[Buddha-l] karma and consequences

[Jayarava]

Hi Robert,

I'm sorry if I appear to be turning the discussion inappropriately to a trial of your character. Part of me wants to know "why?" on a more personal level, but perhaps that is not appropriate to this forum. (And Piya I'm not bitter, just confused, so perhaps you could ponder your projection; I have met and like Robert).

So is this the main point:

> The point remains that the law of karma, in any version I have ever
> come across in traditional Buddhism (whether in suttas or in
> the mouths of Buddhists) claims an equivalence of result for
> all actions, and that?this claim lies completely beyond our
> experience. Nobody has said this isn't the case, but
> only?offered?distractions from this basic point.

I think you may need to allow that it's been difficult to tell what your main point is.

Traditional Buddhism presumably allows for contemporary non-traditional Buddhists who have different views?

I understand the "equivalence" between karma and vipaka to be stated only in the most general terms: in acting to cause suffering one experiences suffering. The more precise definition would be that unskilful intentions give rise to painful vedanā, and repeated intentions set up patterns which become habits. 

Personally this _is_ my experience of unskilfulness to the extent that I've been aware enough to notice. 

I grant that traditional, and the more legendary, accounts of karma, are more allegorical - although I don't see how this prevents people from addressing conditions. Perhaps as part of an overall culture which discourages people from practice for whatever reason: those who don't believe bodhi is possible until Maitreya comes back; or that lay people need only feed monks, or whatever. But not specifically a belief in karma. Would focussing on karma be to miss the point again?

But this is the era of Buddhism Without Beliefs. I'm still not sure what you mean when you say that faith is used to justify positions, which you presumably see as fixed in some way rather than provisional. Perhaps an example? I'm trying to see this in terms of Buddhists I've had contact with - which covers the spectrum of contemporary and traditional Buddhism.

The argument that we must hold beliefs provisionally seems unremarkable to me. Almost axiomatic. That one of the things that we do as Buddhists is investigate and relinquish views is hardly news. Is the problem that many new Buddhists simply replace their western views with "Buddhist" views? Is the concern that practice will not root out even those views? But why would any view be exempt?

If we remove the connection between actions and consequences then where does that leave us? Surely there must be some kind of causal link between actions and consequences at the heart of all ethics, else why be good and not evil? So how would you characterise the link, if any? 

I have to say that I'm not very good at ethics as theory. If I were leading a discussion on ethics I wouldn't have let it get this theoretical, but would have brought it down to the level of personal experience of the consequences of behaviour: beginning with the most gross and looking for the subtleties. Speculation about what happens either theoretically, or in some hypothetical person's mind is seldom fruitful in my experience. It may be why I've tended to make the discussion personal. The "equivalence" is really quite obvious if I look at my own mind, and that is always my approach in teaching the subject. 

Anyway I hope this response looks like progress to you - have I got the main point above? I am intrigued that something which seems so incomprehensible to me, is so very important to you. And I would still like to hear other angles on it. I recently did have a major change in my thinking about the Dharma while reading Sue Hamilton's book "Early Buddhism : a New Approach" so I would say that I am open to new and interesting ideas.

Best wishes
Jayarava