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.
@genkaku beautifully written, thanks that's fantastic. At some point we have to leave the boat but we need the boat in the beginning. Loved it'.
@ourself I won't go into karma because this isn't what this thread is about but I know what your saying. I didn't mean just our conventional memory but also subconscious memory as well as on a cellular level. Like our genes etc. But yes, morality and psychological suffering is definitely in there.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@genkaku said:
Bit by bit the practice tells you what you want to know. It introduces you to your longtime neighbor and friend. It's nothing special -- what the hell ... you have always been friends, always been neighbors -- but things just make better sense. Practice dispenses with belief and hope. It lightens the load. No need to waste time ... just look back and remember that belief and hope were once useful and it's OK ... but it is not so necessary.
That was really good but it only let me quote the last bit. It hits home for me because I do have it in for hope and usually won't admit I still feel it from time to time.
I can't say the same thing about belief though and feel it's an anchor.
@Earthninja, no worries. Although the 4NTs and the 8fold do make a lot of sense in light of causation.
Maybe I missed something in the o/p but is this thread questioning the existence of Sidhartha Gautama or the validity of the teachings?
Maybe I missed something in the o/p but is this thread questioning the existence of Sidhartha Gautama or the validity of the teachings?
@ourself -- I can't speak for the OP, but would contend, nevertheless, that any serious Buddhist would question both the history and validity of teachings in Buddhism. Without such questioning, how could Buddhism come to life?
It sometimes helps to remember that the word "Buddha" means "awake." It does not necessarily refer to a particular individual, though, like a Christmas tree ornament, it's sometimes easier to find a tree on which to hang the ornament ... as for example Siddhartha Gautama.
Personally, I imagine that Gautama was an actual-factual man. Whether he was or wasn't hardly matters ... this is just my preference. It is not a preference that is central to any serious Buddhism. If he existed, OK. If he didn't exist, OK. My job is not to set up fortifications around Gautama and/or his teachings, but to find out whether this fairy-tale or not-fairy-tale holds water: Is it true? And the only way I can do that, as far as I can see, is to be "awake."
@ourself mr genkaku nailed it again. It's both.
That's basically what the thread is about.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
That's exactly what I've been saying, guys.
However if the thread is about his actual existence then there are different points to be made than if it is about the validity of the dharma.
Which route is going to take us off topic? If karma has nothing to do with the question at hand then the question needs to be better defined.
If it is only the 4NTs and the 8fold being questioned then only experience will give you an answer.
If it's the whistles and bells of existence vs. non or rebirth vs. reincarnation or neither or both then it is up to your preference and stage on the path.
We can be conned into believing any of that if we are so inclined.
It's to do with belief versus actual lived experience, the belief in Buddha and quoting what he says as if it were a fact. Karma can be included as this is Buddhas teaching but more to do however take it as a fact without investigating exactly what it is. But not exclusively karma. Can be any teaching. Are they actual truth? Or so we just take them on good faith as truth.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Earthninja said:
Thanks for the great posts guys, I know most of you seem to be switched on and investigate rather than take this stuff as fact.
Many people don't however and I must admit I fell victim to and probably still do to beliefs.
Take karma for instance, we can ram Suttas down each other's throats but what does it mean to YOU? Experientially? Do you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt what it is? If not, then find out. Most people here seem to be on the path of finding out.
Many monks says that Buddhist must also meditate but they don't. Vipassana Meditation can make it understand through experience than just understanding it intellectually.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Earthninja said:
It's to do with belief versus actual lived experience, the belief in Buddha and quoting what he says as if it were a fact. Karma can be included as this is Buddhas teaching but more to do however take it as a fact without investigating exactly what it is. But not exclusively karma. Can be any teaching. Are they actual truth? Or so we just take them on good faith as truth.
What I do is take them as precious and then weigh them for logic and continuity.
Do you know many people that teach as fact that which they have not experienced?
@Earthninja said:Bit vague mate, that's a very very general idea. You could just rename it cause and effect.
That's basically what kamma is. The suttas describe beings reappearing in different destinations according to their actions, which you could interpret as applying to one lifetime or to many lifetimes. "You reap what you sow" gives a good feel for it.
I don't see the significance of memory though. If you drink too much tonight you'll have a hangover tomorrow morning, regardless of whether you remember getting drunk.
My own personal belief is that the idea that Buddhist scriptures are "the word(s) of Buddha" is nonsense. I don't care what anyone says about the "oral tradition", most of us can't remember what we ate for lunch 4 days ago. The idea that Buddha's words could be passed down verbatim generation after generation after generation is absurd.
What I do believe is that a man we call Buddha today planted a seed of knowledge and that through many paraphrases over the centuries his general teachings were passed down, probably refined, to the point that we have what is before us now.
But so what?
The school of thought known as Buddhism is something that appeals to millions of people. Let's say that tomorrow we found out that in reality Buddha himself never existed. Should be then throw out the teachings? No. We know the wisdom in many of the teachings. If something is wise, I don't where it came from. Wisdom is good whether it came from Buddha, Jesus, or Captain Kangaroo. It's just that there is so much valid wisdom within Buddhism.
@vinlyn said:
My own personal belief is that the idea that Buddhist scriptures are "the word(s) of Buddha" is nonsense. I don't care what anyone says about the "oral tradition", most of us can't remember what we ate for lunch 4 days ago. The idea that Buddha's words could be passed down verbatim generation after generation after generation is absurd.
I don't think many would say that they were passed down verbatim, but the memorization and transmission of ancient texts and teachings was an important part of Indian tradition. People trained at an early age, committing important texts to heart. And this still happens today. As Klaus Karttunen notes in his article, Orality vs. written text: mediaeval developments in Vedic ritual literature:
It is an amazing tour-de-force of oral transmission that there still are Brahmans, who have learned their Veda in the traditional way, living gurukule at the teacher's house, practising the ancient method of adhyayana, and this way learning long texts by heart without any supporting written material. In the case of the most ancient text the line of such oral transmission goes back more than 3000 years, and the text has still remained virtually unchanged. There are even texts for which there are no manuscripts at all, with possible exception of modern notes written from an oral source. This is sometimes the case in rare Sakhas, e.g. with the more elaborate Ganas or song-books of the Jaiminiya Samaveda.
Concluding that:
While the most important texts canonised by tradition have always been learnt by heart, and still are, albeit by fewer and fewer Brahmans, in the course of centuries there arose an extensive scholarly and practical literature around them and this is often transmitted in written form. But in spite of this written tradition, we should not undervalue the ability of an Indian Vedic scholar of the traditional kind, trained from the age of seven, to learn by heart every text he considers important enough.
As with the written word, where one misprint can alter countless manuscripts, oral transmission is open also to corruption; but I don't think it's absurd to acknowledge the general reliability of this method of transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next.
Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I see causation and karma to differ by much more than morality. I think of causation in the sense that lunar-terrestrial gravitational interaction causes tides. Karma feels to me like an entirely different relationship, more of a cosmic association among thoughts, deeds, and circumstances. And morality need not necessarily be associated with either.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
@Steve_B said:
Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I see causation and karma to differ by much more than morality. I think of causation in the sense that lunar-terrestrial gravitational interaction causes tides. Karma feels to me like an entirely different relationship, more of a cosmic association among thoughts, deeds, and circumstances. And morality need not necessarily be associated with either.
Could you give an example of a karmic relationship that is not also an example of causation?
Or an example of causation where karma could be absent?
I've been trying to think of one to no avail.
I don't think the difference between causation and karma is morality, I just think that we are more likely to call causation "karma" when there is a moral lesson to be learned from it.
Karma is defined as action and every action is both a cause and an effect. Unless there could be a first cause which I doubt.
You don't have to try to think of one -- i gave you a causation example where karma could be absent.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
@Steve_B said:
You don't have to try to think of one -- i gave you a causation example where karma could be absent.
You gave an example of the moon and tides. There is action involved and so there is karma.
If the difference between causation and karma is morality then you would be correct.
Karma is not an english word but it's english counterpart is action.
