How does karma operate?

[SirPhilip]

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

Sigh. There are two types of retribution, one is relative and the other absolute. Relative retribution is objective ("fairness") - it forms the basis of law in human society, and allows progress and other cool stuff like riding on a commercial jet airliner laden with fuel without it being hijacked and flown into a building, to exist. Absolute retribution is what relative retribution arises from, and relates to the five senses, and a sixth, circumstance, which generate individuality.

Buddhism simply encourages people to be very mindful of the latter, because it is of primary importance, and not live their lives in vain.

 

[SirPhilip]

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

O' bottomless fountain of diarrhea, I'm afraid that won't be possible until first you eradicate the "context challenged" karma.

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.

Looks like we're going to have to work on that "common sense" thing too.

 

[Dancing David]

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

Well Yrreg, where else would causality occur. from what i have percieved there is no world other than the physical world, there is no causality other than the physical.

All behaviors and thoughts and beleiefs are physical in nature and scope. there are those who would postulate a non-material realm, but the evidence lacks to support it's existance. So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.

 

[yrreg]

Kinds of actions from physical beings.

Well Yrreg, where else would causality occur. from what i have percieved there is no world other than the physical world, there is no causality other than the physical.

All behaviors and thoughts and beleiefs are physical in nature and scope. there are those who would postulate a non-material realm, but the evidence lacks to support it's existance. So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.

So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.​

Can we say thereby, Dancing David, that all actions of physical beings are moral causality [actions]?

In which case then also, since all cats are felines, therefore all felines are cats; which is obviously not true.

So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.​

The correct inference from your conclusion above reproduced again, together with the totality of your message should be that there are from actions of physical beings moral causality and physical causality


The concept of moral causality as distinct from physical causality is at the bedrock of Western civilization and society, so that there are no interactions between or among men where the concept of moral causality does not come into play.

Even the simple activity of taking a stroll in the park is fraught with the perspectives of moral causality as distinct from physical causality.

You are quietly having a walk in the park and suddenly something hits you in the head, a pebble. What is your reaction? After the initial pain and outrage you ask the question, Who could have done such a stupid act?

You can't blame the pebble, it is just obeying physical causality, but you automatically want to find the human party who threw a pebble which impacted onto your head.

You look around and finally you notice a child throwing pebbles about, with its mother smiling thinking that her child is oh so cute, engaged in developing motor skill by throwing pebbles about.

Now comes a Buddhist telling you that it's all your bad karma for being hit by a pebble thrown nonchalantly by a child.

Since you are a Buddhist, you take that explanation in stride, blaming yourself for some past misdeed which earned you the present bad return, and strive to maintain your equanimity.

Next comes Yrreg, a student of physical causality and moral causality. He tells you that the child and specially its mother are answerable for the physical causality they set in motion: the child by direct bodily action, the mother by culpable lack of foresight not preventing or stopping her child in throwing pebbles about.

Now comes a policeman, he tells the child to stop throwing pebbles in a park or anywhere people are present, and he tells the mother to teach her child to beware of hurting other people in any action they do in the midst of other people, reminding her that she should know better for being a grown-up.

Then the policeman tells the mother and child to apologize to you for your head injury and emotional distress, and to promise that such an enactment will not occur again from their part. And if the policeman is himself a family man, he tells the woman to search into her handbag for a band-aid to put on your head wound.


So, by way of an example from an event regularly occurring in any locale where people are present for work or play or simple leisure, I hope I have made clear and simple my explanation of what is moral causality as distinct from physical causlity.

Moral causality is the basis why an agent with knowledge and choice should answer for a physical causality he put in motion.​

Now, the question of this thread, How does karma operate, and my particular focus, by physical causality or by moral causality?

See next post from me.


Yrreg

 

[SirPhilip]

Can we say thereby, Dancing David, that all actions of physical beings are moral causality [actions]?

Trying to give Buddhists and other users here headaches by being a proverbial baseball pitching machine pointed outfield and composing your sentences in disjointed strings is sort of amoral. However, if you have a disclaimer as your signature warning that responding to you is a waste of time, it isn't, because anyone who does then deserves what they get.

 

[Dancing David]

So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.​

Can we say thereby, Dancing David, that all actions of physical beings are moral causality [actions]?

No, that would not be the case, A being dependant upon B does not mean that B is dependant upon A.

