As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to bring us back to the question, what 'caused' any 'cause and effect'?

[Metis]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Maybe you can clarify this?

[Metis]

It seems to bring us back to the question, what 'caused' any 'cause and effect'?

Maybe cause and effect have always been around. 

To me, we either have to drift in one of two directions.  One is that cause and effect, along with energy/matter, has always been around.  The other is that there's some uncaused cause that started everything going.  Now which is more logical?

IMO, it's the former, largely because we do know about cause and effect, and we do know that energy, by its nature, is ever-changing.  OTOH, we don't know if there's a deity or deities and, even if there were to be any, whether they had anything to do with how our universe got to be what it is today. 

So, what we have is one where there's at least some evidence, and the other where there's literally no evidence, which is why I drift in favor of the infinity position.  However, notice my use of the word "drift".  I certainly ain't gonna bet my house on this, or believe that if someone takes the opposite position that they're thinking illogically.   

[SquirleyWurley]

I fail to see how an infinite regress is MORE logical than an uncaused cause.

[Metis]

It's more "logical" in the sense that we do know energy/matter exists, and we do know that it is ever-changing, but we don't know if a deity exists, nor do we know how many there are or if they had anything to do with "creating" our universe.  But I also want to make it clear that, even with this being seemingly the case, I cannot discount the hypothetical possibility that there may be a deity or deities that "created" our universe.  So, what I was trying to say by using the word "logically" is that some evidence may be a better indicator of what happened than having no evidence.

Now, please do remember that I'm using the word "evidence" in the scientific sense, and someone may see "evidence" in a different way than I am using it.  If they feel there's enough evidence because of scripture, visions, feelings, or whatever, certainly they probably will feel their idea of a theistic creation is more "logical" than my non-theistic approach, and who am I to say they're categorically wrong?    

[Flitzerbiest]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Maybe you can clarify this?

Sure.

It seems far more common to assume that there was a state of nothingness preceding the creation of the universe than to assume that the universe spawned out of some other sort of entity.  I am questioning why a state of void (nothing) is considered more probable that a state of non-void (something).

We really have no evidence for either proposition, and debates about what happened "before creation" are, by definition, irrational since time is a property of the universe.

der biest

[Metis]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Maybe you can clarify this?

Sure.

It seems far more common to assume that there was a state of nothingness preceding the creation of the universe than to assume that the universe spawned out of some other sort of entity.  I am questioning why a state of void (nothing) is considered more probable that a state of non-void (something).

We really have no evidence for either proposition, and debates about what happened "before creation" are, by definition, irrational since time is a property of the universe.

der biest

Thanks for the clarification. 

Cosmologists do have various theories about what might have caused the BB, and there's some evidence in regards to what our universe was like prior to this event, but obviously there are so many questions left unanswered at this time.  But it may not stay that way for long.  Leonard Susskind, who's a noted research cosmologist, thinks they may know what caused the BB possibly within 10 years, and this is largely due to the recent research dealing with the "afterglow" (radiation from the BB). 

BTW, I just received a book from Scientific American on the subject entitled "The Universe Before the Big Bang: Cosmology and String Theory" by Maurizio Gasperini.  That's the good news-- the bad news is that I haven't read it yet.

[Kartari]

As far as your'e concerned, what does "karma" mean?

According to one Dharma teacher, it is simply a matter of cause and effect. All of our actions -- and inaction -- have consequences, some immediate and some more distant. It is not good or bad. No one is keeping track of it. No one is going to use the information to judge you, reward you, punish you, or make sure you are reincarnated as a fly because you were naughty. Seems reasonable.

Is this how other Buddhists view it?

What about non-Buddhists?

Thank you for your thoughtful replies!

Namaste.

Yes.  We reap what we sow.

[Kartari]

My objection to karma is that it leaves the person in a difficult situation no reason to expect help or mercy from others, and it leaves others no reason to render aid or mercy since his situation is of his own making; his own karma.

You forget that helping that person is excellent for one's own karma.

Why?  If that person receives mercy it's only because he is receiving an effect of his own prior action which isn't mercy at all since karma is strictly about cause and effect.  Karma by definition cannot render mercy.  And if you're being merciful to someone expecting to get something in return, that too is not mercy by definition, imo.

Let's not confuse what karma actually is.  It is not some kind of impersonal force, at least in Buddhism.  Rather, it is just a conceptualization or law that describes that we simply reap what we sow.  A force called karma does not "make" you do or feel anything; we do that, by our thinking and actions.

For example, being mindless while driving will increase the probability of causing a car accident.  Karma didn't make us get into an accident.  We did, by our lack of mindful presence on the road.

Karma does not inhibit our freedom to be, do and think as we choose either.  We can change and control our mindfulness and, consequently, our behaviors at any moment.

[Kartari]

To me, I think it's more of an idea of what goes around comes around...