I conclude that I won't be the one who can help you. Good luck in your search! Let us know how it goes.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
@Steve_B said:
I conclude that I won't be the one who can help you. Good luck in your search! Let us know how it goes.
The lament of the confused.
It's ok if you didn't know that karma means action. No reason to get huffy.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The only problem I have with karma being strictly based on morality is that it's supposed to be a natural law with no external ruling agency.
The implications of a natural law being based on intent seems to lead to a kind of creationist world view where karma is a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go.
@ourself said:
The only problem I have with karma being strictly based on morality is that it's supposed to be a natural law with no external ruling agency.
The implications of a natural law being based on intent seems to lead to a kind of creationist world view where karma is a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go.
It should be kept in mind that the workings of psychological causation, kamma, is just as 'natural' as any other natural or 'fixed' law. Just as something like gravity doesn't necessarily require an external ruling agency (although it doesn't preclude one, either), kamma can be seen to operate in the same way. This is even more evident in the various Abhidhammic texts and commentarial traditions, which detail how specific intentions (skillful, unskillful, or neutral) act as the proximate cause of, and/or supporting condition for, the arising of certain feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) in our own minds, and to some extent how they influence the experience of other minds external to our own. Because this relational process between mental dhammas is experienced subjectively, it may appear from our point of view as a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go; but when analyzed from a causal standpoint, it's ultimately still a process of conditionality.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Jason said:
It should be kept in mind that the workings of psychological causation, kamma, is just as 'natural' as any other natural or 'fixed' law. Just as something like gravity doesn't necessarily require an external ruling agency (although it doesn't preclude one, either), kamma can be seen to operate in the same way. This is even more evident in the various Abhidhammic texts and commentarial traditions, which detail how specific intentions (skillful, unskillful, or neutral) act as the proximate cause of, and/or supporting condition for, the arising of certain feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) in our own minds, and to some extent how they influence the experience of other minds external to our own. Because this relational process between mental dhammas is experienced subjectively, it may appear from our point of view as a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go; but when analyzed from a causal standpoint, it's ultimately still a process of conditionality.
Perfect. So that would mean that although and of course intent isn't free of karma, karma is not solely based on intent.
I'm not sure what you mean. Kamma = intention, i.e., it refers to our actions motivated by intention, the latter of which conditions how the results of those actions are experienced. Although this process includes physical phenomena, it's primarily a mental (hence subjective) one, beginning with intention (cetana) and ending with feeling (vedana).
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Yes, kamma literally translates as 'action,' and the Buddha goes further by defining his usage of it as intention, his goal being to help us reduce our experience of suffering.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we're talking about a predominately psychological process here. I think the issue many have with the concept of kamma is that we tend to place moral value judgments on our experience, saying that pleasant experiences = good and unpleasant experiences = bad, so that if we have an unpleasant experience, we conceive that we must have done something bad to deserve it as punishment.
From the Buddhist POV, I think it'd be correct to say that the experience of an unpleasant feeling may be the result of an unskillful action on our part (actions rooted in greed, aversion, or delusion), which is something we can investigate. But it's not a punishment, only causality (x intention conditioning the arising of y feeling, etc.). There's nothing illogical about this as far as I can see, and it's something we can train ourselves to be more observant of in our own experience.
In essence, people don't seem to have trouble understanding causality when it comes to physical laws and processes, but they have difficulty perceiving mental processes in the same way.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
No, because I think this distinction is useful, adding another dimension that's often ignored, which is why the Buddha felt the need to point it out in the first place. In the Buddha's time, there were many who only focused on, say, bodily actions and not the intentions underlying them, or those who saw no difference between intentional and unintentional actions (e.g., see MN 56). And I don't think it's much different today, hence the continued relevance in my mind.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
Ok, but then the distinction is still a convention even if it is a useful one.
A case of not being able to handle the truth doesn't actually change the truth.
I'm still not sure what you're implying. That part of the distinction is untrue?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
@Jason said:
I'm still not sure what you're implying. That part of the distinction is untrue?
I think it's true with or without the distinction but that the distinction makes it easier to keep it in mind.
I don't think causation works differently enough when intent is involved to call it by a different label except as a way of calling attention to intent.
