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.
The War on Karma
tmottes
Veteran
A discussion about the various assumptions/arguments about/against karma and one person's rebuttals.
The War on Karma
The War on Karma
0
Comments
Here is another speech by him on karma and causality. Only 2 of the 3 parts are available; but after listening to them both, I didn't feel like I was missing anything.
I don't want to throw karma into the bin...but I want to clarify what it means and what it doesn't mean, and what it includes and what it doesn't include. I've always said that the basic concept is logical and works.
And, I don't want to throw rebirth into the bind, either. But before I accept it OR reject it, I want a little more evidence that it exists and how it works.
So please stop misstating "our" position.
Sometimes it's just plain old laziness, too (again, seeing that in myself); it's no accident that prostrations, for example, are "Westernized" out of existence in some practices. I myself am strangely drawn to the dignified practice of sitting on the puffy cushion, as opposed to grunting through the sweat-inducing prostrations. I'm sure it's because prostrations are an out-dated relic of medieval theocratic misogyny.
First, its title. At least as far as our forum goes, I haven't heard anyone declaring war on the concept of karma. War? Really? Dropping bombs, napalm, hand to hand combat, ICMB? Where's the war? I don't see it the war. I don't even see any one doing any "attacking" of the concept. Even non-Buddhists I've talked to about karma have generally said to me that -- overall -- the concept makes sense. In this forum, I don't even recall anyone saying karma doesn't exist. What I have heard are discussions where one of us will say that karma works a particular way, or gives an example of karma, and then someone else that they don't really think it works that way.
That's a discussion, not a war, and not an attack. And it kinda bothers me that the subtle tone I got from the talk was that "you gotta believe X".
During the Republican primaries, one of the phrases that was sometimes used by "President Obama's war on Christianity". There is no such war. And, in reference to the newspaper stories about the possibility of Jesus having a wife, I am reminded of a time that topic came up before, and a Christian friend of mine asked what I thought about that "war on Christianity". And my response was simple -- if you found proof tomorrow that Jesus was married, would you and your Christian friends stop being Christians? Her answer was no, and my response was, "So where is the war?"
As I stated in my OP, this is one mans rebuttals based on his understanding of the canon. If you feel otherwise and wish to participate in this thread, you should express how you feel and why. In reference to the title, war is not limited to armed conflict: war is also a state of competition, conflict, and/or hostility between different groups of people. I would say that it is an accurate title. If it was entitled Attacks on Karma, perhaps I could see your point; however, "war on" doesn't imply an attack against karma, simply conflict between groups of people that subscribe to different schools of thought on a single concept.
I would suggest we not get hung up on the title, as it is not the main point or message.
So I discussed a concern with some things I heard in the recording.
First, it's not just the title but he's going on to describe the Western skeptical viewpoint as an attack and war on the concept of karma itself. Then he goes on to describe four ways in which we attack karma (his words). My immediate objection is that there is no such thing as a war on karma, and nowhere have I seen karma attacked in the four ways he described. This attack on karma is entirely in his own mind. It is not at all what even my own extreme skeptical stand against past life karma actually is.
When he starts, he defines karma as actions have consequences. Not a single Western Buddhist or skeptic has a problem with this definition at all. But he then says one way we attack karma is by complaining about it being defined as fate or determinism, and the example he uses is, you shoot someone in a past life, you get shot in this one. He defends karma by saying, that determinism is not how he defines karma, that karma as fate is wrong.
Exactly what we skeptical Western Buddhists say about karma as fate, that he labels an attack on karma and thinks is wrong. He just repeated our criticism and said it's true when he says it, but it's a wrongful attack on karma when we say it. And he fails to see the absurdity of what he just did.
Karma as determinism or fate might not be how he defines karma, but it's how millions of Buddhists define it. A Western viewpoint never claims karma doesn't exist, only that karma as believed and used by many Buddhists is wrong.
That's just the beginning of his talk.
Oh, and he goes on a lot about intention. He thinks intention is everything in determining good and bad karma. That's also highly questionable. It's assigning bad intention to people who create bad karma. The problem is that people do all sorts of hurtful, destructive things with the best of intentions. You can beat someone to death trying to drive demons from them and only have good intentions--so that's good karma, right? So intention matters, but is not the perfect yardstick, either. A lot of suffering is caused by people with good intentions looking for ways to act on them without the wisdom to doubt their beliefs.
Regarding the attack, a quick look over at wikipedia and we can find a section dedicated to those individuals being discussed. Karma in Buddhism: Karma theory & social justice. These views could be taken as merely attempts to modernize an old and superstitious theory and that would be fair. He did prefaced this talk by saying he was a buddhist fundamentalist and interprets the canon in such a manner.