Indeed, except that this empirically does not seem to be the case.  Stephen Batchelor (Buddhism Without Belief) advocates doing away with the non-demonstrable aspects of Buddhism, specifically karma and reincarnation.

I fully agree with you and, as a matter of fact, I have recommended Batchelor's book to many people outside of Buddhist circles because I think that he hits the nail on the head in that all religions, including Buddhism, have many attachments they've added over the centuries.

I disagree.  I also do not necessarily share a belief in reincarnation (it's possible though, who knows).  But beliefs are not necessarily attachments.  A belief only becomes an attachment when one craves or has an aversion to the belief (e.g is fearful with (aversion) or without (craves) the belief).  Leave the traditional cultures and their believers in tact.  And if you want for yourself just the pragmatic wisdom of Buddhism without the beliefs, that's fine too.  It works the same imo either way.

[Kartari]

What I can't seem to get a handle on in reference to karma is the following:

If karma is simply the result of cause and effect... how did it first start?  Who initiated the first mercy or the first non or evil action?

Karma describes cause and effect; karma is not an entity in and of itself, but rather describes a universal law: there is cause and effect in all conditioned things.  So long as there has been existence, there has been cause and effect.

And if evil comes upon you because you did evil, doesn't that necessitate that the one who did evil to you because of your past karma mean that the person who did it to you would then create a continual loop of someone doing evil to someone else because of karma which then requires that the person who... well I'm getting into the loop and hopefully you understand what I am saying.

Motivation is usually seen as the prime factor in karmic effects in Buddhism.  Motive is under one's control.  The Christian concept of free will is compatible with karma; we are not slaves to an uncontrollable chain of "bad karma", but rather we choose our own path in every moment.  Karma simply describes that there are always consequences, "good" and/or "bad", to our thoughts and deeds.

[Kartari]

If I can just add to costrel's response a bit in that Buddhism does not teach that there was/is a creator-god, and one of the reasons why such an entity is unlikely is that it would make this deity an uncaused cause, which seemingly defies what we experience on a day to day basis. 

So, did our universe have a beginning?  Not likely even according to most of the cosmologists.  Yes there's evidence for the big bang, and yes there was something here prior to the big bang in that our universe was roughly the size of an atom by today's standards, but no that is still not likely to be the beginning.  Instead, most cosmologists that I have read tend to think that energy/matter in one form or another probably goes back into infinity and probably will go forward into infinity as well.  And since there's no real beginning, there's no uncaused cause.

Yes, that's the doctrine of dependent origination.

[Kartari]

I fail to see how an infinite regress is MORE logical than an uncaused cause.

Because declaring something to be uncaused goes against all we know and understand about reality.  Everything is caused by something; nothing is without cause.

[Kartari]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Maybe you can clarify this?

Sure.

It seems far more common to assume that there was a state of nothingness preceding the creation of the universe than to assume that the universe spawned out of some other sort of entity.  I am questioning why a state of void (nothing) is considered more probable that a state of non-void (something).

Good point.

We really have no evidence for either proposition, and debates about what happened "before creation" are, by definition, irrational since time is a property of the universe.

der biest

I think the evidence points to dependent origination.  The claim that something uncaused caused cause and effect goes against what we know and understand about reality.

[Flitzerbiest]

The question of why there is something rather than nothing provides nearly limitless fuel for both scientific and theological speculation.  What gets little attention is the fact that we tend to assume, without proof, that "nothing" is the default position.

I'm not too sure what you mean by the last sentence.  Maybe you can clarify this?

Sure.

It seems far more common to assume that there was a state of nothingness preceding the creation of the universe than to assume that the universe spawned out of some other sort of entity.  I am questioning why a state of void (nothing) is considered more probable that a state of non-void (something).

Good point.

We really have no evidence for either proposition, and debates about what happened "before creation" are, by definition, irrational since time is a property of the universe.

der biest

I think the evidence points to dependent origination.  The claim that something uncaused caused cause and effect goes against what we know and understand about reality.

How delightful!  A member of the "something" party.

I personally get a little vertiginous when I try to consider the merits of one versus the other.  My main objection is to those who believe that one of the possibilities is actually a matter of fact and argue on the basis of illogic and an unscientific understanding of cosmology.

[Today]

• Religion gets ugly by CCC460 [Today at 02:21:47 PM]
• God No Longer Male by SteveC [Today at 11:04:09 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 06:34:27 AM]
• Jewish Understanding by kwd111 [Today at 05:37:00 AM]
• Mayans Answer Questions A... by SteveC [September 08, 2010, 03:57:03 PM]
• Science Corrects Itself by SteveC [September 07, 2010, 10:31:39 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [September 07, 2010, 12:09:55 PM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87138
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 61
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 3
Guests: 20
Total: 23

kwd111
Coachbob
CCC460