All beings are physical, have you found a non-physical component?

In which case then also, since all cats are felines, therefore all felines are cats; which is obviously not true.

You haven't answered the question yet. Where else would the causality take place, I am not refering to determination but the chain of events.

Your little quip is great but let me ask again, where does moral causality occur?

So all 'moral' causality is the actions of physical beings.​

The correct inference from your conclusion above reproduced again, together with the totality of your message should be that there are from actions of physical beings moral causality and physical causality

Again Abeing dependant upon B does not mean that B is dependant upon A.

My statement was that there is physical causality and that therefore any consequences of actions are limited to the physical sphere, there is no need for 'moral' in the equation. The things that I assuem you define as 'moral' are most like all physical actions of physical beings. therefore it is a subset of a subset. Moral<physdical beings<physical world. Causality is causality, moral causality results from the actions of physical beings.

The concept of moral causality as distinct from physical causality is at the bedrock of Western civilization and society, so that there are no interactions between or among men where the concept of moral causality does not come into play.

So, the concept of god was another belief of thiers, as well as the moral superiority of the white man. That doesn't mean that it is true.

Even the simple activity of taking a stroll in the park is fraught with the perspectives of moral causality as distinct from physical causality.

You are quietly having a walk in the park and suddenly something hits you in the head, a pebble. What is your reaction? After the initial pain and outrage you ask the question, Who could have done such a stupid act?

Uh, dude, you are describing the physical acts of a physical being.

You can't blame the pebble, it is just obeying physical causality, but you automatically want to find the human party who threw a pebble which impacted onto your head.

You look around and finally you notice a child throwing pebbles about, with its mother smiling thinking that her child is oh so cute, engaged in developing motor skill by throwing pebbles about.

More physical.

Now comes a Buddhist telling you that it's all your bad karma for being hit by a pebble thrown nonchalantly by a child.

I am not certain you understand the buddhist perspective of karma, but by all means make more Straw Proclamations from the Throne of Straw, King of Straw.

Since you are a Buddhist, you take that explanation in stride, blaming yourself for some past misdeed which earned you the present bad return, and strive to maintain your equanimity.

More straw, I would say that it is the act of a child, and unless there is some reason to believe my acts are linked to the child's acts, there is not karma at action.

You really acts talk and think like a christian Yrreg, are you a duck?

Next comes Yrreg, a student of physical causality and moral causality. He tells you that the child and specially its mother are answerable for the physical causality they set in motion: the child by direct bodily action, the mother by culpable lack of foresight not preventing or stopping her child in throwing pebbles about.

You think to much, I agree with the statement that the child is responsible for throwing the pepple and the mother may not be supervisinh thier child, so where is this all not physical acts of physical beings?

Now comes a policeman, he tells the child to stop throwing pebbles in a park or anywhere people are present, and he tells the mother to teach her child to beware of hurting other people in any action they do in the midst of other people, reminding her that she should know better for being a grown-up.

Gosh, in your perfect world , police have the time to do that? Or are you some sort of domination maniac?

Then the policeman tells the mother and child to apologize to you for your head injury and emotional distress, and to promise that such an enactment will not occur again from their part. And if the policeman is himself a family man, he tells the woman to search into her handbag for a band-aid to put on your head wound.

They can apologise to me after I am done laughing!

Do you have feathers?

So, by way of an example from an event regularly occurring in any locale where people are present for work or play or simple leisure, I hope I have made clear and simple my explanation of what is moral causality as distinct from physical causlity.

So where is the moral except in the physical?

Moral causality is the basis why an agent with knowledge and choice should answer for a physical causality he put in motion.​

Now, the question of this thread, How does karma operate, and my particular focus, by physical causality or by moral causality?

See next post from me.


Yrreg

I shall answer you no further, you have been very rude and impolite as usual and I shall go [play elsewhere.

 

[yrreg]

Real distinction vs nominal distinction.

......

My statement was that there is physical causality and that therefore any consequences of actions are limited to the physical sphere, there is no need for 'moral' in the equation. The things that I assuem you define as 'moral' are most like all physical actions of physical beings. therefore it is a subset of a subset. Moral<physdical beings<physical world. Causality is causality, moral causality results from the actions of physical beings.

......

