[Buddha-l] karma and consequences

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Caro Alberto,

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

me too. I'm not conflating both. There is not contradiction in not
accepting kamma but accepting causality. However, the contradiction
appears if we accept causality and seeing more contradictions in
rebirth than in non-rebirth. Because if one accept causality, then
kamma (even thinking is not a clear solution) becomes the simplest
of two.
I think the causal character of kamma is clear in Buddhism, and it is
shared by everybody:

"When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of
that. When this isn't, that isn't. From the stopping of this comes the
stopping of that."  AN 10.92

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

no, that's wise.

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

I refer to the arising of beings. Buddha explain this arising because
kamma.  The Buddha advice is to be far of speculation about "my past
live" or "my future live", not about the arising of beings.

Bhavana, the cultivation of the mind, also include awareness and
contemplation of the perceived world. And the arising of beings and
their differences are explained by kamma.

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

no, of course not the same thing. Well, to re-situate the point:
we have two explanations for the  arising of beings; non-rebirth
(non-causal) and rebirth (causal). 

We have many causal theories to explain the arising of beings; among
them metempsychosis, transmigration, reincarnation, rebirth,
recorporation, metemsomatosis and palingenesy. 

all them are using a causal approach so they are closer to reason and
logics. Because our logics and reason are characterized by the use of
causality and our mind put order in the objects using space and time,
to get what we call "logical" and to leave what we call improbable or
illogical.

When we don't apply such procedure to explain the arising of beings,
then we are enter in a land inhabited by things called intuition,
premonition, chance, miracle, revelation, absurdity, illogical,
etc...  When one believe the non-rebirth is more logical than rebirth,
then also we must be aware that we are using a non-causal approach,
and this position is another one among the rest.

If we apply rationality then we are being forced to contemplate the
causal approaches like the more simplest and logical. It was the case
of the very empirical Hume, in example.

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

if we describe the movement of a ball we are not mixing the movement
with the ball.

>> Of course your position is quite equilibrated,
AT> Wait, wasn't it irrational?

just silence and isolation of problems. A typical scholar behavior in
this problem. I don't know why westerns scholars cannot feel the Hume
legacy an and many others like enough support. At all, in front there
is only a absurdity imposed by political and criminal means and the
darkness for the understanding. Btw, Rusell was quite shy in this
matter, and also in a strange ambiguity with Buddhism which was quite
interesting.

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

truth is that I cannot keep isolated kamma from rebirth in the arising
of being and consciousness. Buddha don't avoid such question. It is
part of the Buddhist philosophy. I cannot see where is the crucial
problem and why we must avoid that. This explanations is closer to
reason, logics, and nature. And also supported by the best western
philosophers. This strange effort of isolation sounds to the need of
establishing a Philosophical Paradise to hide inconvenient things.
And in these days such places are not popular :)

best,