[Buddha-l] H.H. The Dalai Lama on Stone and Karma

[Richard Hayes]

On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 13:16 -0400, Vera, Pedro L. wrote:

> I suspect that this is a very simplified way of affirming the claim in
> the Abhidharmakosha that any event that does not actively impede an
> effect can be considered a cause of that effect. 

The Abhidharmakosha enumerates six types of cause, some of them with
subtypes. The type of cause I mentioned is the most generic; it is a
category that catches everything that may have been missed in the mores
specific types. My account of that generic notion of cause is not
simplified very much, if at all. What IS oversimplified, of course, is
letting that most generic concept be mentioned without going into the
details of all the other types and subtypes.

If you'd like to see a more detailed discussion, I invite you to read a
paper I gave at Brock University many aeons ago; the paper itself is a
shortened version of a much more detailed paper than appeared in print.
The on-line paper, entitled "Can sense be made of the Buddhist theory of
karma?" is at http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes/karma_brock.pdf
 
> Also, is there a place in Buddhist thinking for concepts such as
> correlation, or hidden/confounding variables, etc, in the theory of
> causation/karma/whatever?

There is a sense in which almost everything pertaining to karma is
hidden. Perhaps that is why the Buddha said that there are two fast
tracks to total madness: trying to comprehend the vastness of the
universe, and trying to understand the workings of karma. (I rashly
tried to understand Vasubandhu's attempt to understand the workings of
karma and have been slightly crazy ever since.)
 
> Finally, from my conversations with some Buddhist friends and readings
> of Buddhist texts, the notion of karma seems far more specific that
> the above explanation implies.

That's true. Karma is a specific kind of causality in which the cause is
an intention in an agent and the result is a feeling of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction in the same agent. There are aspects of causality
specific to karma and its ripening. But the generic features of karma
apply. So what I said in my previous message does not tell the whole
story of karma by any means, but it does say something about what is
supposed to be true of karma.

>  For example, physical beauty/non-beauty in this life, as a result of
> "good" or "bad" karma in a previous life.

That is pure bullshit. This is a feature of a vulgar understanding of
karma entertained by ignorant people seeking legitimacy for their
benighted Schadenfreude. 

> So, is there a "traditional/orthodox" view of causation/karma and then
> a "popular" one? If so, what are their origins?

Yes, exactly. The abhidharmic view has its origins in wisdom and careful
reflection, and the popular view has its roots in greed, hatred and
delusion. In the popular view, karmic ripening is often seen as
retribution, as getting "paid back" for something displeasing one has
done. (Sharon Stone's comments, which are by now far better known than
anything Bhuddhaghosa or Vasubandhu ever said on the subject, stem from
an angry feeling about the way the Chinese have dealt with Tibetans and
from a perhaps unacknowledged desire for revenge. Anger and desire for
revenge are pretty unenlightened, I think you'll agree.)

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico