How does karma operate?

[yrreg]

Corrigendum, please, to post #1.

Please read the line in italics of the quote of post #1 following, in this way, pay attention to the segment, "the man (not a deer):"

Physical causality means when you do an act like shooting at someone you mistakenly think is a game animal like say a deer, the man (not a deer) will get killed.​

From my stock knowledge of Buddhism, karma is the belief that what you do in one life birth/death episode will be visited on you in your next life birth/death episode.

For example, if you were a man who had done a lot of good deeds like giving alms to the poor, then in your next life birth/death episode you will get born into a wealthy family thus as a scion to luxuries and fame.

We are therefore in karma talking about human acts which will determine your lot in your next life birth/death episode.

How does the belief as a principle of operation work, by physical causality or by moral causality?

[For this line, see correction above on top.] Physical causality means when you do an act like shooting at someone you mistakenly think is a game animal like say a deer, the deer will get killed.

Moral causality means when you leave a piece of property to someone like say a house, then the house gets to be owned by that someone you have specified on your death.

Guys who are Buddhists here, do you have any idea?

Sorry for the trouble.


Yrreg

 

[Mojo]

[Quoted by Mojo from yrreg:]
Tell me what is a troll...


There's a reasonably good working definition of a troll in this post:

where everyone is in the bandwagon, like taking up Buddhism or bashing acupuncture, then I will take the opposite tack.

[post from Mojo verbatim]

The whole sentence reads like this:

I am modesty aside a super skeptic: where everyone is in the bandwagon, like taking up Buddhism or bashing acupuncture, then I will take the opposite tack.

The first part of the quotation was omitted because, while the arrogance expressed in it is characteristic of a certain type of troll, it is not actually part of the definition.

[Addressing Mojo:]

If I ask you to tell me what you from your own understanding of the word and your emotional attitude toward a person you use that word on, will you tell me, and not refer me to some text not written by yourself, meaning not from your own understanding and your own attitude or mentality?

Tell me what is a troll and how do you emotionally regard a troll?​

Please, just your own understanding in your own words and also very important your emotional stance toward the subject you apply the word to.

A troll is someone who is deliberately contrary and who posts in order to stir up a reaction. Typical behaviour includes, but is not limited to, repeatedly utilising the same logical fallacies, even after they have been pointed out, starting multiple threads making substantially the same points, repeatedly asking the same questions after they have been addressed, unusually formatted posts, a pretence at politeness as a veneer over insults, and evasion of questions asked by others.

Trolls can occasionally be annoying, especially if they enter threads in order to derail them. Once identified, however, they become a joke.

It's true.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Karma is the idea that I can do whatever I want to you and I can safely assume you deserved it.

 

[yrreg]

Common statements by Buddhists on karma.

For the purpose of the present thread, "How does karma operate?" I like to produce the common statements on karma from the

The Buddhist Inter-traditions
Consensus on Commitment and Practice
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma/consensus.html​

This document attempts to educate followers of
Buddhism with a concise accurate statement of the
basic teachings of Buddhism as discussed and
agreed upon at the "Buddhism Across Cultures"
Conference held on March 15 1997 in Los Angeles.

[The consensus is composed of texts from succeeding periods in time, thus the numbering here as reproduced does not represent a consecutive ordering of the karma excerpts. Bolding of 'karma' by Yrreg.]​

12) The universe is subject to a natural causation known as karma. The
merits and demerits of a being in past experiences determine his
condition in the present one. Each man (person, ed.), therefore, has prepared
the causes of the effects which he now experiences.

13) The obstacles to the attainment of good karma may be removed by I
the observance of the following precepts, which are embraced in the
moral code of Buddhism: i.e.: (1) kill not; (2) steal not; (3) indulge in no
forbidden sexual pleasure; (4) lie not (5) take no intoxicating or stupefying
drug or liquor. Five other precepts which need not here be enumerated
should be observed by bhikkhus and all those who would attain, more
quickly than the average layman, the release from misery and rebirth.

4) The universe is the expression of law. All effects have causes and
mans character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts
Karma, meaning action-reaction, governs all existence, and man
(humankind, ed.) is the sole creator of his circumstances and his reaction to
them, his future condition, and his final destiny. By right thought and
action he can gradually purify his inner nature and so by self-realization
attain in time liberation from rebirth. The process covers great periods of
time, involving life after life on earth, but ultimately every form of life will
reach Enlightenment .

6. We accept our moral responsibility for the results of what we think,
say or do, and subscribe to the principles of karma and its outcome
(vipaka).