I presume Dancing David is speaking for himself, representing his own personal kind of Buddhism, and his own personal understanding of karma.

His position as his own kind of Buddhist is that there is only physical being, only physical causality, at least that is his emotionally preponderant conviction.

It is hard to discuss with parties emotionally affected, but at least one can discern the emotional preponderance in the pronouncements of parties emotionally affected.


From my stock knowledge as a person cultivating critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and science, I am of the strong view that there is a real distinction between a physical being and a moral being, between therefore physical causality and moral causality.

I seem to notice that in Dancing David's emotional outpouring there is some semblance of an acquaintance with the distinction between physical and moral beings, between physical and moral causalities.

Only he is insistent emotionally that all moral beings and all instances of moral causality can be reduced to physical beings and instances of physical causality.

And for being emotional, he is preponderantly or emotionally exclusively convinced that there are no moral beings and therefore no instances of moral causality.


He mentions about subsets, and in that mention we can still see that there is a possibility of bringing Dancing David's mind to the real distinction between physical beings and moral beings and between physical causality and moral causality.

Now we are into real distinction as opposed to nominal distinction, as applied to the distinction between physical beings and moral beings, thereby physical causality and moral causality, that is the crux of the issue which I am trying to bring into in my examination of the question "How does karma operate?" (the title and topic of the present thread).

The distinction between Bush the physical being and Bush the president of the US, that is a real distinction; but the distinction between "Bush US President" and "US President Bush," that is a nominal distinction.

A real distinction is founded upon a fact independent of the speaker's mind and speech.

......

By moral causality as distinct from physical causality I mean it is effected by intelligent free conscious emotional beings like humans. ....

Perhaps a comprehensible way of explaining moral causality as distinct from physical causality is to show the difference between a wedding and a chemical or mechanical process.

In a wedding the process leads to a relationship between two parties traditionally a man and a woman, whereby they are bound together in regard to rights and obligations by and on each over their respective body and material and personal resources.

In a chemical process like the hydrogenation of oxygen to produce water or the mechanical process like the rotary motion of the moon on its axis, there is no participation of an intelligent free and emotional agent like humans.

......

I hope I have made clear and simple my explanation of what is moral causality as distinct from physical causality.

Moral causality is the basis why an agent with knowledge and choice should answer for a physical causality he put in motion.​

......

In my next post I will try to show that Buddhist karma comprises two kinds of causality, specifically the moral causality and basically the physical causality, with the moral causality determining the physical causality.


Yrreg

 

[nescafe]

I presume Dancing David is speaking for himself, representing his own personal kind of Buddhism, and his own personal understanding of karma.

His position as his own kind of Buddhist is that there is only physical being, only physical causality, at least that is his emotionally preponderant conviction.

It is hard to discuss with parties emotionally affected, but at least one can discern the emotional preponderance in the pronouncements of parties emotionally affected.

Come on, you can do better than that when it comes to ad hominem arguments. If anything, the only emotion I have seen Dancing David display is bemusement at your monotonous and predictable twisting of other people's words.

From my stock knowledge as a person cultivating critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and science, I am of the strong view that there is a real distinction between a physical being and a moral being, between therefore physical causality and moral causality.

I think you missed the point here, which is that, when you get right down to it, everything has a physical cause because everything is grounded in the physical universe. All moral beings are physical beings, therefore the only way they can affect (morally, intellectually, emotionally, whatever) other beings (moral or not) is via the physical world, therefore all moral acts are also physical acts. There is no such thing as a nonphysical moral act.

Now we are into real distinction as opposed to nominal distinction, as applied to the distinction between physical beings and moral beings, thereby physical causality and moral causality, that is the crux of the issue which I am trying to bring into in my examination of the question "How does karma operate?" (the title and topic of the present thread).

*snip*

In my next post I will try to show that Buddhist karma comprises two kinds of causality, specifically the moral causality and basically the physical causality, with the moral causality determining the physical causality.

 

[yrreg]

Moral sphere and moral causality recognized by Buddhists.

I am not quite certain what the Buddhists contributing posts in this thread are after. For my part I like to examine how karma works, taking karma as explained by established Buddhists, and of course taking attentively how they explain the details of karma's operation.

Anyway, just to show the Buddhists here that my stock knowledge of Buddhism is not mistaken and in particular my idea of Buddhist karma is not mistaken, I will just reproduce here some excerpts from established Buddhist sources.