I think I see what you're saying. You're using kamma and causation synonymously, whereas I'm using the former to refer to a specific form of causation. As a general principle, I suppose that the two can be used interchangeably in the sense that they're both referring to relationships between events or phenomena. There may be aspects of kamma that are unique to it compared to other forms of causality, though, which is something worth considering. But even if not, I think it's worth having a vocabulary that reflects this distinction for the sake of clarity in regard to the soteriological framework we call Buddhism. These teachings have a purpose, after all. That's my two cents, anyway.
@ourself said:The only problem I have with karma being strictly based on morality is that it's supposed to be a natural law with no external ruling agency.
You could describe kamma as a natural law applying to the behaviour of sentient beings. It doesn't apply to natural systems like the weather.
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
I don't believe Kamma, under any circumstance was ever intended to be a process applicable to non-sentient natural systems, although of course, the effects of the weather, and the consequences of other natural processes, affect us as sentient beings.
Whether the process is mild and subtle, or extreme and violent, we may behave in specific ways by either taking advantage of those processes, or being at their mercy.
Either way, it's what we do as a result of what is happening to us - that is the Kamma/Vipaka process to focus on.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2015
@Jason said:
I think I see what you're saying. You're using kamma and causation synonymously, whereas I'm using the former to refer to a specific form of causation. As a general principle, I suppose that the two can be used interchangeably in the sense that they're both referring to relationships between events or phenomena. There may be aspects of kamma that are unique to it compared to other forms of causality, though, which is something worth considering. But even if not, I think it's worth having a vocabulary that reflects this distinction for the sake of clarity in regard to the soteriological framework we call Buddhism. These teachings have a purpose, after all. That's my two cents, anyway.
Actually I think you're right. Karma may be a kind of causation but causation is not a kind of karma.
Maybe it's just that I bolted out of sleep 10 minutes ago to run and give the kid her pacifier and not altogether with it but between your post and those of @federica and @SpinyNorman there is a lot of sense.
Who says that discussions about these things never make anyone see differently?
@Steve_B said:
You don't have to try to think of one -- i gave you a causation example where karma could be absent.
I guess you did at that.
It gave karma more of a reality for me to associate it with causation but now I likely won't use the word much.
I'm not too concerned about past or future lifetimes and feel the only relevance is here and now. There is simply no evidence for karma in this life that I can see.
I can be mindful of cause and effect and it will still be the same as if I'm being mindful of karma.
Until this moment it is not clear for me why would the universe care about our thoughts, actions and speech. Why would something that's beyond moral care about the way we spend our lives?
@tibellus
Until this moment it is not clear for me why would the universe care about our thoughts, actions and speech. Why would something that's beyond moral care about the way we spend our lives?
As I said, people tend to have trouble seeing causality in the context of mental processes. But such causation isn't dependent on a universe knowing or caring about its workings, just as, say, the laws of thermal dynamics don't. One could just as easily ask, Why would the universe care about how physical quantities behave under various circumstances?
Think of it this way. What we call morality is a way of expressing this type of psychological, casual determinism and our attempts to maximize our experience of pleasure and happiness and minimize our experience of pain and suffering. Not because the universe cares, but because we do.
@ourself said:
I'm not too concerned about past or future lifetimes and feel the only relevance is here and now. There is simply no evidence for karma in this life that I can see.
If you've ever done something out of anger that hurt another and then experienced remorse, that's kamma. If you've ever given someone a gift out of kindness and generosity and then experienced joy at their happiness, that's kamma. The evidence is all around us, within our own minds.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
If you've ever done something out of anger that hurt another and then experienced remorse, that's kamma. If you've ever given someone a gift out of kindness and generosity and then experienced joy at their happiness, that's kamma. The evidence is all around us, within our own minds.
I do get what you're saying, I really do. I've gone back and forth on karma/kamma over the years for a few different reasons but it seems it's going to stick with this new understanding which is funny because yesterday at this time I wanted to distinguish kamma from ordinary causation but it wouldn't work.
For some reason I can now see it as intentional causation plain as day.
I did come home to a basement full of sewage and am waiting for an inspection as I type so that might have helped as I am optimistic it wasn't kamma.