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara Nayake Thero,
President of the Buddhist Sangha Council of Southern California
Executive President of the American Buddhist Congress

June 7, 1997

Drafting Committee.

Venerable Havanpola Ratanasara, Ph. D.
Venerable Karuna Dharma, D. Dh.
Rev. Henry Shinn
Ananda W. P. Guruge, Ph. D.
Prof. Jack Bath, Ph.D​

The Consensus is a most useful summary from the participating groups of Buddhists on their common beliefs and practices, and to my impression redacted in words most accessible to people who are curious to know what Buddhism is all about.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Explanation of karma.

I cannot imagine anything on karma I can write to make the following paragraphs reproduced from the preceding post more clear and straightforward. However, the Buddhists here are invited to make karma more clear and straightforward if they care.

The universe is subject to a natural causation known as karma. The merits and demerits of a being in past experiences determine his condition in the present one. Each man (person, ed.), therefore, has prepared the causes of the effects which he now experiences.

The obstacles to the attainment of good karma may be removed by the observance of the following precepts, which are embraced in the moral code of Buddhism: i.e.: (1) kill not; (2) steal not; (3) indulge in no forbidden sexual pleasure; (4) lie not (5) take no intoxicating or stupefying drug or liquor. Five other precepts which need not here be enumerated should be observed by bhikkhus and all those who would attain, more quickly than the average layman, the release from misery and rebirth.

The universe is the expression of law. All effects have causes and mans character is the sum total of his previous thoughts and acts. Karma, meaning action-reaction, governs all existence, and man (humankind, ed.) is the sole creator of his circumstances and his reaction to them, his future condition, and his final destiny. By right thought and action he can gradually purify his inner nature and so by self-realization attain in time liberation from rebirth. The process covers great periods of time, involving life after life on earth, but ultimately every form of life will reach Enlightenment .

We accept our moral responsibility for the results of what we think, say or do, and subscribe to the principles of karma and its outcome (vipaka).

I believe that my own account of karma in my starting post #1 jibes perfectly with the explanation of karma given in the Consensus of Buddhists.

From my stock knowledge of Buddhism, karma is the belief that what you do in one life birth/death episode will be visited on you in your next life birth/death episode.

For example, if you were a man who had done a lot of good deeds like giving alms to the poor, then in your next life birth/death episode you will get born into a wealthy family thus as a scion to luxuries and fame.

We are therefore in karma talking about human acts which will determine your lot in your next life birth/death episode.

My purpose here as the title of the thread indicates is to find out how karma operates.

How does the belief as a principle of operation work, by physical causality or by moral causality?

Physical causality means when you do an act like shooting at someone you mistakenly think is a game animal like say a deer, the man (not a deer) will get killed.

Moral causality means when you leave a piece of property to someone like say a house, then the house gets to be owned by that someone you have specified on your death.

Guys who are Buddhists here, do you have any idea?

And I am just disappointed to notice that as before the Buddhists here will say that I don't know what a doctrine or practice in Buddhism is all about; but when I ask them to give a concrete example from actual life embodying a Buddhist belief or observance, in the present context, karma, they will dodge, and instead resort to irrelevant proclivities of their mind and heart.


Yrreg

 

[Dancing David]

I am asking you to produce even just a hypothetical person that can be represented in actual current history of people, living persons, whose life situation or a specific aspect of is due to his karma from previous life birth/death episodes (lbdes).

But if your concrete example is my banning from the Internet Infidels forum as I have reported on from myself, that is all right with me, for the purpose of our thread here on "How does karma operate?"


Yrreg

The buddha did not teach reincanation, that is a later teaching , especialy of the mahayana, the buddha taught that atman does not exist, when the body dies so does the consciousness or soul. The body dies and so does the human experience. And in fact , my limited understanding of the buddha's teachings would say that we are also not the same person moment to moment.

What then is karma, first off there is no causality except for physical causality, all moral behavior is created by physical beings.

But the most common example of karma is the generation of anger (I also suggest watching the movie Crash). Lets us postulate person Joe, they are cranky when they wake up in the morning and they cut off person Jane in traffic, person Jane is then a total idiot while she is waiting in line to purchase her latte, which makes person George late for work, and they are very irritable and decline to finish some crucial paperwork , making Gail totaly miserable. And so Joe's simple choice to spread suffering creates more suffering. Something like that.

Or more specific, I have been very rude to you on this forum, that may have engendered some emotional turmoil in your life, which then came reflected back to others around you. That sort of thing, as you sow, so shall you reap.

But it is even simpler, if we live in anticipation of negative events then it is likely that we will respond to situations in a negative fashion, to our own detriment because that creates a negative enviroment. Negative thoughts, feelings and behaviors can become a self fullfilling cycle.

No need for souls and transmission through death, merely the interdependant nature of being.

 

[fuelair]

kharma operates by chameleon.

 

[SirPhilip]

Guys who are Buddhists here, do you have any idea?

The theory of Karma isn't originally a Buddhist concept, but Jain and Hindu, which in turn were based on even older traditions stretching back into pre-history. Despite Buddhists scoffing at saints, I find the Jain literature far superior to the Buddhist in explaining how to structure ones lifestyle around the goal of uplift.

There are however, a few concepts that are important to clarify here:

• Jains believe Karma is a form of fine particles which attach to the soul.
• Jains use visual imagery - colors, areas of the body, to describe certain characteristics of the soul.

Before anyone takes these literally - I've personally found these ideas quite helpful and apt, if only from a conceptual point of view.

 

[SirPhilip]

Geez, for a troller who prides himself on criticising Buddhism, he sure gets everything he says wrong all of the time.

For everyone else: do you think that, over the last 8 months yyreg has been here and trolling Buddhism, that he has listened to or comprehended anything meaningful you've tried to argue with him?

No, but to his credit, he initiates discussion about various subjects (which is much more refreshing to talk about than the nauseum of Christianity or woo), being otherwise a worthless forum member.

 

[yrreg]

Why karma should not upset Western Buddhists.

In looking up materials in the web for my examination of why karma is a useless ‘discovery’ of Buddha, here is a webpage I came across which tells us that karma is upsetting to Western Buddhists and why; however, the author of the weblog feels sure that he has successfully reassured Western Buddhists they should not be upset.

Here, read in the excerpts of his webpage on karma, why Western Buddhists are uncomfortable, i.e., upset, with karma; and why they should really not be upset.

SAMSARA'S BLOG ( http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/blog/ )
[ Samsara's Web Server Maintained by and for Peter D. Junger
http://samsara.law.cwru.edu/#toc]

June 14, 2004 -- Karma
[ http://samsara.cwru.edu/blog/archive1/Karma.html ]

(Bracketed materials italicized, from Yrreg)​

There has been an extensive discussion of karma recently on the Buddha-L email list. One party to the discussion finally suggested that the word drives Westerners -- or, at least, Western Buddhists -- crazy.

....

[The general reason to be upset]​

What apparently gets people all upset is that the idea of karma seems to contain the moral claim that people who are born under unfortunate circumstances -- like being blind or in a country torn by war -- are simply getting their just deserts because of what they did in their past lives. Seen that way, saying that those misfortunes are a consequence of the victims' karma seems to be a really nasty case of blaming the victim.

[Confusion, the general cause for being upset]​

This reaction seems to confuse the Buddhist teaching of karma with the Christian (and other Western) traditions in which one is supposedly "judged" after one's death and sent to heaven or hell on the basis of that judgment.

[Reason #1 not to be upset] ​

The idea of judgment of this sort is not to be found anywhere in the Buddha's teaching in so far as I know. Karma is simply part of the law of cause and effect, past actions being the causes of current conditions.

[Reason #2 not to be upset]​

I think we Westerners would be much less confused by the concept of "karma," if we just recognized that "karma" refers simply to (intentional) actions. “Karma” is one of those words that are better translated than left in the original Sanskrit.

[Reason #3 not to be upset]​

The concept of "karma" cannot, after all, be taken to be a case of blaming the victim, since one of the fundamental teachings of the Buddha is that there is no victim -- no self -- to be blamed, or to suffer for that matter.

[Reason #4 not to be upset]​

The Buddha did, indeed, speak of rebirth, ...[but]it cannot refer to some sort of entity that is reborn. ...there being no self...

[Reason #5 not to be upset]​

The way out of the paradox is found in another of the Buddha's basic teachings, the teaching that all things are interdependent. ...the suffering of a victim arises not because of the victim's past actions in other lives, but as a consequence of all past actions connected by the web of interdependence.

[CONCLUSION]​

Thus, if someone suffers, that suffering, to the extent that it is caused by past actions, is caused by my past actions.

I am tempted to say, “Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

But that is to ignore the fact that there is no “I” to be guilty.

Now, you know why karma is instinctively upsetting to Western Buddhists and why it really should not be.


Yrreg

 

[SirPhilip]

And I am just disappointed to notice that as before the Buddhists here will say that I don't know what a doctrine or practice in Buddhism is all about; but when I ask them to give a concrete example from actual life embodying a Buddhist belief or observance, in the present context, karma, they will dodge, and instead resort to irrelevant proclivities of their mind and heart.

