[Buddha-l] karma and consequences

[Alberto Todeschini]

Hi Vicente,

> 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.

I still don't quite understand why there should be a problem with
accepting some form of causality and not accepting karma *until*
sufficient evidence for it is presented, unless you are conflating
causality and karma. I'm not.

As for the strangeness you mention, is it so outlandish to withhold
judgement until one has good reasons to believe something?

> 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?.

With "the arising of things" are you referring to the origin of life
or the origin of the universe? Neither of these are explained by
karma. In fact, I imagine these are the kinds of concerns the Buddha
would advise to stay clear of.

> 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.

I still don't understand what you mean by 'rebirth'.  Here and
elsewhere you make it sound like causality and rebirth are the same
thing. I disagree. Obviously, if you understand them to be the same
thing it will look to you that I am contradicting myself or, as you
put it, that I'm irrational.

> Do you think the non-causality would be a more logical approach?.

I've never claimed that I uphold non-causality. Are you still
conflating causality and rebirth?

> Think if the causal approach can be the more logical and simplest.

Yes, that's why I believe that at some level causality works. And
that's why there are a lot of things that we can do reliably, from
kindling a fire to heating up water for tea.

> Of course your position is quite equilibrated,

Wait, wasn't it irrational?

> 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.

Yes, I agree, that's why I'm having this conversation.

> Even more today, when everybody is preaching recycling whatever. We
> can learn that also our body and mind will be recycled.

I'm not sure that you can make your point about the mind. But if you
are saying that the molecules that make up our bodies and the atoms
that make up those molecules will end up elsewhere, including as part
of plants, animals and other humans, then I agree. But surely you are
not claiming that this is all what the doctrine of rebirth amounts to?
 This works perfectly well without bringing karma into the discussion.
Indeed, karma here would only complicate matters.

In general, I think we are pretty much talking past each other. I hope
other list members are finding us entertaining.

Best,

Alberto Todeschini