----------------------------

KARMA


Karma means action, means "to do". ... It is dynamic. ... It is not unconscious or involuntary action. It is intentional, conscious, deliberate, wilful action.... In the moral sphere of conscious actions, we have a counterpart to the physical law of action and reaction, the law that every intentional, wilful action must have its effect. ... when we speak of intentional action together with its effect or fruit ... we speak of the Law of Karma.

its most basic sense, the Law of Karma in the moral sphere teaches that similar actions will lead to similar results. Let us take an example. If we plant a mango seed, the plant that springs up will be a mango tree... Similarly, in the Law of Karma, if we do a wholesome action, eventually we will get a wholesome fruit, and if we do an unwholesome action eventually we will get an unwholesome, painful result. ...

... Karma is moral action and moral responsibility. But the working of the Law of Karma is very finely tuned and balanced so as to match effect with cause, so as to take into account the subjective and objective conditions that determine the nature of an action. This ensures that the effects of actions are equal to and similar to the nature of the causes.

Neutral karma is karma that has no moral consequence either because the very nature of the action is such as to have no moral consequence or because it is done involuntarily and unintentionally. For example, sleeping, walking, breathing, eating, handicraft and so forth in themselves have no moral consequence. ...

...we understand that ... Law of Karma, of action and reaction in the moral sphere encourages us to renounce unwholesome actions and cultivate wholesome actions.


From The Buddhist Inter-traditions
Consensus on Commitment and Practice:


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 stupefyingdrug 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.

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).

See also the meaning of Karma, excerpts from the same Consensus produced in my post #24 above.

-----------------------

In my succeeding posts I will dwell on examples of karma and discuss the operation of karma.


Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

An unwholesome karma recounted by the Buddha himself.

Here is an ancient report of a bad karma, narrated supposedly by the Buddha himself to teach his followers about karma.

http://www.buddhanet.net/fundbud9.htm

[Paragraphing by Yrreg]​

We cannot see the long-term effect of karma, but the Buddha and His prominent disciples who have developed their minds are able to perceive directly the long-term effects.

For instance, when Maudgalyayana was beaten to death by bandits, the Buddha was able to tell that this event was the effect of something Maudgalyayana had done in a previous life when he had taken his aged parents to the forest and having beaten them to death, had then reported that they had been killed by bandits.

The effect of this unwholesome action done many lives before was manifested only in his last life. At death we have to leave everything behind - our property and our loved ones, but our karma will accompany us like a shadow.

The Buddha has said that nowhere on earth or in heaven can one escape one’s karma. So when the conditions are correct, dependent upon mind and body, the effects of karma will manifest themselves just as dependent on certain conditions a mango will appear on a mango tree.

There seems to be some ontological machinery running the karma law. See my thread on Buddhism as Ontological Machinery, in the Internet Infidels Forum, from where I have been banned forever. My forum name there is Pachomius2000. If people cannot find that thread there anymore, a very recent one of less than two weeks old, let me know, I have saved the thread in my harddisk.


So, you see, you perform an action in the moral sphere like murder, that will set the karmic machinery of the physcial order in operation, which will return your evil deed on yourself several lifetimes later in your own murder.


How does it works, the details? that is the challenge for us to find out.


Yrreg

 

[Ryokan]

Note that BuddhaNet is a Pure Land site.

 

[yrreg]

More examples of karma from Buddha.

Here are four samples of karma in the spheres of moral virtues and moral vices. I will bring more in the succeeding posts in order to get acquainted with the kinds of karma in Buddhism.

http://www.angelfire.com/electronic/bodhidharma/karma_truth.html

This law of Karma, or cause and effect, is so powerful that it governs everything in the universe except, according to Buddhism, the one who is Enlightened or who recognizes basic nature. Upon Enlightenment, the round of cause and effect loses its significance, just as Samsara, or the round of birth and death, ceases with Enlightenment.

......

In one of the Buddhist texts it is recorded that someone asked Buddha:

Why are some women ugly but rich?

Why are some women beautiful but poor?

Why are some people poor but with good health and a long life?

Why are some rich yet ill and short-lived?

The Buddha's answers were:

One who is ugly but rich was short-tempered in past lives easily irritated and angered but was also very generous and gave offerings to the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha and made contributions to many sentient beings.

One who is beautiful but poor was, in past lives, very kind, always smiling and soft spoken, but was stingy and reluctant to make offerings or help other people.

The person who is poor but in good health and enjoying a long life was, in his or her past lives, very stingy or reluctant to make donations, but was kind to all sentient beings, did not harm or kill others, and also saved many sentient beings lives.

The person who is rich but often ill, or who is short-lived, was, in his or her past lives, very generous in helping others but loved hunting and killing and caused sentient beings to feel worried, insecure, and frightened.

The above examples give us some idea of why people on earth, although all human beings, vary so much in appearance, character, lifespan, health, mental ability and fate. It is even more interesting to note how much the circumstances in which a person is born can influence his or her destiny. Which race, which nation, which skin color, which era all these factors make a great difference.

Would it not be more logical to think that something was going on before one birth that caused all those effects than to say that it is purely accidental or even to say that it is God's will? If a baby has no past life, then on what grounds does God judge whether to reward or to punish that baby by causing him or her to be born under different circumstances? Intent, thought and action should always be taken into consideration.

So, if you lead a vicious moral life you will get your comeuppance in some future life, similarly also with a virtuous life you will land into good steads in the future.


Yrreg

 

[kurious_kathy]

How does karma work? There's no such thing, but a man does reap what he sows. And what ever you dish out to others you can expect it back ten times over, good or bad.

 

[Dancing David]

From The Heart of the Buddha’s Teaching by Thich Nhat Hanh, (Broadway Books, 1999), Sammadigtthi Sutta allegedly a recitation by Sariputta (allegedly one of the many followers of the allegedly historical Buddha):

Death is the passing away of living beings from the various worlds of , their shifting to other existences, their decomposition, disappearance, and death, the completion of their time, the disunion of the skandhas, and the laying down of the body.

There are three becomings: becoming in the world of desire, becoming in the world of fine matter, and becoming in the nonmaterial world.

There are four kinds of grasping, the grasping of sensual desire, views, rules and rituals, and a belief in a separate self.

Thos quote might or might not support buddhist views on the existence of the immaterial world going back to the three big teachers of followers the buddha. The quote does not cite the teaching as being a teaching of the buddha but of Sariputta, who was next to Annada in the followers of the buddha.

 

[Freethinker]

How does karma work? There's no such thing, but a man does reap what he sows. And what ever you dish out to others you can expect it back ten times over, good or bad.

You easily dismiss others' beliefs with no evidence, yet you can't understand why we ridicule your belief? You are either so completely brainwashed by your cult that you are incapable of thought, or you are simply incapabable of thought.

 

[yrreg]

Kinds of karma, definition of, and where is it?

From my stock knowledge derived from reading I can make out the following kinds of karma:

On the basis of schools of thought: Hindu, Buddhist, New Age, others.
On the basis of time: past, present, future.
On the basis of welcome or not: good, bad, neutral​

I am concerned here with Buddhist karma; but all karmas have the following common strand, to which I give my definition as to the generic karma, thus:

Karma is the cause and effect relationship between a person's action and condition in his succession of lives from the past to the present and to the future.​

Buddhist karma from my stock knowledge again, derived from reading, is non-God dependent, and it is predominantly concerned with good or bad karma in the moral domain.

In karma there is, as can be seen in the definition I give above, the assumption that an individual person has a succession of lives by way of rebirths.

Granting though not conceding the existence of successive rebirths in an individual person, I am here in this thread, "How does karma operate?" concerned with finding out the explanations from established Buddhist sources who do believe in karma. I am not concerned with Buddhists who disown the belief in karma.

Since Buddhists who do believe in karma also eschew the question of whether there is God -- meaning they don't really deny God's existence nor accept God's existence (they just maintain that the question is pointless), still logically the operation of karma must be sought outside an individual person, or inside, or both outside and inside.

And this is the big difference between Hindu karma and Buddhist karma: the former believes God or Brahma to be the author and charge d'affaires of karma.

It is rare to find the answer to that question, is karma's operation outside, or inside, or both outside and inside the person? But when you read carefully explanations of karma by established Buddhist writers or teachers, you will notice that the operation of karma is inside a person.

According to the Buddhist doctrine of Karma, one is not always compelled by an ‘iron necessity’, for Karma is neither fate, nor predestination imposed upon us by some mysterious unknown power to which we must helplessly submit ourselves. It is one’s own doing reacting on oneself, and so one has the possibility to divert the course of one’s Karma to some extent. How far one diverts it depends on oneself.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/karma.htm

According to Buddhism this variation is due not only to heredity, environment, "nature and nurture," but also to our own kamma,* or in other words, to the result of our own inherited past actions and our present deeds. We ourselves are responsible for our own deeds, happiness and misery. We build our own hells. We create our own heavens. We are the architects of our own fate. In short we ourselves are our own kamma.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell06.htm

In the Dhammapada we find the following words, "All that we are is a result of what we have thought, it is founded on our thoughts and made up of our thoughts."

What we are, then, is entirely dependent on what we think. Therefore, the nobility of man's character is dependent on his"good" thoughts, actions, and words. At the same time, if he embraces degrading thoughts, those thoughts invariably influence him into negative words and actions.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

What about the Buddhist doctrine of the no-self. That is no problem; for although there is no-self there is still the continuity and the individuality of the process of experience of body and mind in every rebirth, which process ensures the identity of the karma subject from and in the succession of rebirths.

Anatta (Non-self) and Kamma (Karma)
The Best Kept Secret in the Universe

by Ajahn Jagaro​

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/anatta_jagaro.html

The question that is often put is, if there is no self, the person who is going to inherit the kamma is a different person than that who he now is. Is it not? Why should I care? I am not going to get the results. I can do what I want. That poor guy down the road is going to get all the results.
......
Who is experiencing if there is no self? There is still experience. There is pleasure and pain, pleasant and unpleasant experience. There is no self, but the feeling is real, the state of mind is real, the happiness and unhappiness is real. These are real states of the mind though there is no self experiencing them.
.....
The Buddha's teaching is that there is an individuality in this process. The individuality of the process is there, the continuity of the mind and body in this life, conventionally speaking. You are the mind and the body process and there is a continuity and an individuality of the process. It's your mind and body and not my mind and body which continues from birth to death in this life. But there is the same continuity and individuality into the next life. You don't get cross wires.

Your stream of mind and body does not get mixed up with my stream of mind and body. My state of mind and body does not get mixed up in what is in your account and vice versa. It stays in each person's account. There is a continuity in this stream of mind and body and this is the law of kamma. The individuality is there but there is no individual in it. So what you do now will bring about results down the road.

In my own view, Buddhist karma cannot survive the test of today’s critical thinking, scientific skepticism, science, and humanism.

Yrreg

*Kamma, the Pali word for karma (Sanskrit) used in Theravāda Buddhism; Pali is the folk language from the classical Hindu language of Sanskrit.

 

[yrreg]

Further refinements of karma 1.

I mentioned in post #50 above, an account by Buddha of bad karma coming to a guy in his getting murdered by bandits, because in a past earlier rebirth he killed his parents and reported it as a murder by bandits in the forest.

And I also gave four accounts in post #56 above, also narrated by the Buddha about good and bad karmas coming to people owing to their virtuous habits and vicious habits in previous rebirths.


There are quite a number of questions involved in the examples given by the Buddha himself, which I feel I owe it to myself as a researcher to sort out.

You will notice that in the examples we have so far brought up there are a number of parties convoluted in the whole business of karma, for examples, the host of karma, the person-instrument of karma, the victim of karma.

Here are the five kinds of persons who can be and are the hosts of karma in the five narratives recounted by the Buddha:

1. Murderer of parents, who blamed it on bandits, but himself got murdered in turn by bandits.
2. Ugly but rich woman who was given to anger with others but otherwise generous to them.
3. Beautiful but poor woman who was softspoken with others but stingy with them.
4. Poor but healthy person who was stingy with others but saved living things.
5. Rich but ill person who was generous to others but loved hunting games.​

Now, the same hosts of karma are also themselves in most cases the doers of evil and the sufferers of evil, or the doers of goodness and the beneficiaries of goodness.

It is in the karma host’s role of being sufferer of ill or beneficiary of weal, that the matter gets tricky.

Let us just keep to the first narrative of the Buddha about the murderer of parents for our purpose here, to show how complicated karma can be and is. The other examples of the Buddha can also be analyzed but no need at this point, because they would also yield the same finding I want to point out.