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
The karma of the whole humankind? Climate changes, erosion, pollution, pandemias originated from livestocks... Does the cultural evolution, the positive changes in our thoughts, actions and speech save our future?
@Daozen said:
You don't have to believe a thing. Just try it and see for yourself.
But in the beginning, you can't try out everything and then see for yourself. That is why belief or faith is one of the five strengths needed to travel the spiritual path.
In Buddhism, faith is less a prerequisite, and more a result, of practice.
2
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@misecmisc1 said:
But in the beginning, you can't try out everything and then see for yourself. That is why belief or faith is one of the five strengths needed to travel the spiritual path.
Yes, but, as @Daozen points out, you can only cultivate belief/faith, once you have tested the waters. Before then, it's fine to have doubt, questions - even suspicion - with regard to what you are taught, by whom and how.
Belief touches a very little section of the Buddha's teachings: And even then, you do not experience any form of 'punishment' or 'retribution' if you choose (quite freely) to not 'believe' an aspect of Buddhist teachings (Kamma, re-birth, reincarnation....) You're not obligated or compelled to believe anything, if it does not sit well with you.
All that is asked is that you keep an open mind to that which you do not fully undertand or accept....
Faith is cultivated by trial, experience and testing what you learn, to every degree until it becomes impossible for you personally to refute, and you accept it fully as a way to follow on your path.
Faith, as @Daizen correctly indicates, is a result. Some call it 'Confidence'.
I am Confident.
That's where my strength lies.
But only after a time of study, examination, scrutiny and understanding.
Not before.
before starting on the path to enlightenment, you have to believe there is something called enlightenment - if you do not believe there is enlightenment, why will you try to practice spiritual path? to end suffering seems a possible answer, but if there is no life after death, why put so much stress on non-attachment and why not try to enjoy life with sensual pleasures as much as one can?
i think spirituality needs 2 things as its basis to even stand - karma and rebirth. karma may be tested in some cases, but there has to be a need to believe in rebirth for any intention of - exiting from the cycle of birth and death - to even arise at the first place.
Comments
@genkaku beautifully written, thanks that's fantastic. At some point we have to leave the boat but we need the boat in the beginning. Loved it'.
@ourself I won't go into karma because this isn't what this thread is about but I know what your saying. I didn't mean just our conventional memory but also subconscious memory as well as on a cellular level. Like our genes etc. But yes, morality and psychological suffering is definitely in there.
That was really good but it only let me quote the last bit. It hits home for me because I do have it in for hope and usually won't admit I still feel it from time to time.
I can't say the same thing about belief though and feel it's an anchor.
@Earthninja, no worries. Although the 4NTs and the 8fold do make a lot of sense in light of causation.
Maybe I missed something in the o/p but is this thread questioning the existence of Sidhartha Gautama or the validity of the teachings?
@ourself -- I can't speak for the OP, but would contend, nevertheless, that any serious Buddhist would question both the history and validity of teachings in Buddhism. Without such questioning, how could Buddhism come to life?
It sometimes helps to remember that the word "Buddha" means "awake." It does not necessarily refer to a particular individual, though, like a Christmas tree ornament, it's sometimes easier to find a tree on which to hang the ornament ... as for example Siddhartha Gautama.
Personally, I imagine that Gautama was an actual-factual man. Whether he was or wasn't hardly matters ... this is just my preference. It is not a preference that is central to any serious Buddhism. If he existed, OK. If he didn't exist, OK. My job is not to set up fortifications around Gautama and/or his teachings, but to find out whether this fairy-tale or not-fairy-tale holds water: Is it true? And the only way I can do that, as far as I can see, is to be "awake."
@ourself mr genkaku nailed it again. It's both.
That's basically what the thread is about.
That's exactly what I've been saying, guys.
However if the thread is about his actual existence then there are different points to be made than if it is about the validity of the dharma.
Which route is going to take us off topic? If karma has nothing to do with the question at hand then the question needs to be better defined.
If it is only the 4NTs and the 8fold being questioned then only experience will give you an answer.
If it's the whistles and bells of existence vs. non or rebirth vs. reincarnation or neither or both then it is up to your preference and stage on the path.
We can be conned into believing any of that if we are so inclined.
It's to do with belief versus actual lived experience, the belief in Buddha and quoting what he says as if it were a fact. Karma can be included as this is Buddhas teaching but more to do however take it as a fact without investigating exactly what it is. But not exclusively karma. Can be any teaching. Are they actual truth? Or so we just take them on good faith as truth.
Ah, so it's about those that think they know.
Ok then. Have fun with that.
Many monks says that Buddhist must also meditate but they don't. Vipassana Meditation can make it understand through experience than just understanding it intellectually.
What I do is take them as precious and then weigh them for logic and continuity.
Do you know many people that teach as fact that which they have not experienced?
That's basically what kamma is. The suttas describe beings reappearing in different destinations according to their actions, which you could interpret as applying to one lifetime or to many lifetimes. "You reap what you sow" gives a good feel for it.
I don't see the significance of memory though. If you drink too much tonight you'll have a hangover tomorrow morning, regardless of whether you remember getting drunk.
My own personal belief is that the idea that Buddhist scriptures are "the word(s) of Buddha" is nonsense. I don't care what anyone says about the "oral tradition", most of us can't remember what we ate for lunch 4 days ago. The idea that Buddha's words could be passed down verbatim generation after generation after generation is absurd.
What I do believe is that a man we call Buddha today planted a seed of knowledge and that through many paraphrases over the centuries his general teachings were passed down, probably refined, to the point that we have what is before us now.
But so what?
The school of thought known as Buddhism is something that appeals to millions of people. Let's say that tomorrow we found out that in reality Buddha himself never existed. Should be then throw out the teachings? No. We know the wisdom in many of the teachings. If something is wise, I don't where it came from. Wisdom is good whether it came from Buddha, Jesus, or Captain Kangaroo. It's just that there is so much valid wisdom within Buddhism.
@vinlyn, Captain Kangaroo Nature just doesn't "sound" right :-)
LOL. No, not quite right, but he was pretty wise (although Mr. Greenjeans was just as wise).
I don't think many would say that they were passed down verbatim, but the memorization and transmission of ancient texts and teachings was an important part of Indian tradition. People trained at an early age, committing important texts to heart. And this still happens today. As Klaus Karttunen notes in his article, Orality vs. written text: mediaeval developments in Vedic ritual literature:
Concluding that:
As with the written word, where one misprint can alter countless manuscripts, oral transmission is open also to corruption; but I don't think it's absurd to acknowledge the general reliability of this method of transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next.
Maybe it's a semantic difference, but I see causation and karma to differ by much more than morality. I think of causation in the sense that lunar-terrestrial gravitational interaction causes tides. Karma feels to me like an entirely different relationship, more of a cosmic association among thoughts, deeds, and circumstances. And morality need not necessarily be associated with either.
Could you give an example of a karmic relationship that is not also an example of causation?
Or an example of causation where karma could be absent?
I've been trying to think of one to no avail.
I don't think the difference between causation and karma is morality, I just think that we are more likely to call causation "karma" when there is a moral lesson to be learned from it.
Karma is defined as action and every action is both a cause and an effect. Unless there could be a first cause which I doubt.
You don't have to try to think of one -- i gave you a causation example where karma could be absent.
You gave an example of the moon and tides. There is action involved and so there is karma.
If the difference between causation and karma is morality then you would be correct.
Karma is not an english word but it's english counterpart is action.
I conclude that I won't be the one who can help you. Good luck in your search! Let us know how it goes.
The lament of the confused.
It's ok if you didn't know that karma means action. No reason to get huffy.
You know this is not a competition, right?
Why do people take this stuff so personally?
Get over it already, the lot of you.
I've never heard of kamma being applied to natural processes.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/kamma.html
The only problem I have with karma being strictly based on morality is that it's supposed to be a natural law with no external ruling agency.
The implications of a natural law being based on intent seems to lead to a kind of creationist world view where karma is a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go.