The theory of Karma is only relevant to one's mind, heart, and body (soul) and what state that will be in the future. As to the type of world you end up in, and how improbably ordered that world is, that is determined by retribution as well. Buddhism's relationship to science is the same as Jainism, Hinduism, and other eastern thinking, that is to say, the opposite: learn how to derive meaning from nothing outside the self, because that is where emancipation lies, not the world, and make permanence at the top of the universe your goal, not the bittersweet symphony of cyclic existence.

 

[SirPhilip]

Now, you know why karma is instinctively upsetting to Western Buddhists and why it really should not be.

Congratulations, Buddha Bong, you finally ◊◊◊◊ a response to yourself that made completely no sense. While these forums have tight conduct guidelines, I'll ask as nicely as I can (even though the moderators themselves probably would agree you don't deserve it): seriously, are you partially retarded or just like inciting the ire of other users and being disruptive?

[Waits for someone to quickly point out this wasn't the first time..]

 

[Mojo]

Now, you know why karma is instinctively upsetting to Western Buddhists and why it really should not be.

Because someone claims that "Western Buddhists" don't really understand the concept?

 

[nescafe]

[ http://samsara.cwru.edu/blog/archive1/Karma.html ]
Yrreg

This web page describes my understanding of karma. I am not upset by it. Am I lacking that instinct that all Western buddhists have?

 

[nescafe]

Now, you know why karma is instinctively upsetting to Western Buddhists and why it really should not be.
Yrreg

s/Western Buddhists/my strawman characterization of Western Buddhists/g
HTH, HAND

 

[yrreg]

Useless is not the right word to describe karma.

I said that karma is a useless 'discovery' of Buddha.

In looking up materials in the web for my examination of why karma is a useless ‘discovery’ of Buddha, here is a webpage I came across which tells us that karma is upsetting to Western Buddhists and why; however, the author of the weblog feels sure that he has successfully reassured Western Buddhists they should not be upset.

Here, read in the excerpts of his webpage on karma, why Western Buddhists are uncomfortable, i.e., upset, with karma; and why they should really not be upset.

[snip snip snip]

[CONCLUSION]​

Thus, if someone suffers, that suffering, to the extent that it is caused by past actions, is caused by my past actions.

I am tempted to say, “Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”

But that is to ignore the fact that there is no “I” to be guilty.​

Now, you know why karma is instinctively upsetting to Western Buddhists and why it really should not be.

Yrreg

I take back that word, useless, as applied to 'discovery' of Buddha.

Karma is a useful notion as a coping mechanism to people who do suffer some congenital defects or limitations or circumstantial constraints for being born in a less than flattering background of parents and social class.

And karma is a useful notion as a social control mechanism, so that people will not do evil but only good in society, to the peace and order and harmony among a community.


My interest is to examine whether Buddhist thinkers and Buddha's followers are aware of the distinction between the physical order and the moral order.

See next post for my explanation of the distinction between the physical order and the moral order.


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

Karma is a useful notion as a coping mechanism to people who do suffer some congenital defects or limitations or circumstantial constraints for being born in a less than flattering background of parents and social class.

You read the article, and failed to understand. Again. Do you blame inertia when you stub your toe? Karma does not mean "it is your lot in life -- wallow in it" any more than gravity means "You are on the ground -- stay there".

And karma is a useful notion as a social control mechanism, so that people will not do evil but only good in society, to the peace and order and harmony among a community.

Just like every other ethical principle.

My interest is to examine whether Buddhist thinkers and Buddha's followers are aware of the distinction between the physical order and the moral order.

Indeed. Most are aware of the difference, although I predict you will post something tangentially related and then claim that I am talking bollocks.

See next post for my explanation of the distinction between the physical order and the moral order.

I do not think we need it, but I suppose you will do so anyways.

 

[yrreg]

Dancing David says there is no moral causality.

[snip snip snip]

What then is karma, first off there is no causality except for physical causality, all moral behavior is created by physical beings.

[snip snip snip]

If that is the way Dancing David thinks, that there is nothing but physical causality, and it is the common stand of Buddhists like himself, i.e., Western Buddhists, then I think they owe it to themselves to do another serious thinking.

I invite Dancing David to explain what he states above, namely:

What then is karma, first off there is no causality except for physical causality, all moral behavior is created by physical beings.​

Do you mean categorically, Dancing David, that there is no causality but physical causality?


I am still trying to find a clear, simple, straightforward and practical way ot explaining briefly what is the distinction between the physical order and the moral order, and in regard to karma, physical causality and moral causality.