Consider then the murderer of his own parents reporting the death as perpetrated by bandits, who himself got murdered in turn by also bandits; according to the karma doctrine his past heinous deed is the seed he planted in himself, which in time sprouted in his own murder by bandits; but the instrument of karma in this case are outside parties, the bandits who did him in.

In which case his karma seems to exercise a power that moves the bandits to do him in, even though these latters are acting consciously and willfully and independently without any concern about being the instrument of the murderer’s karma on himself.

But suppose the parricidal murderer got his bad karma in a tsunami, thus death by drowning, instead of in the hands of bandits, in which case the karma seed in himself exerts a power to draw him to the tsunami event where he met his death.

Now, notice this distinction between the bandits and the tsunami, the first is an instance of moral causality while the second is an instance of physical causality. We see therefore that karma can and does command both physical causality but also moral causality in order to achieve its karmic end.

[ Please see next post for continuation. ]​

Yrreg

 

[yrreg]

Further refinements of karma 2.

[ Please accept my apologies for the continuation in another post; I just hope that two shorter posts will make one long post easier to read. And in order to make the present post short I will render it in questions and answers format. ]

​

Question 1: In Buddhism, where is karma, inside the person or outside, or both inside and outside?​

Answer: Karma is inside the person, who is the karma host; karma is like a piece of machinery system, a computer software program in the person or karma host, who is then the analogous hardware, say, the robot, but one with moral causality.

Question 2: What action in the person sets the karma stirring inside himself, a physical action or a moral action, a physical causality or a moral causality?​

Answer: A moral action, meaning a deed done by the karma host, i.e., the person, executed consciously with knowledge and willfully and independently of outside parties.

Question 3: What kind of a machinery is the karma system, inexorable or susceptible to a reset button?​

Answer: It is an inexorable machinery system: once the karma host, i.e., the person sets it in motion by a moral act or by moral causality, it operates blindly, uncontrollably; there can be no stopping it or reversing it by regrets, remorse, or repentance from the part of the karma host; the karma host or the person just have to wait for the karma to work itself out in succeeding rebirths, during which rebirths however he can store up opposite entries of good karma.

That is why I said in post #44 above, Moral causality is the basis why an agent with knowledge and choice should answer for a physical causality he put in motion.

And I said in post #47 above, that: ...I will try to show that Buddhist karma comprises two kinds of causality, specifically the moral causality and basically the physical causality, with the moral causality determining the physical causality.

Wherefore also in post #50 above: ...you see, you perform an action in the moral sphere like murder, that will set the karmic machinery of the physical order in operation, which will return your evil deed on yourself several lifetimes later in your own murder.

Question 4: What instrumentalities does a person’s karma harness in effecting the consequence of karma for good or for ill to the karma host?​

Answer: From the examples of karma I have read about recounted by established Buddhist writers, teachers, a person’s karma can enlist both impersonal or non-moral forces like a tsunami and also moral entities like other people, e,g., bandits who murder you because you murdered your parents in some past rebirth and blamed bandits.

-----------------------

In my next posts I will try to bring up more examples of karma from established Buddhist sources, and also more importantly discuss how they explain the operation of karma.

I will now just say this about Buddhist karma and any karma for that matter: the ‘discoverers’ or more properly fabulists or most correctly yarn spinners, they should have been born much later and in the West where they could have learned about the principle of parsimony formulated by Occam (1285-1349), the English philosopher after whom the principle is named as Occam's Razor -- Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate, or “Things should not be multiplied unnecessarily,” which is one very decisive rule followed in modern critical thinking, scientific skepticism, science, and humanism.


Yrreg

 

[lolurigeller]

Here are four samples of karma in the spheres of moral virtues and moral vices. I will bring more in the succeeding posts in order to get acquainted with the kinds of karma in Buddhism.


So, if you lead a vicious moral life you will get your comeuppance in some future life, similarly also with a virtuous life you will land into good steads in the future.


Yrreg

Where the hell do you find time to post all this crap. Jesus Christ Man! What do you do for a living? No one cares about frickin Karma, ******** or not posting stuff about it isn't going to get you laid.

 

[RandFan]

Everytime I read this thread title I hear Jason Lee's voice in my head saying "I've learned a thing or two about Karma". Make it stop.