[Buddha-l] re. karma and consequences

[Robert Ellis]

Hi Jayarava,
Thanks for picking me up on my imprecise language. I think we are making more progress now. 

You wrote: <<Firstly you are attempting to see links to specific events which is not the Buddhist theory of karma as I understand it, or if it is could you site sources. The link is between cetanā and vedanā, not between cetanā and cancer.<<

If I had been more precise, I would have said the feelings of suffering created by cancer. 

>>Secondly you demonstrate the problem with hypothetical examples. The "good person" does not exist. We have all been motivated by a mixture of positive and negative intentions. If someone gets cancer you characterise it as a bad thing. It might not be. I know of at le!
 ast one person for whom it turned out to be a 
blessing in disguise. The hypothetical just doesn't reflect lived experience. We seldom make up examples that contradict the point we are trying to make.<<

My examples were rough ones in terms of experience, but you are interpreting them absolutely. The "good person" does exist relatively, in our experience, and such good people as we experience them also sometimes get cancer and suffer enormously as a result, both physically and mentally. The fact that some people may use cancer as an opportunity for spiritual development does not prevent cancer usually being a source of mental anguish as well as spiritual, often not deserved. It only takes one such case to provide a counter-exam!
 ple to the law of karma.

I see hypothetical examp
les as a legitimate part of a philosophical discussion, provided that they are all taken provisionally and improved upon. They are often better than specific examples, because we view them more objectively. If the examples we choose reflect a limited perspective, then this can be pointed out by others (as you are doing) and the examples can be refined.

>>Thirdly the best you can say in these cases is that you cannot see the link between their intentions and the vedanā we assume them to experience. Which is hardly surprising because you have made these people up. They aren't real and no one lives a life so simple. They don't falsify the theory so much as the method.<<

I think we can see the link between intentions a!
 nd vedana in our experience: it is just that we have no certainty about it. Uncertainty is no excuse for abandoning the discussion or seeking dogmatic short-cuts. Certainly no-one's life is simple, but we can legitimately abstract features of those lives on the basis of experience, and try to refine the examples so as to get closer to the truth. The method is not certain, but it's a lot better than mere dicussion of specifics (because it is more universal), or appeal to dogma (because it does nevertheless relate to experience), or discussion of texts (see my other post responding to Joanna), which again lacks universality, and does not examine the assumptions with which we view the texts.

Thanks for your other post, which I w!
 ould like to respond to as well. But I must get 
on with some work for now!
Best wishes,
Robert



Robert Ellis

website: www.moralobjectivity.net