As far as your experience on hearing these attacks: just because you haven't "seen karma attacked in the four ways he described", doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I am not making any quantitative claims based on my anecdotal evidence, but on this very forum I have seen at least one comment to the effect that the buddha was a product of his time and thus picked up karma (or rebirth) from that prevailing culture. There are also other religious groups that DO use bring up his other points against karma. I don't believe he said that any westerners had a problem with karma being defined as actions have consequences. He said there were four ways that karma was being attacked:
1. on the content of the belief (exactly what the belief says)
2. on the basis of its providence (it didn't come from the buddha or that cultural aspects of the time were incorporated into the practice)
3. on the idea of having a belief in a buddhist practice, including karma (status of a belief)
4. on the motives for believing in karma
In terms of the "absurdity" I think you may have misunderstood what he was saying. He said that the buddha rejected the idea of determinism as a result of karma (because our current actions have effects). He goes on to say that to misunderstand/misrepresent karma as deterministic and then point that as one of its flaws, is a flawed attack. Its an attack based on a false accusation or at the very least a misunderstanding. "A Western viewpoint"... I doubt that the viewpoint of the western world on buddhism can be summed into a single viewpoint and neither does he say so. I can't put words in his mouth, but I would assume he would agree that millions of Buddhists' (eastern or western) understanding of karma is incomplete or not the way the Buddha intended it to be understood. He never says that "intention is everything in determining good and bad karma." He refers to karmic tendencies based on actions, with intentions guiding those actions. He doesn't say that good and bad intention are what is important. Intention is not good or bad, those are judgements on intentions. The intention is the consequence desired. The intention for beating somebody to death trying to drive demons from them is to drive demons from a person. The action is beating somebody to death, the desired consequent is removal of demons, but the REAL consequence is death. He advocates the Buddha's teachings on analyzing our actions (bodily, verbal, and mental) before, during, and after these actions. This way, the next time we want to drive demons from a person, we won't beat them to death. Plus intentions go deeper that most people realize. What is the true intention behind driving demons from a person? To change that person to fit our view? To make our lives easier? To get some sadistic pleasure? Some combination? Analyze that intention through the same process and repeat. In the most compassionate and sincere manner, I would suggest you take you own advice and read/listen to other texts/talks by him to get a more complete picture of his perspective on Buddhism. You might discover that you actually believe the same things more than you know.
Man those quotes got all screwed up.
By the definition that I posted from wiki (Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy.), I think fundamentalist seems to fit his interpretation of buddhism.
I try evaluate things based on what they are and not a label they are given. To me buddhist fundamentalism is a way to stay more focused on the core teachings (4 noble truths and the 8 fold noble path) and how they are applied to my life. A way to not get bogged down in all the commentary that comes afterward. To take the ethics, concentration (meditation), and wisdom at the core and find out how it works in my life. If we accept the sutras are the buddha's words-or at least accurate recounts, then all the information is there to take it for a test run.
-
Once again, I said I agree he could have chosen more skillful words for his talk. Perhaps he was feeling defensive that morning. I don't know. While I see hyperbole, I am not sure I see the same level of hyperbole that you see.
-
Intention
Dictionary: Thesaurus: Wiki: I don't see value judgements in that. Can you explain how you come to the conclusion that intention include a judgement?
1. I could kill the snake.
2. I could try to capture the snake.
3. I could have hired a pest control expert.
4. I could have left the snake in the window well and let it starve to death and die from dehydration.
When I consider which action to take, I have to make a value judgement. And which decision I make determines the karma I "earn", and that is based on that value judgement.
I think (this is just my opinion) that since karma is devoid of a third-party judge, and is simply a natural result of cause and effect, it's good to think of it in the same way we think of sticking our finger into a candle flame--the natural result is a (what we consider) unpleasant effect on the finger. It doesn't mean a god has punished us; it's just the nature of that cause and effect. Taking a life has a range of natural effects, too.
Thinking of the earth or life as one big organism kind of works, too--we think the snake is separate from us, but in reality it's like stepping on your left foot with your right. As part of the same organism, we feel pain when our right foot tromps our left; as part of the web of life (karma), we feel the pain of ending the life or damaging the life of some other part of the organism.
Context matters, also, and I'm not the intended audience. For Zen Masters, the lecture would consist of, "Act from clear mind, and then karma or no karma, no problem! Drink your tea. Next question?"
The karma is then based solely on that action and there is no need for value judgement. The outcome I would intend would be freedom of the snake without causing its death.
Also our actions effect other people and their actions effect us. When people talk about karma, including our Bhikkhu in the link, they tend to treat it like a series of decisions and outcomes isolated and leading to a chosen destination. Life isn't like that. It's not you in a car with a dharma map heading out on the road, turning left and then right and straight and left again and the signpost says enlightenment ahead. Instead it's a wild bumpercar ride with everyone slamming into you from all sides and you have to act and react with no time to stop and think and no idea of where turning the wheel is going to bring you in the end.
So karma is an imponderable, not because it can't be understood. Anyone who has played billiards or pool knows how karma works. Action and reaction leading to another action. Karma is an imponderable because you never have enough information to do more than guess where your own actions are going to lead you or how they're going to effect others.