It should be kept in mind that the workings of psychological causation, kamma, is just as 'natural' as any other natural or 'fixed' law. Just as something like gravity doesn't necessarily require an external ruling agency (although it doesn't preclude one, either), kamma can be seen to operate in the same way. This is even more evident in the various Abhidhammic texts and commentarial traditions, which detail how specific intentions (skillful, unskillful, or neutral) act as the proximate cause of, and/or supporting condition for, the arising of certain feelings (pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral) in our own minds, and to some extent how they influence the experience of other minds external to our own. Because this relational process between mental dhammas is experienced subjectively, it may appear from our point of view as a system of punishment and reward instead of just how things go; but when analyzed from a causal standpoint, it's ultimately still a process of conditionality.
Perfect. So that would mean that although and of course intent isn't free of karma, karma is not solely based on intent.
Or did I misread you?
I'm not sure what you mean. Kamma = intention, i.e., it refers to our actions motivated by intention, the latter of which conditions how the results of those actions are experienced. Although this process includes physical phenomena, it's primarily a mental (hence subjective) one, beginning with intention (cetana) and ending with feeling (vedana).
@Jason;
I have always seen karma translated as action by just translation alone. Adding Buddhist to the definition shouldn't really change it in my mind.
Every action is both an effect and a cause and so we are mindful of causation, no?
This thread afterall is about whether these things can stand on their own with scrutiny whether Buddha actually existed and taught the dharma or not.
Quoting a sutta on this thread is like quoting the Bible as proof of God.
Is there a logical reason why causation would work differently with intent?
Yes, kamma literally translates as 'action,' and the Buddha goes further by defining his usage of it as intention, his goal being to help us reduce our experience of suffering.
One thing that needs to be kept in mind is that we're talking about a predominately psychological process here. I think the issue many have with the concept of kamma is that we tend to place moral value judgments on our experience, saying that pleasant experiences = good and unpleasant experiences = bad, so that if we have an unpleasant experience, we conceive that we must have done something bad to deserve it as punishment.
From the Buddhist POV, I think it'd be correct to say that the experience of an unpleasant feeling may be the result of an unskillful action on our part (actions rooted in greed, aversion, or delusion), which is something we can investigate. But it's not a punishment, only causality (x intention conditioning the arising of y feeling, etc.). There's nothing illogical about this as far as I can see, and it's something we can train ourselves to be more observant of in our own experience.
In essence, people don't seem to have trouble understanding causality when it comes to physical laws and processes, but they have difficulty perceiving mental processes in the same way.
@Jason;
That's why I don't think we should bother making the distinction.
Do you see what I mean?
No, because I think this distinction is useful, adding another dimension that's often ignored, which is why the Buddha felt the need to point it out in the first place. In the Buddha's time, there were many who only focused on, say, bodily actions and not the intentions underlying them, or those who saw no difference between intentional and unintentional actions (e.g., see MN 56). And I don't think it's much different today, hence the continued relevance in my mind.
Ok, but then the distinction is still a convention even if it is a useful one.
A case of not being able to handle the truth doesn't actually change the truth.
I'm still not sure what you're implying. That part of the distinction is untrue?
I think it's true with or without the distinction but that the distinction makes it easier to keep it in mind.
I don't think causation works differently enough when intent is involved to call it by a different label except as a way of calling attention to intent.
I think I see what you're saying. You're using kamma and causation synonymously, whereas I'm using the former to refer to a specific form of causation. As a general principle, I suppose that the two can be used interchangeably in the sense that they're both referring to relationships between events or phenomena. There may be aspects of kamma that are unique to it compared to other forms of causality, though, which is something worth considering. But even if not, I think it's worth having a vocabulary that reflects this distinction for the sake of clarity in regard to the soteriological framework we call Buddhism. These teachings have a purpose, after all. That's my two cents, anyway.
Oh how the thread weaves!
No specific comment, just a fascinating weave.
You could describe kamma as a natural law applying to the behaviour of sentient beings. It doesn't apply to natural systems like the weather.
I don't believe Kamma, under any circumstance was ever intended to be a process applicable to non-sentient natural systems, although of course, the effects of the weather, and the consequences of other natural processes, affect us as sentient beings.
