[Buddha-l] Karma and consequences

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Bob wrote:

BZ> For me, causality is not denied (although it is a difficult concept and
BZ> when we generalize it, it becomes problematic), but I do not accept 
BZ> karma due to the fact that it is non-empirical (although it would be 
BZ> nice if karma were correct).

well, sorry for the longitude but this cannot be managed in few lines.
There are many types of empiricism (radical, scientific, positivist,
sensible, etc...). In fact, the appellation to empiricism  has caused
several aberration in the Scientific world. Today we have a thing
called "Economic Sciences" inside Universities despite its incapacity
for verification and prediction are widely known. 

Knowing what is exactly the empirical knowledge is still an open
discussion. Sometimes empiricism is opposed to rationalism. We know
our reason can provide us certainties without sensible experience,
using only relations among objects (i.e: mathematics). Degrees of
certainty in a metaphysical investigation must be measured in a
similar way; by observing logics and relations. Here we must
understand Metaphysics in its classic and  best acception (from Greeks
until Kant). I agree the failure in the empirical verification is real
but empiricism is not enough in a metaphysical issue. The failure
appears because we are looking the morality of actions expecting a
moral counterpart. But first, we will fail to identify effects when
are not morally present in our moral understanding. Second, these
effects will be observed until our memory can reach.

About the first, we don't have a metaphysical development in Buddhism
to investigate the basis of Morality to establish a visible link with
causality. This is strange. In the West only Arthur Schopenhauer was
able to start such investigation in "On the Basis of Morality",
translated to English by E.FJ. Payne. He is the only author in the
human History examining the metaphysics of Morality under logics and
reason. And btw, seeing this important contribution is amazing the
silence and poor analysis of his metaphysics in the academic world.
(Taboos are not only inside monasteries)
His conclusion was the metaphysical basis of any authentic morality
is compassion in its pure form. Because it implies a disindividuation
and the complete recognition in other being. Schopenhauer gives the
example of somebody saving other person in a sudden, non-reflective
action, and dying himself in the effort. He said in such moment no
idea of an "I" was present. An interest side of the Schopenhauer view,
is having a basis to review our expectations of getting a "moral
result", then about relation of kamma with causality. Because the
moral consequences would be measured according detachment and
disinviduation. Both can be implicit in good actions in degrees, but
not always. Also, results would be quite variable and unexpected,
in dependence of the selfishness or the attachment to the "I".
So our knowledge of what is "morally logic" and the real possibilities
to identify the relation of cause-effect would be very limited to
affirm or to deny.

What we can study, are the logics and certainty in the relations
inside the same explanation. In this way can have a rational
certainty supported by the evidence in the short scope. Later, it
can be extended due to invariability of causality law. However, it
demands a previous examinations of our common (and non-empiric)
Descartes position about "I am", individuality and perceived world.

Pratityasamutpada is an explanation of a dynamic process of what we
call "mind" but in any way it is an explanation limited to one
individual and his own mind. On the contrary, the notion of 
individuality appears because this process. What we call "be born",
"being", "alive", "death", are not objects of knowledge sustained in a
consciousness which is here by chance. The individual is called
existent when consciousness arises to create what we call
"individuality". So we exists because pratityasamutpada, not the
inverse. The mind sustain an illusion of a being, and he is collecting
illusory effects of illusory causes. Logically, this process creates
other beings like him. Because "a being" is a causal consequence in
this process. This being is not any special or miraculous event in the
center of the universe. He is an illusion of individuality, and this
illusion starts a land to host what we call sensible experience and
empiric knowledge. In this way, sometimes he will recognize some
effects like "mine" and sometimes not. He will be able to recognize
only those events related with the threads of cause-effect inside what
he identify like "my life". When this illusory individuality looks to
herself in the search of answers, he will have a certainty according
the vanishing of his own individuality in these movements. Because any
experience that we call "truth" is not other thing than be closer to
the mind in itself, and devoid of errors. Errors are all the distorted
thoughts arising because the cognitions performed by this illusory
individuality. 

While there is not empirical evidence, the Empiricism here is not
relevant. Because we are talking about something which surpass the
convention established by the individual to examine his own illusions.
It is a problem about the nature of knowledge and existing, and here
the scientific knowledge is another convention, exactly like
pratityasamutpada. If we manage the Buddhist convention, kamma and
rebirth becomes fully logics, and its rejection becomes non-rational.
My view is many rejections are caused by attachment. The individuality
demands empiric evidence that the arrow is not in the air forever,
despite when he throw an stone he can see its fall. I'm saying that
you are attached to Empiricism and I am attached to Kamma. Both
attachments cannot be fruitful but this list must survive. 

best regards,