But this man discovered an old woman in the supposedly empty house who had fallen and had spent days helpless and he called 911 and because of him, she lived. So bad karma brought a good result, in this case. Our model of good and bad karma didn't work. It's flawed. How come in this one instance, even with the worst of intentions (he intended to steal, not check on an old woman) and actions (breaking into someone else's house) he saved someone's life, good karma by any definition? How do you think the Bhikkhu would explain this?
I am also going to set aside the value judgments of good and bad for the time being (I may still use skillful/unskillful toward the means of eliminating suffering), we can always revisit these if necessary; however, I maintain that they are not necessary, and in fact are a hinderance, to understand the role that intent plays in karma.
Karma is not a very straightforward concept. I don't think that one can always and simply say that this particular actions leads to that particular effect. As I have head Thanissaro Bhukku say in many of his talks, there is an apparent tendency for certain effects to manifest. So to say that breaking into a house would lead to bad karma is significantly simplifying the situation and not taking into consideration other factors (past actions) that might change the current effects. If you break into a house, there is the tendency for both immediate and longer term bad effects (get arrested, get shot, etc). It is not a universal judgment that punishes "bad", or even unskillful, deeds (Thanissaro Bhukku touched on this in the OP).
I would disagree that bad karma brought good results. I don't want to say that I can show you the karmic pathway, because I can't. However, there was an intention to break into the house (cause) and then he then broke into the house (effect and cause). Once in the house there was an intention to steal (cause) and then he saw the woman (effect). Intention (cause) now changes to helping her (effect). Alternatively if he stuck to his original intention he could have robbed her and left her to die or worse, which would have had other effects. This is why there is no determinism in karma. We have choices (causes) that modify effects
Our intentions range in scope from the very gross to the most subtle. Intention is just the beginning of this chain of karma: its the actions we take based on those intentions that really show us effects. This is why the buddha suggested we analyze our body, verbal, and mental "actions" before (intention), during (action), and after (effect).
It isn't that karma is flawed, it is that our understanding of how (or ability to understand how) it works is flawed. This is why the Buddha called it an imponderable.
Why not go sit with the ill will and delusion this thread stinks of? That will pay far greater dividends than masturbating about cosmological/ontological issues, which Thanissaro says the Buddha primarily intended to teach as a way to encourage the assiduous study of here-and-now karma.
A poster above feels ill-will in our debate? I hope not. But, whatever you think of karma or how it works, I feel asking difficult questions helps us come to our own understandings.
I also agree with you that I see no ill will here, and that such discussions are the only way to learn and begin to see different viewpoints.
Those sutras really rock when they get going, don't they? Dark and bright kamma. I do like that.
However one looks at it. lololol
I was thinking as @Cinorjer wrote...that...wait, that
robber's intention changed, as soon as he 'intended'
to help someone, rather than hurting (robbing)..
therefore...pointing out the difference between intention
and Karma. We all know, you dont get away with shit.
He will get the Karma from the intention to rob, but also
the Karma from the intention of helping/compassion.
BTW....
"........For me, Buddhism is as much as anything a message of liberation from the chains of karma, meaning the hopeless task of dividing the world and your actions into good and bad and acting only for the good."
:clap:
In the Q&A session at the end of the talk, some listeners raise the usual objections to the traditional Buddhist cosmology, and Thanissaro's response is basically "Why don't you try the practice and see what happens, I'm not asking you to take this on faith." He is simply asking that people train themselves in present-moment awareness and seeing the suffering, impermanence and egolessness of each aspect of experience. You don't need to believe anything at all to try that, other than that it might prove to be worthwhile for some reason.
It is certainly reasonable to conclude as you have that the Buddha of the Pali suttas talks about recollections of past lives, but those came quite late in the process of his awakening and did not motivate his practice, so they are not necessary to Right View, Right Effort, etc. (The inevitability of sickness, old age and death motivated his practice, and you only have to look around to believe in these things.) As Thanissaro says in that chapter I linked earlier, the Buddha's practice was to inquire into the kamma arising in each present moment of experience. If some of that kamma involves recollection of past lives, fine, that's what you inquire into. Until then, it's at best a fabrication which distracts from the practice the Buddha recommended, and more likely a further support for ego and ill will. (No matter which side of the argument you come down on.)
It is possible to participate in a thread like this while abiding in the four foundations of mindfulness, but it is damn hard. For that reason, most of the effort which has gone into this thread is at best useless, and in some cases clearly actively harmful to the actual goals of Buddhist practice.
In any case I don't think it makes sense to impose one meaning in all situations.
If there is reincarrnation or rebirth, then it seems logical that it would be subject to karma or causality. Aside from that, there are likely as many possibilities as there are minds to conceive them as to how such a process could work exactly.
Being a good and compassionate person may lead into nirvana or it may lead into Buddhahood or it may lead to another round of life on our way to being a bodhissatva... It could lead nowhere. It could lead to a big letdown or it could lead to some version of Hell.
No matter where it leads, it makes the here and now better so we shouldn't worry too much about what happens after this moment (lifetime). Right now, compassion results in much smiling.
That's karma.