[Buddha-l] karma and consequences

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Alberto wrote:

>>
>> At least to me, for sure who deny the causality in the phenomena of
>> this world; including the appearance of consciousness and rebirth.
>> 
AT> I'm not sure that I follow you here. I wasn't denying causality. Of
AT> course, as you well know, there still isn't an agreed upon explanation
AT> of causality in philosophy.

yes, of course. I know you are not denying causality

My point was pointing the question in itself. I mean knowing why the
question is about that "strange thing" of kamma. And the same with
rebirth. Objectively, the real strange fact is seeing learned people
(specially westerners) with an scientific approach and accepting
causality, and at same time they prefer cohabiting comfortably with
non-rebirth, demanding evidences of a contrary thing.
In this way, using causality in application to live and death becomes
strange and the common view is an irrational view to explain the
arising of the things by chance, some god or a nothingness. Why?.

I think not because our tradition. Because from classic Greeks passing
by Hume, Kant, Schopenhauer and Godel among many others, all them
pointed causality (and rebirth) as the more logical explanation.

Then I point this irrational attachment in our western culture to keep
this irrational supposition.  When we cannot have certainty then we
prefer the more impossible an irrational claim.

AT> And I'm not denying karma either. What I was pointing at is that I see
AT> no evidence in its favor. So, while personally I don't believe in karma,
AT> I'm curious to see what people that do accept it count as evidence. 
AT> Perhaps I'm naive to think that people would want to see evidence before
AT> committing to a doctrine like that of karma. I realize that insisting to
AT> see evidence to some people may sound like an obsession with rationality
AT> or a scientific way to do things.

Of course, we cannot have evidence of both possibilities therefore we
cannot show a evidence. But here, in absence of evidence, 
Do you think the non-causality would be a more logical approach?.
Think if the causal approach can be the more logical and simplest.
Why here we don't apply Occam?

When somebody shoot an arrow we cannot see the way of the arrow,
But she is not in the air forever. It would be and irrational
approach. We check how our thoughts and actions are objects
of knowledge, and provoking reactions and interacting with the
environment like the rest of things of this universe,
Why are think causality and rebirth is the "strange thing" when this
is the more logical approach?

So my point was in this sense: the believers in non-kamma and
non-rebirth, they are who should demonstrate their bizarre belief
which contradict the rest of the Universe. Of course your position is
quite equilibrated, because we must accept that there is not
possibility to get scientific evidences. However, maybe you can agree
that at least in the effort we can polish our way to know the world.
Even more today, when everybody is preaching recycling whatever. We
can learn that also our body and mind will be recycled. Perhaps this
can be another component in the Ecologist failure, commented some days
ago. 


best,