GENIUS FORUMS

I found this article online, was wondering what you guys thought of it. Basically it turns karma into the actual act of making a conscious choice...as opposed to some simple deterministic cause & effect process.


Karma means volitional action. There are forces in the universe that operate outside of karma. These forces are non-volitional, random, even wild, unpredictable and unaccountable. And they are not necessarily in any category of neat, ordered law. Karma and vipaka, action and result; are part of the whole. There are other activities; events that happen in reality other than those that can be ascribed to volitional action. If we are walking down the sidewalk and unconsciously step on an ant and end its life then and there on the spot, there is no karma. It’s not karma. There is no volition. However, if we deliberately choose to step on and kill that creature, then we have produced karma. This simple-minded, incomplete, childish view of Buddha-Dharma that makes karma into a totally deterministic universe is really very much a nightmare of totalitarianism. This is the attempt of the ego, the attempt of this false notion of separate individuality, the ordered universe to do its bidding.

This simple-minded, incomplete, childish view of Buddha-Dharma that makes karma into a totally deterministic universe is really very much a nightmare of totalitarianism.

In this sentence, he implies that causality is:
1) simple-minded
2) incomplete
3) childish
4) nightmarish
5) totalitarian

It makes me wonder if he has an intelligent, complete, adult, realistic, and (ummm?) rational understanding of what causality is. But when he says that non-karmic forces are "non-volitional, random, even wild, unpredictable and unaccountable", I really doubt that he does. These are not adjectives a person uses to describe causality.

In trying to separate karma from causality, he has produced a very muddled view of the universe. His karma is identical to the theological non-issue of free will.

I am left wondering, though... "totalitarian"? Where the hell did he concoct that similarity? Communist causality versus Democratic free will... Fascist Reality versus Capitalist family values...

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

This simple-minded, incomplete, childish view of Buddha-Dharma that makes karma into a totally deterministic universe is really very much a nightmare of totalitarianism.

In this sentence, he implies that causality is:
1) simple-minded
2) incomplete
3) childish
4) nightmarish
5) totalitarian

It makes me wonder if he has an intelligent, complete, adult, realistic, and (ummm?) rational understanding of what causality is. But when he says that non-karmic forces are "non-volitional, random, even wild, unpredictable and unaccountable", I really doubt that he does. These are not adjectives a person uses to describe causality.

In trying to separate karma from causality, he has produced a very muddled view of the universe. His karma is identical to the theological non-issue of free will.

I am left wondering, though... "totalitarian"? Where the hell did he concoct that similarity? Communist causality versus Democratic free will... Fascist Reality versus Capitalist family values...

Sure the way he describes karma and causality isn't very adequate, but what about the idea that karma is more than just causality and requires volition, a willful action, is that so crazy?

Sure the way he describes karma and causality isn't very adequate, but what about the idea that karma is more than just causality and requires volition, a willful action, is that so crazy?

Causality is an all-encompassing process, so the idea of something being "more" than causality doesn't make much sense to me. However, the idea of karma being something other than causality is not entirely ridiculous: but in that case, the proponent of that view would have to have a pretty good defence as to why using karma in this sense is superior to using it as a synonym for causality. Does it describe reality more accurately? If not, does it have any practical benefits?

I find it hard to see any reason a person would use karma in this emasculated sense. There's no time I'd ever need to use a term that means "causality minus all non-volitional acts and the consequences of non-volitional acts". (Unless, of course, I were talking about nothing.)

The author described himself when he said, "this is the attempt of the ego, the attempt of this false notion of separate individuality, the ordered universe to do its bidding."

He wants to separate himself (his ego) from the rest of the universe.

Hades wrote:

I found this article online, was wondering what you guys thought of it. Basically it turns karma into the actual act of making a conscious choice...as opposed to some simple deterministic cause & effect process.

Karma means volitional action. There are forces in the universe that operate outside of karma. These forces are non-volitional, random, even wild, unpredictable and unaccountable. And they are not necessarily in any category of neat, ordered law. Karma and vipaka, action and result; are part of the whole. There are other activities; events that happen in reality other than those that can be ascribed to volitional action. If we are walking down the sidewalk and unconsciously step on an ant and end its life then and there on the spot, there is no karma. It’s not karma. There is no volition. However, if we deliberately choose to step on and kill that creature, then we have produced karma. This simple-minded, incomplete, childish view of Buddha-Dharma that makes karma into a totally deterministic universe is really very much a nightmare of totalitarianism. This is the attempt of the ego, the attempt of this false notion of separate individuality, the ordered universe to do its bidding.

Talking about karma in a volitional sense certainly has its uses, so long as it is kept in mind that volition is ultimately an illusion.

For example, there is a very different psychology at work between accidently stepping on an ant and deliberately stepping on the ant with the intention of causing it suffering and death. The second act can be said to generate a lot of karma because the conscious intention to be cruel is indicative of a deeper irrational mindset that will cause increasing problems as time goes on. For example, the second man's cruelness will cause him to become isolated from the circles of good-natured people, forcing him to constantly associate with criminal-types who are just as cruel as he is and who will try to make his life a misery as much he will theirs.

So it is certainly valid to speak of karma in this way, even though, at bottom, the whole process is no less causal and mechanistic than any other process in the universe.

-

David Quinn wrote:Hades wrote:

I found this article online, was wondering what you guys thought of it. Basically it turns karma into the actual act of making a conscious choice...as opposed to some simple deterministic cause & effect process.

Karma means volitional action. There are forces in the universe that operate outside of karma. These forces are non-volitional, random, even wild, unpredictable and unaccountable. And they are not necessarily in any category of neat, ordered law. Karma and vipaka, action and result; are part of the whole. There are other activities; events that happen in reality other than those that can be ascribed to volitional action. If we are walking down the sidewalk and unconsciously step on an ant and end its life then and there on the spot, there is no karma. It’s not karma. There is no volition. However, if we deliberately choose to step on and kill that creature, then we have produced karma. This simple-minded, incomplete, childish view of Buddha-Dharma that makes karma into a totally deterministic universe is really very much a nightmare of totalitarianism. This is the attempt of the ego, the attempt of this false notion of separate individuality, the ordered universe to do its bidding.

Talking about karma in a volitional sense certainly has its uses, so long as it is kept in mind that volition is ultimately an illusion.

For example, there is a very different psychology at work between accidently stepping on an ant and deliberately stepping on the ant with the intention of causing it suffering and death. The second act can be said to generate a lot of karma because the conscious intention to be cruel is indicative of a deeper irrational mindset that will cause increasing problems as time goes on. For example, the second man's cruelness will cause him to become isolated from the circles of good-natured people, forcing him to constantly associate with criminal-types who are just as cruel as he is and who will try to make his life a misery as much he will theirs.

So it is certainly valid to speak of karma in this way, even though, at bottom, the whole process is no less causal and mechanistic than any other process in the universe.

-

So then we could think of karma as a part of a greater flow of causality. A part that involves a conscious being making certain decisions, although this being and his decision-making mind are still operating within a greater deterministic machine?

Yes. Karma can mean cause and effect generally, or it can mean this narrower realm of causal processes within human psychology, where the concepts of intention and volition come into play.

However, Buddhists often make the mistake of isolating the narrower conception of karma from the wider principle of cause and effect - indeed, many of them even think that the psychological realm is completely separate from the physical realm, that there is never any causal spillage from one realm to the other. But there is a price to pay for thinking this. They are generating bad karma of their own, which involves a strengthening of false thinking in their minds and a further entrenching in ignorance about the nature of Reality.

-