such beings on earth.
The very difficult idea is to accept that humans have the negative potential to fall back into these states. Even if we do regain rebirth as a human, then according to teachings on anatta etc - it will not be me/ I. It will be a spiritual heir that I have caused.
"I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way."
In the West we are relative Princes in our lifestyles. It is a noble aim.
How about karma as a construct intended to motivate people to not behave like bastards! How about we let go of all the permutations because they are incomprehensible to humans living out a short little lifetime within the eons of time trying mightily to understand past lives, future lives, reward, punishment, etc..........
Samsara - it's not a question of fair or unfair. The teaching says that we cause our own suffering. You're right- poop happens becase we are ignorent humans in the human condition. Our condition is determined by our karma - environmental or whatever. Yes there are tectonic plates - they are in the nature of the earth. Wherther or not you are affected by them, or war, or flood - depends upon where you are born. Clearly some are more fortunate in this respect than others, and while it is difficult to pin down - indeed it is an imponderable - fairness or not is not in question.
Well, my answer was in response to what you said here;
Without Karma which traverses lives there is dificulty accounting for this when it happens to people who don't seem to deserve it, babies etc.
Which I interpreted to be about fairness, essentially "why do bad things happen to good people, it's not fair".
I agree that many of the things that happen to us are directly related to our own actions. People are rarely murdered by strangers, which implies that the motive of the killer has a basis in the actions the victim performed at some time. Car crashes are rarely random occurances but the result of carelessness, not concentrating, intoxication etc.
It's when people stretch this relationship beyond the sphere of possible influence, to say that babies are killed in house fires because of past life actions, or that people die in earthquakes because their karma led them to be in that specific place that I start questioning the credulity of the suggestion. I can understand the logic of it fine, as it's simply an extention of the logic we see around us all the time, I just personally find no basis for accepting that leap, I'm happy with some events being completely beyond my sphere of influence and happening entirely due to physical processes.
Yes their minds are filled with hate - in particular Karmic circumstances where their negative Karma is ripening. Clearly they aren't filled with hate all the time or with everyone they meet. Deserved is judgemental, and the emphasis is not upon what a being has done in the past - but there is some Karmic relatinship between the perpetrator and the victim. Who is to say what the details of this are? If you can't accept reincarnation, then this obviously makes no sense, and it is just unfortunate. I feel that is an inadequate expanation for our condition though.
I can understand why you want to belief as you do, it gives the world a greater sense of meaning I guess. However, I find it more useful to understand a person's hate not resulting from ripening negative karma that can have a known or unknown source, but to discover precisely the origin of that hate, that way I can act to dissolve it.
He did not just teach about the above, but traditionally gave 64,000 teachings each dealing with the afflictions of the mind. If it is decoration, then it is very powerful. HH The Dalai Lama is a good example of it's embodiment.
I just paraphrased words that came directly from the Buddha's mouth. I'm not saying the decoration is useless, I can see how it can be very useful in given contexts, I use some of it myself.
What I am saying is that when we lose sight of the core of the Buddha's message and get wrapped up in beliefs about karma and rebirth, we end up with beliefs like Pure Land Buddhism where people don't practice the dharma at all, they just pray to Amidabha for rebirth in his pure realm.
This is a very unsatisfactory explanation in my view. Lucky is not a concept that ca come close to the uncountable suffering that animals endure. How can the billions of wild animals, fish, insects etc let alone those factory farmed, benefit from human compassion? The Buddha's view of animals is that they too have Buddha potential, and are subject to karma - hence those who benefit from us and those who don't- and in time can attain Enlightenment. Nature is red in tooth and claw, there is slaughter in the seas, but I can't accept that that is it for the majority of such beings on earth.
But why? Is it because you don't like the notion, or because you genuinely can't believe the universe could be an essentially uncaring, amoral place?
The very difficult idea is to accept that humans have the negative potential to fall back into these states. Even if we do regain rebirth as a human, then according to teachings on anatta etc - it will not be me/ I. It will be a spiritual heir that I have caused.