If you people here care to know some preliminary thoughts I have entertained about physical causality and moral causality, please see the following posts from myself earlier in this thread:

http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1844480&postcount=1
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1844623&postcount=5
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1847500&postcount=17
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1847765&postcount=21
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1853715&postcount=25
http://www.randi.org/forumlive/showpost.php?p=1856748&postcount=36​

In the meantime I am going to do more thinking and research in the web on testing my knowledge of the distinction between the physical order and the moral order and how it is essential in our discourse on karma's operation, the how.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

A humorous but instructive aside, if I may.

I am doing critique of Buddhism from outside of Buddhism, from the standpoint of critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and science.

And my present concern in this thread is to examine how the Buddhist notion of karma works, in particular whether from physical causality or moral causality.

I do a lot of thinking while I go through the routine chores of the home and office, and also surf the web for materials.

Every so often I come across something pertinent which I believe thinking people would find also enjoyable aside from being instructive.

Here is another nugget webpage which I hope everyone visiting this thread will find enjoyable.

As I read the webpage I thought at the start that the author is trying to make a case for karma; but as I read on it turned out to be a very non-partisan assessment of karma.

The author is inspecting the Hindu karma though, not the Buddhist karma; however, they are essentially the same, as the Buddhist karma is the daughter of the Hindu karma, aside from accidental features if there be any differences of the Buddhist karma from the Hindu karma.

Evaluating the Theory of Karma

"This is only a matter of belief. Can it be proved?" declared the barrister. "Yes, by the oral and written testimony of those who have acquired the eye to see what is happening in the astral planes above," the Great Master replied.

"Has any disciple here got that eye, so that he could tell us any of his experiences?" asked the barrister.

"There are a number of such people here," the Great Master said, "but they would not like to be brought into the limelight."

"There is no question of their gaining fame. It would just satisfy my curiosity about the subject," the barrister persisted.

"They would simply relate their experiences and tell what they have seen. How would that satisfy you that they are telling the truth?" asked the Great Master.

"I would be satisfied by their testimony," the barrister replied.

"Then why not believe my testimony," the Great Master asked, smiling.

At this everyone laughed.

"All right," the Great Master continued, "Daryai Lal will take you to a lady who has recently had such experiences."

...Bibi Rakhi then described her experiences, which I translated into English for the benefit of those who did not fully understand her language. After her narrative they were thoroughly convinced.

[Read the rest of the webpage in http://baharna.com/karma/1_Evaluating.htm]​

I hope everyone reading this webpage I bring up here at this point of the thread will have an enjoyable and at the same time instructive interlude.


Yrreg

 

[SirPhilip]

Karma is a useful notion as a coping mechanism to people who do suffer some congenital defects or limitations or circumstantial constraints for being born in a less than flattering background of parents and social class. And karma is a useful notion as a social control mechanism, so that people will not do evil but only good in society, to the peace and order and harmony among a community.

Karma relates to natural balance, and the corrupt, and uncorrupt states of the five senses. It isn't an invention, rather a pointer for what natural apprehension of sentience people do have. Retribution, good or bad, translates to "weight" or "lightness" on the soul. An example is how mass distorts space and time. Space and time have no substance, but exist by implication, and underlie all existence. When something has mass, it is easy to grasp, but the less mass it has, the harder it is to grasp. It is the same for upliftment of the will. People with the afflictions of animals cannot see any value in disciplining and unobstructing the senses. When they do, it is out of desperation; they go to church, or prostrate themselves in front of statues, begging to draw closer to the sublime, to little or no avail.

To use a simple example, imagine two twin sisters, one is normal weight, and the other, overweight. Both have the same metabolism, but the overweight female overindulges in food to feel happy, while the other does not. The female of normal weight, enjoys food just as much, but apprehends the sublime, unconditional happiness and can freely do what she wants. The overweight female has no way to grasp this, and invests thousands into fitness programs, low fat food, and exercise machines, even if she takes a drug which suspends her appetite, it does nothing but complicate her misery. Her sister eventually manages to get her to perform simple austerities with the intention of grasping the unconditional, which she thinks is ridiculous. After months of discomfort, uncertainty, and faith, it evaporates and she becomes like her sister.

Bleeding Me
By Metallica..
I'm sowing the seeds
I'm sowing the seeds I've taken
I'm sowing the seeds I take for granted

This thorn in my side
This thorn in my side is from the tree
This thorn in my side is from the tree I've planted
It tears me and I bleed
And I bleed

Caught under the wheels roll
I take the leech
I'm bleeding me
Can't stop to save my soul
I take the leash that's leading me
I'm bleeding me
I can't take it
Caught under wheels roll
Oh, the bleeding of me
Of me
The bleeding of me