Whether the process is mild and subtle, or extreme and violent, we may behave in specific ways by either taking advantage of those processes, or being at their mercy.
Either way, it's what we do as a result of what is happening to us - that is the Kamma/Vipaka process to focus on.
Actually I think you're right. Karma may be a kind of causation but causation is not a kind of karma.
Maybe it's just that I bolted out of sleep 10 minutes ago to run and give the kid her pacifier and not altogether with it but between your post and those of @federica and @SpinyNorman there is a lot of sense.
Who says that discussions about these things never make anyone see differently?
I guess you did at that.
It gave karma more of a reality for me to associate it with causation but now I likely won't use the word much.
I'm not too concerned about past or future lifetimes and feel the only relevance is here and now. There is simply no evidence for karma in this life that I can see.
I can be mindful of cause and effect and it will still be the same as if I'm being mindful of karma.
Until this moment it is not clear for me why would the universe care about our thoughts, actions and speech. Why would something that's beyond moral care about the way we spend our lives?
As I said, people tend to have trouble seeing causality in the context of mental processes. But such causation isn't dependent on a universe knowing or caring about its workings, just as, say, the laws of thermal dynamics don't. One could just as easily ask, Why would the universe care about how physical quantities behave under various circumstances?
Think of it this way. What we call morality is a way of expressing this type of psychological, casual determinism and our attempts to maximize our experience of pleasure and happiness and minimize our experience of pain and suffering. Not because the universe cares, but because we do.
If you've ever done something out of anger that hurt another and then experienced remorse, that's kamma. If you've ever given someone a gift out of kindness and generosity and then experienced joy at their happiness, that's kamma. The evidence is all around us, within our own minds.
I do get what you're saying, I really do. I've gone back and forth on karma/kamma over the years for a few different reasons but it seems it's going to stick with this new understanding which is funny because yesterday at this time I wanted to distinguish kamma from ordinary causation but it wouldn't work.
For some reason I can now see it as intentional causation plain as day.
I did come home to a basement full of sewage and am waiting for an inspection as I type so that might have helped as I am optimistic it wasn't kamma.
Just for the record, it wasn't me, either....
Let's blame it on @Lobster.
Just another example of shit happens?
The karma of the whole humankind? Climate changes, erosion, pollution, pandemias originated from livestocks... Does the cultural evolution, the positive changes in our thoughts, actions and speech save our future?
You don't have to believe a thing. Just try it and see for yourself.
But in the beginning, you can't try out everything and then see for yourself. That is why belief or faith is one of the five strengths needed to travel the spiritual path.
In Buddhism, faith is less a prerequisite, and more a result, of practice.
Yes, but, as @Daozen points out, you can only cultivate belief/faith, once you have tested the waters. Before then, it's fine to have doubt, questions - even suspicion - with regard to what you are taught, by whom and how.
Belief touches a very little section of the Buddha's teachings: And even then, you do not experience any form of 'punishment' or 'retribution' if you choose (quite freely) to not 'believe' an aspect of Buddhist teachings (Kamma, re-birth, reincarnation....) You're not obligated or compelled to believe anything, if it does not sit well with you.
All that is asked is that you keep an open mind to that which you do not fully undertand or accept....
Faith is cultivated by trial, experience and testing what you learn, to every degree until it becomes impossible for you personally to refute, and you accept it fully as a way to follow on your path.
Faith, as @Daizen correctly indicates, is a result. Some call it 'Confidence'.
I am Confident.
That's where my strength lies.
But only after a time of study, examination, scrutiny and understanding.
Not before.
before starting on the path to enlightenment, you have to believe there is something called enlightenment - if you do not believe there is enlightenment, why will you try to practice spiritual path? to end suffering seems a possible answer, but if there is no life after death, why put so much stress on non-attachment and why not try to enjoy life with sensual pleasures as much as one can?
i think spirituality needs 2 things as its basis to even stand - karma and rebirth. karma may be tested in some cases, but there has to be a need to believe in rebirth for any intention of - exiting from the cycle of birth and death - to even arise at the first place.
the below web-page says something about faith in Buddhism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism