[Buddha-l] RE: Problems with karma

[L.S. Cousins]

Bob,

I am not convinced that this kind of question is within the realm of 
science at all. If I have an accident, science can explain many 
things about that, including certain types of cause. It cannot 
ultimately answer the question: why me rather than the next chap ? 
You can say that it was just chance. But that is not an answer in the 
terms of the question.

>I realize that there are several interpretations of karma and that 
>one interpretation will NOT generate that consequence I refer to 
>above.
>
>Here is my attempt at a tentative definition of karma:
>I understand karma as claiming that everything you and I do has 
>consequences, and moral actions generate consequences that rebound 
>back upon the agent, and the consequences resemble the action. The 
>consequences are inescapable, achieving fruition in this life or a 
>next life.

For Theravada they are not entirely inescapable. Some actions may not 
be able to bear fruit.

>One can interpret this as:
>(a) Everything that happens to us is the (just) result of OUR prior 
>karma (thus everything including starvation or slavery is deserved 
>and there is no escaping the evil consequences of any immoral 
>choice).
>
>(b) There are things that happen to us which are caused 
>(pratityasamutpada) but are NOT the karmic result of our prior 
>choices (this life or a previous life) -- thus karmic consequences 
>are a subset of the range of consequences. David Kalupahana argues 
>for this interpretation in his book on Causality.

I think b) is correct for Theravada  (and possibly for all forms of 
Ancient Buddhism).

>Choice (a) is the one that I was interpreting from the remarks of 
>Tibetan lamas and other teachers who were quoted.

I don't think they were making a philosophical claim. My point was 
that in the realm of religious discourse some language should be used 
in certain ways and not others.

In theistic discourse it is in some sense true that an omnipotent and 
omniscient deity must be responsible for someone being born blind or 
in bad circumstances. So we can blame him for that. Or, we can blame 
him for the fact that he has chosen for the inhabitants of the USA to 
be wealthier than other people.

I think that most people can see that this is an inappropriate use of 
discourse about God. Even though some misguided people do in fact use 
it in just that way.

Similarly, this kind of criticism of the teachings about kamma is 
inappropriate. That is not how they are or should be applied.

>Choice (b) is the one that I prefer, but I still hold that there is 
>no testable evidence to support the theory of karma.

One could probably formulate testable theories of kamma, but I would 
personally be rather sceptical.

My understanding is that science has much to say about causes and 
consequences of physical actions, but I cannot see that science (as 
opposed to religion or philosophy) has anything to say about what one 
'ought' to do.

Lance Cousins