Do you believe that is the fundamental truth of anatta, to explain the nature of rebirth and how it differs from reincarnation?
I agree that many of the things that happen to us are directly related to our own actions. People are rarely murdered by strangers, which implies that the motive of the killer has a basis in the actions the victim performed at some time. Car crashes are rarely random occurances but the result of carelessness, not concentrating, intoxication etc.
I think we are talking about different circumstances. Your examples happen too, but so do other inexplicable ones. Yes we are subject to accidents caused by our impaired inability to drive for whatever reason. I think we have to look at major unexpected turns in our lives to see the effects of Karma, or our impulses and interests to detect our possible karmic predispositions.
One example of positive karma happening to my wife was that she once enquired to the Office of HH The Dalai Lama about information on his teachings. She recieved a letter and booklet. Then, months later, she recieved an invitation, out of the blue from an unknown person, to hear him speak in Holland Park in London. It was a relatively small gathering with the then leader of the Church of England Robert Runcie officiating. She went and was completely taken with HH the dalai Lama, and has been a Buddhist ever since.
My wife was a former Christian, who had been interested in Tibet, but knew little of Buddhism. The potential for her to re-make a connection with Tibetan culture in general and HH The Dalai Lama in particular was triggered by her intention to find out more about him. Someone sent her the invitation - she at first thought it was a joke by one of her friends who knew of her interest. This event had a major effect on my wife's and my life.
I can understand why you want to belief as you do, it gives the world a greater sense of meaning I guess. However, I find it more useful to understand a person's hate not resulting from ripening negative karma that can have a known or unknown source, but to discover precisely the origin of that hate, that way I can act to dissolve it.
Yes - this is the charge against theists who believe in heaven and those who believe in reincarnation. The implication is that without this fantasy, then the person can't handle life, or they benefit from the crutch that this gives them. It is understandable. I believe that there is Karma and reincarnation for various reasons including rather subjective experiences that would not count as evidence to anyone else, but which have meaningfor me. This doesn't help our discussion though.
Another aspect is that having slightly tasted the teachings in my life and having applied them, and - like Simon The Pilgrim having seen the results of both positive and negative attitudes to life and their effects, I can trust the teachings. I can't say that I have experienced the truth of Karma or reincarnation in the meditative sense, but i feel i have enough experience to be able to say that what I have done works. From this i can surmise that the rest of the teachings will work - though I have to work it to find out the truth of it and put it into effect.
I think of the earth touching gesture when I think of faith. Coming back to your present experience. Trusting that your mind is clear luminous and unimpeded. At least thats what you should find in the present experience.
What I am saying is that when we lose sight of the core of the Buddha's message and get wrapped up in beliefs about karma and rebirth, we end up with beliefs like Pure Land Buddhism where people don't practice the dharma at all, they just pray to Amidabha for rebirth in his pure realm.
I understand what you're saying, but do you appreciate the extent of the interconnectedness of The Buddha's teachings. It fits together tremendously well. It is still The Buddha's path, and examination of texts from different traditions just show the consistency of the teachings. Karma and rebirth are core teachings, and I don't see how thy are distractins from following the Noble 8 fold Path. In fact i've just Googled Noble 8-Fold Path and:
1. Right View Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28100.29_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28101.29_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28109.29_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28110.29_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28111.29_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28112.29_9-0" class="reference">[10]"</sup>
But why? Is it because you don't like the notion, or because you genuinely can't believe the universe could be an essentially uncaring, amoral place?
Do you believe that is the fundamental truth of anatta, to explain the nature of rebirth and how it differs from reincarnation?
Yes - The Buddha's teachings say samasara is uncaring and amoral because of the beings who inhabit it, through their ignorence craving etc, are uncaring and amoral. Karma links to our own minds because we project our version of reality through our delusions that are karmically driven. The aim is to break this delusion, purify the mind and escape Samasara.
The truth of anatta is to realise the false conception of self and to clearly apprehend reality. This is just as I've thought of it, and so feel free to add or criticise this.
Comments
Perhaps the focus should be on right intention according to the noble 8 fold path - but I can see what you mean. The mass murderer analogy is perhaps a bit obscure - I brought it up - but cetainly Doctors knowingly administering too much morphine to ease extreme suffering for the dying is an unmentioned reality. Not exactly killing a person but hastening the inevitable. This is done for compassionate reasons.
Which, in theory, makes having the concept of karma as a doctrine of Buddhism ultimately pointless. Either you're following the Buddha's teachings or you aren't. If we aren't then we should only be worried about altering our lifestyles to better attune to the teachings, not about whether our actions will alter our karma. IMO.
I very much agree. Whether or not kamma is an Imponderable is actually irrelevant, because it is unknowable in any case. This makes believing it an article of faith, and faith is not required in Buddhism. We study and practice, read and listen, and reap the benefits. That is all we need to do.
Yet you need to know what the results of negative and positive actions are, and the process by which reincarnation happens etc. If it wasn't there, then there would be questions. When people begin on the Buddhist path, these things need explanation.
There are also practices for generating good karma. Do we need this? The Buddha's example is that it took many lifetimes for him to develop the positive karma to become the Buddha.
The Buddha thought it appropriate to teach, and so what's the problem?
Chrysalid,
Buddhism won't force anything on you in terms of laws or rules so you can relax and enjoy the teachings! It is very normal to go through questionning when entering this spiritual realm, which is a new development to most westerners. I remember (I am also a scientist) going through many of the same questions not too many years ago. I think relaxing your mind, not forcing it to accept everything right away will help you answer your own questions. It helps to get a good spiritual teacher to teach you to meditate properly as well.
As a scientist, you will eventually encounter some concepts that make sense "scientifically" within Buddhism. We are mostly unable to prove rebirth in a scientific way (this is the faith part of a spiritual path, and difficult to the scientist). But because the mind is something, it moves on after we pass - it cannot become nothing (akin to the first law of thermodynamics). It is something that bears imprints of your past "state of mind", experiences, actions, etc. (I think probably in the form of energy?? but maybe in ways that we can't explain yet).
The following video includes panel discussion I found very interesting between HH Dalai Lama and research scientists in Seattle WA in 2008. They were exchanging on what is the mind from both the spiritual and scientific perspactives.
http://www.seedsofcompassion.net/webcast/index.html
I would have to respectfully disagree with this ! I think blind faith - just believing in something because some power or someone tells you to is not what Buddhism is but there are many elements of faith in Buddhism. It is ok to question, though, and get accurate information from qualified teachers.
I had a talk with a great dharma-buddy about this sort of blind-faith idea and 'how are we supposed to commit to a long haul path were there is often little to no concrete evidence', etc - and it came down to semantics again. I have forgotten much of the meat of the discussion, so I could be erroneous here but: Buddhism faith isn't necessarily a 'cross-your-fingers-and-hope' faith, it's more of a state of being calmly confident in yourself, and 'so-far-so-good' type. There's a sanskrit or pali word for it that I've forgotten, which would have made this reply much easier to follow :crazy:
Agreed. A lot of the concepts can't be realised until later, but this doesn't mean it is blind faith. The kind of reasoning that says - this teaching/ idea/ practice has helped me/ is correct according to my experience points to the validity of further aspects of the path.
So people need to know the hair colour of the archer who fired the poisoned arrow do they?
Perhaps. I don't know about you, but when I was born a record of my karmic status wasn't delivered with me. Since I don't know how much karma I've "generated" over how many lifetimes, what's the point in even wondering? Better lead an ethical life regardless wouldn't you say?
And if the Buddha taught us not to worry about our clothing and not to follow fashions because they are irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering, but then proceded to hand us a bowler hat and demand that we wear it at all times, would you not question the relevance if this instruction?
If this is helpful to you, then it is not for me to discourage your belief.
However, I cannot believe this way, and it is because I disagree with your statement that the mind must pass on because of the 1st law of thermodynamics (which I've heard many times before, from people of many different religions).
The mind isn't a measurable or contained amount of energy, the mind is a continuously changing product of memory engrams and internal monologue (thought). Although we don't yet fully understand the biological mechanisms, we do know that both phenomena arise due to changes in the flow of electrical signals across neurons. These electrical signals are derived from an electrical potential across schwann cells, that is sustained by the conversion of chemical energy in the form of food and oxygen into electrical charge via the directed movement of ions.
Remove the input of chemical energy and the charge potential dissipates with the now free movement of ions across the plasma membrane. With the ceasing of electrical signals whatever remains of the mind is stored in the physical structure of the brain's neurons, the energy of which is released, not as some form of spirit, but as heat during the process of decay.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books5/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_Two_Kinds_of_Language.htm
_/\_
From here.
As you sow thus shall you reap, is Karma in action.....
EDIT to add this link:
Not for me. For me, it is trying it, seeing good results, and therefore trusting that this process may continue. It is a stepwise process that is virtually risk-free. I know it is said that faith in Buddhism can take you further faster, but it can also take you in the wrong direction further and faster. Qualified teachers often speak both well and ill. It is on us to decide which is which.
"Do we? Why? What effect does this knowledge have on our ability to comprehend the 4 noble truths and follow the 8-fold path? Does keeping a record of the good and bad things you do, and the consequences that follow, allow you to be more compassionate and wise than simply being good to reduce suffering?"
Do you not think understanding the reasoning behind stopping negative actions and doing virtuous actions is necessary?
"So people need to know the hair colour of the archer who fired the poisoned arrow do they?"
This analogy is taught to encourage people to practice now and not seek answer to the imponderables such as first origins and the comlexities of Karma. It doesn't refer to understanding the process of karma itself.
"Perhaps. I don't know about you, but when I was born a record of my karmic status wasn't delivered with me. Since I don't know how much karma I've "generated" over how many lifetimes, what's the point in even wondering? Better lead an ethical life regardless wouldn't you say"
Me neither, but the inference from my experience of life is that I need to develop positivity. Remember, I'm not saying just ponder karma and don't practice the 8 fold path, I'm saying it is integral to understanding the teachings.
"And if the Buddha taught us not to worry about our clothing and not to follow fashions because they are irrelevant to the goal of ending suffering, but then proceded to hand us a bowler hat and demand that we wear it at all times, would you not question the relevance if this instruction?"
The Buddha told us to investigate the teachings and be a light to ourselves. We should question and investigate everything.
I think we'd generally agree - there's just this point about the relevance of karma.
This is surely speculation. I don't mean your scientific description, but the assumption that this covers all bases. Perhaps the kind of energy described by Soleil hasn't been detected yet - which is also speculation. It may also be the case that the description "energy" may refer to something else. Again speculation.
I think he would. The Buddha's teachings are an integrated network of instructions and practices. The concept of re-incarnation needs the law of karma for it to work. If you left it out of the teachings the first question would be - "How does reincarnation work? What is the process?"
If you follow the 8-fold path, then you would naturally develop positive karma, but you wouldn't understand how and also why - with reference to fortunate rebirths.
There are also purification practices in Mahayana Buddhism that purify the mind of negative karma. Soyou need the concept in order to do something about it.
Karma is also one of the reasons why there is no belief in a creator god in Buddhism. The law of karma and the process of rebirth eliminates the need for such an idea. A creator god is redundant.
My answer was in direct response to what you said about people entering Buddhism with questions. If we accept karma on faith, then we are not analysing things according to our own reason, we're not being lamps unto ourselves. If we start out on the Buddhist path needed questions of cosmic scope being answered, we are falling victim to the poisoned arrow. That's my opinion anyway.
I disagree, I see it as an addendum. I can make perfect sense of the Buddha's teachings on suffering, it's origin and it's cessation without karma being a necessity.
And through debate we learn. I haven't got anything against people believing in karma, I just dislike the implication that to be a "true" Buddhist I need to believe in it too, and that implication is there despite what people have said in this thread.
You're aware of Occam's Razor I am sure. If we apply it to this situation, what is the outcome?
The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.”
I see the truth in this. I don't see the truth in extending this philosophy beyond the moment of brain death.
My own understanding is that there is no creator God in Buddhism, neither is there not a creator God in Buddhism. Some people need a God to make the world a fair place, to deal out rewards and punishments according to our deeds. Others leave that to some cosmic karmic force.
People in this thread have said that karma is not a judge, it does not reward or punish, it is just the results of our actions. I can apply that logic in my daily life. I don't see the reason, nor the need, for the results of my actions to leave my body at death and drift on a spiritual wind until they find a new host baby to infest.
If I understand this but don't accept that my actions have a mystical component that is not subject to mortality, that moves from one host to another until it matures, and if not accepting this makes me a heretic, then I am happily a heretic.
Heat, which is... energy!
I don't ssee why you would need a cosmic force. Karma is described as a natural process, but one that contributes to the Buddhist's ultimate aim. If you accept reincarnation, then Karma is important. It puts the path in perspective over a number of lives."
"My answer was in direct response to what you said about people entering Buddhism with questions. If we accept karma on faith, then we are not analysing things according to our own reason, we're not being lamps unto ourselves. If we start out on the Buddhist path needed questions of cosmic scope being answered, we are falling victim to the poisoned arrow. That's my opinion anyway."
I don't think any Buddhist woud ask you to accept Karma on faith - it's about experience and what makes sense. I don't think the Buddha's path makes sense without reincarnation and the process of Karma.
"I disagree, I see it as an addendum. I can make perfect sense of the Buddha's teachings on suffering, it's origin and it's cessation without karma being a necessity."
How can the process of reincarnation through Karma be an addendum?
"And through debate we learn. I haven't got anything against people believing in karma, I just dislike the implication that to be a "true" Buddhist I need to believe in it too, and that implication is there despite what people have said in this thread."
I wonder who said you weren't a true Buddhist? The debate here is the importance of Karma as integral to understanding the path. What you choose to believe/ practice etc is your own affair.
In the tradition I follow, we have 21 meditations on the path Lam Rim. If you are familiar with it then apologies. Karma is one of the meditations included within the 21 because of is importance in appreciating reincarnation, the results of our actions etc.
"You're aware of Occam's Razor I am sure. If we apply it to this situation, what is the outcome?"
It is my understanding that Occam's razor is about scientific logic, not speculatve science.
The Buddha said, “Oh, Bhikshu, every moment you are born, decay, and die.”
I see the truth in this. I don't see the truth in extending this philosophy beyond the moment of brain death."
From this I presume that you don't accept reincarnation. Buddhism becomes a noble way of life then, but what about Enlightenment?
"My own understanding is that there is no creator God in Buddhism, neither is there not a creator God in Buddhism. Some people need a God to make the world a fair place, to deal out rewards and punishments according to our deeds. Others leave that to some cosmic karmic force."
I think you are implying that cosmic karmic force - God. This is denied, and as I said, it is decribed as a natural process.
"People in this thread have said that karma is not a judge, it does not reward or punish, it is just the results of our actions. I can apply that logic in my daily life. I don't see the reason, nor the need, for the results of my actions to leave my body at death and drift on a spiritual wind until they find a new host baby to infest."
Funnily enough the results of Karma are said to not be apparent in daily life - unless a deed that is either really bad or very good is committed. They don't ripen immediately, apparently.
"a new host baby to infest"
This seems a bit hostile to the idea of reincarnation. An open mind, or leaving stuff in abeyance would be better until you find the truth or untruth of it for yourself , but it does seem as if you've made up your mind.
It's my understanding that Tibetan Buddhism is more esoteric than other schools, so I can understand why karma and reincarnation is so important for your practice.
It can be applied to any situation, it just states that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.
Buddha achieved it in six years, according to the conventional story of his life.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, and for me to better understand your position, if we were to remove the concepts of karma and enlightenment from the Buddha's teachings, what would you say is left, specifically?
I guess people differ with what they regard as a natural process. For me, anything that involves the transmigration of lifeforce or soul or memory or personality etc from one body to another is beyond natural, it is supernatural.
I've heard the opposite it true, that our present deeds can affect us just as powerfully as past ones.
That's true, perhaps my mind will open to the possibility further down the road. Would you say your mind is open to the possibility that karma and reincarnation are figurative, not literal?
"Karma = our intentions. The effects of those intentions are the karmic fruits."
The story of The Buddha relates that his accumulation of positive Karma over a number of lives created the conditions for him to attain Buddhahood. There is a story that says as a beggar boy, wishing to offer to the previous Buddha, he offered a bowl of dust visualised as gold. The Buddha of that era then predicted that he would become a future Buddha.
Also, in the Therevada, a stream enterer is said to be reborn no more than 7 times before attaining Enlightenment.
There are also texts which describe the process of death and rebirth such as The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.
How can a speculation be the simplest explanation? I don't agree with your thoughts on that. No matter. i'm thinking about your question and will respond later.
Stories, sayings, and descriptions. None of these are arguments. How about the story of the Buddha as told in Confession of a Buddhist Atheist? Why doesn't that make sense without the notion of reincarnation/rebirth?
Occams razor suggests the former is more likely to be true, that is all.
Ockham's razor does not cut this one, any more than it does, say, whether the earth goes round the sun or v.v. It is a philosophical technique, not a scientific one.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, and for me to better understand your position, if we were to remove the concepts of karma and enlightenment from the Buddha's teachings, what would you say is left, specifically?"
Without Karma you still have a problem which isn't addresed - similar to the problem of evil for theists. That is the randomness of natual disasters, and when horrible events occur such as murder. Without Karma which traverses lives there is dificulty accounting for this when it happens to people who don't seem to deserve it, babies etc.
As for reincarnation, what is the nature of all the other beings on earth? Buddhism specifically regards all sentient beings as having Buddha-potential. Also what is the aim of Buddhism? You suggest that with no Karma and reincarnation it is a personal life of morality and a lack of extremes, but what for? With a one life view, it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that a hedonistic way of life would be better because it ultimately dosn't matter. Of course the Buddhist way of life contributes to contentment and society,but it is a very limited view.
From the mahayana perspective, the Bodhisattva ideal - to strive for the liberation of all beings - makes no sense.
Wthout karma or reincarnation, there is no motivation to strive for self improvement, except on a superficial social level.
This is the precise argument that the "heaven or hell hereafter" use and one on which I have pondered for a long time, particularly in debate with those who deny the metaphysical notions of karma, rebirth, heaven or hell. Why act ethically?
We can find strong arguments in favour in the philosophers, Aristotle, Kant, Spinoza and many others, to the extent that the evolutionary biologists have come up with the notion (unproven save as post hoc ergo propter hoc) that ethical behaviour has an evolutionary value.
In the end, however, and fully in the tradition of the Kalama discourse, I have tried both: to act for my own pleasure, irrespective of the effect on others, and to act for others, against my personal comfort. The psycho-emotional results have been interesting. I notice that my resultant state is preferable when I choose the ethical. Thus, simply from the point of view of personal interest and reduction of dukkha, service to others and moral action make - in my own life; I'll not judge for others - life better.
I this case we have these;
Soleil's explanation, which Paulclem took up from, is more complex. It requires many unknown variables - an unknown form of energy, an unknown form of conveyance from host to host, an unknown mechanism of memory imprinting.
Mine is simpler as it suggests the energy that once produced mind transmutes into heat. Occam's Razor favors my explanation because of this simplicity.
Thanks for answering my question Paul.
Then why account for it? Did Buddha ever teach that the world was an essentially fair place to live?
The way I see it, the cosmos is indifferent to the lives of human beings, and other living things. Outside of our planet it is positively hostile.
To paraphrase a cliche, "poop happens". Tectonic plates shift causing earthquakes and tsunami's, not because of communal karma, but because they float on liquid magma and rub against each other.
People murder because they suffer. Their minds are filled with hate and greed, jealousy and delusion. Murder occurs not because the victim deserved it due to their karma, but because of the dukkha of the murderer.
The Buddha himself said he taught only the nature of suffering, it's origin, its cessation, and the path to cessation. The rest is decoration in my opinion.
The nature of the other beings on the Earth is that they are animals who suffer. Humans are lucky in that we have the mental capacity to overcome this suffering. Animals lack this capacity and so their only hope is to benefit from our compassion. Is this fair? No, but who said life was fair?
I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way.
I quite agree. That doesn't negate it's worth as an honorable set of vows though.
If I had no motivation to improve myself in this life, why would I bother to improve myself in the next life? Better to strive to end my suffering now, while I have the awareness to do so, than take a chance and leave it to some potential future incarnation.
The emphasis in Buddhism is to try out for yourself and see what works. You could well be correct for all I know. I come at Buddhism from a non scientific background. It is interesting that Buddhism facilitates a common ground for debate for diverse interests.
"Their minds are filled with hate and greed, jealousy and delusion. Murder occurs not because the victim deserved it due to their karma, but because of the dukkha of the murderer."
Yes their minds are filled with hate - in particular Karmic circumstances where their negative Karma is ripening. Clearly they aren't filled with hate all the time or with everyone they meet. Deserved is judgemental, and the emphasis is not upon what a being has done in the past - but there is some Karmic relatinship between the perpetrator and the victim. Who is to say what the details of this are? If you can't accept reincarnation, then this obviously makes no sense, and it is just unfortunate. I feel that is an inadequate expanation for our condition though.
"The Buddha himself said he taught only the nature of suffering, it's origin, its cessation, and the path to cessation. The rest is decoration in my opinion."
He did not just teach about the above, but traditionally gave 64,000 teachings each dealing with the afflictions of the mind. If it is decoration, then it is very powerful. HH The Dalai Lama is a good example of it's embodiment.
"The nature of the other beings on the Earth is that they are animals who suffer. Humans are lucky in that we have the mental capacity to overcome this suffering. Animals lack this capacity and so their only hope is to benefit from our compassion. Is this fair? No, but who said life was fair?
I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way."
This is a very unsatisfactory explanation in my view. Lucky is not a concept that ca come close to the uncountable suffering that animals endure. How can the billions of wild animals, fish, insects etc let alone those factory farmed, benefit from human compassion? The Buddha's view of animals is that they too have Buddha potential, and are subject to karma - hence those who benefit from us and those who don't- and in time can attain Enlightenment. Nature is red in tooth and claw, there is slaughter in the seas, but I can't accept that that is it for the majority of such beings on earth.
The very difficult idea is to accept that humans have the negative potential to fall back into these states. Even if we do regain rebirth as a human, then according to teachings on anatta etc - it will not be me/ I. It will be a spiritual heir that I have caused.
"I've lived the hedonistic life, as did the Buddha, like him I've realised it is ultimately unsatisfactory, this is why I have chosen to follow his teachings. Not to negate my karmic load, not to have a better rebirth or reincarnation, just to end my suffering and (hopefully) reduce the suffering of others along the way."
In the West we are relative Princes in our lifestyles. It is a noble aim.
I agree that many of the things that happen to us are directly related to our own actions. People are rarely murdered by strangers, which implies that the motive of the killer has a basis in the actions the victim performed at some time. Car crashes are rarely random occurances but the result of carelessness, not concentrating, intoxication etc.
It's when people stretch this relationship beyond the sphere of possible influence, to say that babies are killed in house fires because of past life actions, or that people die in earthquakes because their karma led them to be in that specific place that I start questioning the credulity of the suggestion. I can understand the logic of it fine, as it's simply an extention of the logic we see around us all the time, I just personally find no basis for accepting that leap, I'm happy with some events being completely beyond my sphere of influence and happening entirely due to physical processes.
I can understand why you want to belief as you do, it gives the world a greater sense of meaning I guess. However, I find it more useful to understand a person's hate not resulting from ripening negative karma that can have a known or unknown source, but to discover precisely the origin of that hate, that way I can act to dissolve it.
I just paraphrased words that came directly from the Buddha's mouth. I'm not saying the decoration is useless, I can see how it can be very useful in given contexts, I use some of it myself.
What I am saying is that when we lose sight of the core of the Buddha's message and get wrapped up in beliefs about karma and rebirth, we end up with beliefs like Pure Land Buddhism where people don't practice the dharma at all, they just pray to Amidabha for rebirth in his pure realm.
But why? Is it because you don't like the notion, or because you genuinely can't believe the universe could be an essentially uncaring, amoral place?
Do you believe that is the fundamental truth of anatta, to explain the nature of rebirth and how it differs from reincarnation?
I think we are talking about different circumstances. Your examples happen too, but so do other inexplicable ones. Yes we are subject to accidents caused by our impaired inability to drive for whatever reason. I think we have to look at major unexpected turns in our lives to see the effects of Karma, or our impulses and interests to detect our possible karmic predispositions.
One example of positive karma happening to my wife was that she once enquired to the Office of HH The Dalai Lama about information on his teachings. She recieved a letter and booklet. Then, months later, she recieved an invitation, out of the blue from an unknown person, to hear him speak in Holland Park in London. It was a relatively small gathering with the then leader of the Church of England Robert Runcie officiating. She went and was completely taken with HH the dalai Lama, and has been a Buddhist ever since.
My wife was a former Christian, who had been interested in Tibet, but knew little of Buddhism. The potential for her to re-make a connection with Tibetan culture in general and HH The Dalai Lama in particular was triggered by her intention to find out more about him. Someone sent her the invitation - she at first thought it was a joke by one of her friends who knew of her interest. This event had a major effect on my wife's and my life.
Yes - this is the charge against theists who believe in heaven and those who believe in reincarnation. The implication is that without this fantasy, then the person can't handle life, or they benefit from the crutch that this gives them. It is understandable. I believe that there is Karma and reincarnation for various reasons including rather subjective experiences that would not count as evidence to anyone else, but which have meaningfor me. This doesn't help our discussion though.
Another aspect is that having slightly tasted the teachings in my life and having applied them, and - like Simon The Pilgrim having seen the results of both positive and negative attitudes to life and their effects, I can trust the teachings. I can't say that I have experienced the truth of Karma or reincarnation in the meditative sense, but i feel i have enough experience to be able to say that what I have done works. From this i can surmise that the rest of the teachings will work - though I have to work it to find out the truth of it and put it into effect.
I understand what you're saying, but do you appreciate the extent of the interconnectedness of The Buddha's teachings. It fits together tremendously well. It is still The Buddha's path, and examination of texts from different traditions just show the consistency of the teachings. Karma and rebirth are core teachings, and I don't see how thy are distractins from following the Noble 8 fold Path. In fact i've just Googled Noble 8-Fold Path and:
1. Right View Right view is the beginning and the end of the path, it simply means to see and to understand things as they really are and to realise the Four Noble Truth. As such, right view is the cognitive aspect of wisdom. It means to see things through, to grasp the impermanent and imperfect nature of worldly objects and ideas, and to understand the law of karma and karmic conditioning. Right view is not necessarily an intellectual capacity, just as wisdom is not just a matter of intelligence. Instead, right view is attained, sustained, and enhanced through all capacities of mind. It begins with the intuitive insight that all beings are subject to suffering and it ends with complete understanding of the true nature of all things. Since our view of the world forms our thoughts and our actions, right view yields right thoughts and right actions.
From:
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/eightfoldpath.html
"In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28100.29_4-0" class="reference">[5]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28101.29_5-0" class="reference">[6]</sup> In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic, and certainly not a scientific result.<sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28109.29_6-0" class="reference">[7]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28110.29_7-0" class="reference">[8]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28111.29_8-0" class="reference">[9]</sup><sup id="cite_ref-fn_.28112.29_9-0" class="reference">[10]"</sup>
Yes - The Buddha's teachings say samasara is uncaring and amoral because of the beings who inhabit it, through their ignorence craving etc, are uncaring and amoral. Karma links to our own minds because we project our version of reality through our delusions that are karmically driven. The aim is to break this delusion, purify the mind and escape Samasara.
The truth of anatta is to realise the false conception of self and to clearly apprehend reality. This is just as I've thought of it, and so feel free to add or criticise this.