Karma and Fate

[Marblehead]

Have I mentioned that I do not hold to the concepts of karma, destiny, or reincarnation?

 

(Sorry, It just felt like that needed to be said.)

 

Please ignore me.

 

Peace & Love!

[nac]

I just don't understand how this relates to karma, as something what determines our lives, our future, and our future lives

Karma doesn't "determine our lives, our future, and our future lives". The above is the real Buddhist conception of how causality works. In Buddhist doctrine, Karma (meaning causality) is the factor which conditions and connects all phenomena to form an interdependent web without wholly determining them. Fate and destiny are rejected since there's always some degree of non-determinism. Quantum causality merely indicates the possible validity of such metaphysics, although the non-deterministic factor was probably regarded as the macroscopic free-will of sentient beings in traditional Buddhism, not stochastic quantum randomness. Still, there's a line of speculation in the scientific community that human brains might function as quantum computers. Quantum devices magnify quantum effects till they become apparent in the world governed by relativity so they can be stored as classical information and observed by us.

 

Do you mean that the degree of freedom is what we experience as our own choice, and thus it directly affects the whole process?

Not entirely, but partly yes, according to Buddhism. When presented with many possible choices, the one action which ultimately emerges may be considered an outcome of free-will. Conditions only make outcomes more or less likely, nothing more.

 

But this would mean exactly the opposite of what I've learned from karma. It would mean that when you do something karmically unwholesome, then you don't necessarily have to "pay the price".

First of all, you've got to understand that karma is not "justice". Cold causality is part of what makes samsara an unpleasant place. The infant who sticks a fork into a power-socket doesn't exactly "pay the price" for innocent fun, right? And yet, this is exactly what karma is like, since we hurt ourselves through our own ignorance. The opposite also takes place when causality capriciously heaps great rewards upon undeserving individuals.

 

If karmic fruition were deterministic, then salvation through human intention would be impossible since bad karma would only be purified if and when it's purification is preordained. In other words, in a deterministic universe, the child mentioned above would be destined for electrocution (by Shang Ti, say) and no human effort can avert the disaster. Buddhism rejects the idea that we can make the world a better place only when we're destined to do so. This may seem like an open-ended and purposeless universe, but fortunately, our degrees of freedom allow humans and other sentient beings to set up conditions that make just outcomes more likely, minimize suffering, etc; thereby bringing the tyranny of arbitrary karma under some measure of control.

 

Because of the uncertainty of the whole system, you might actually get away with no effects at all, or even the opposite effect.

"No effects" as in no changes in the initial conditions or their sudden disappearance? Like I said, degrees of freedom may never become infinite or vanish altogether, but the probability of each result is nevertheless constrained by past conditions. An outcome may only take place if said conditions allow it to occur. So it's not like anything could happen, or that there are no impossible outcomes. Also note that some consequnces are insanely unlikely, like say, 1 in a trillion raised to a power of a trillion. We may safely call these practically impossible, unique events or miracles.

 

The degree of freedom also states that the effect must be close to the cause,

I can't see how locality is implied by non-determinism. The classical interpretation of Quantum physics is, for example, both non-deterministic and non-local.

 

but since karma is something what remains for thousands of lifetimes, it's hard to imagine that it'll still work then...

Skipping over a whole bunch of off-topic (I'm not happy with "remains", etc etc.) clarifications, why not? Why wouldn't conditions apprehend consequences thousands or even billions of years into the future? Frankly, I don't understand your objections, but you seem to have assumed much higher levels of non-determinism than what anyone is proposing. Karma is causality after all, when all is said and done. All I'm saying is, the kind of conditioned acausality taught by Buddhism has been observed directly in the quantum world. Take radioactivity for example. Atoms are known to emit particles when their nuclei become unstable, but the actual event of emission is completely unpredictable. So the unstable nucleus provides a condition for radioactive emission to take place, but the event is otherwise acausal. It has been given the freedom to occur, so it takes place without rhyme or reason whenever the fancy takes it. The neutron is probably the unstable particle with the longest half-life. Keep a statistically large number of neutrons in a suitable container, and within 15(?) minutes, around half of them will have attempted to initiate a weak interaction by emitting a W- boson and turning into a proton. However, we can never hope to predict which half will have released it and which half will have maintained their stability. This is genuine science.

 

In my opinion, the above is loosely analogous to the way in which free will operates in sentient beings, only the latter is way more complex, more layered, more rational and has relatively far-reaching consequences. If it turns out that the human brain does magnify quantum effects by using them to process classical information as is currently theorized, this would provide a strong case for the existence of free-will and non-determinism in the macroscopic world at large.

Edited March 17, 2010 by nac

[nac]

<double post>

Edited March 17, 2010 by nac

[nac]

Have I mentioned that I do not hold to the concepts of karma, destiny, or reincarnation?

 

(Sorry, It just felt like that needed to be said.)

 

Please ignore me.

 

Peace & Love!

Oh no, feel free to ask away!

 

PS. Er... How do you delete posts? ;

[Athanor]

[...]

 

In my opinion, this is loosely analogous to the way in which free will operates in sentient beings, only the latter is way more complex, more layered, more logical and has relatively far-reaching consequences. If it turns out that the human brain does magnify quantum effects by using them to process classical information as is currently theorized, that would be a strong case for the existence of free-will and non-determinism in the macroscopic world at large.

Well, first let me thank you for your time and effort to write down this long answer, I really appreciate it. However, I'd lie if I'd say I fully understand what you just said partially due to language difficulties. I'd gladly read your article on this issue if you'd use less complex sentences so I could understand it easier

 

Anyway, I still don't really understand what you mean by karma. I mean you said "karma is not justice". Alright. But then why do the religions which accept karma teach that if you do good then good things will happen to you and if you do bad then bad things will happen to you? Because basically this is what they teach when they tell you to be compassionate and practice loving-kindness...

 

Most likely if you put a fork into the power-socket then you will not pay the price of innocent play. According to the religious approach, in this case you'll probably pay the price of an earlier bad deed, maybe from one of your previous lives.

I think this notion of karma is a little elementary. But, besides that most people probably understand this much from the whole concept, I still don't understand what would be the significance of karma if it does not determine anything.

 

I understand what you said about the possibilities, that the actual present limits the possibilities of the future. I also understand that there is a degree of freedom. What I don't understand is that if these things eventually don't determine our lives because - as you said - it's not justice, then why should we care about karma at all?

And then what is enlightenment about, if karma is not something to care about?

 

Am I asking stupid questions? Sorry...

[nac]

Am I asking stupid questions? Sorry...

Of course not, but I think it would be better to let you resolve these basic issues on your own. That would be much easier if you were the member of a Sangha, either online or offline, and/or if you had a good teacher. Whatever you do, never to distort the facts to fit theories, and you should be fine.

 

Oh no, feel free to ask away!

Oops, sorry Marblehead, I thought you were someone else. So many expectations, prejudices and melatonin molecules to dispose of! Guess I'll join you at rejoicing in non-attached bliss now that that's over.

[Athanor]

Of course not, but I think it would be better to let you resolve these basic issues on your own. That would be much easier if you were the member of a Sangha, either online or offline, and/or if you had a good teacher. Whatever you do, never to distort the facts to fit theories, and you should be fine.

Well, there are no on-line sanghas around here, and the nearest real sangha is about a hundred km-s away My hometown is not really the ideal place for daily practice...

You see, it is said that the place of birth and living is also a karmic result. And it determines pretty much, doesn't it?

 

Oh well... thank you for your help, I don't bother you anymore. But if you really write an article about this issue then let me know

[Lucky7Strikes]

Have I mentioned that I do not hold to the concepts of karma, destiny, or reincarnation?

 

(Sorry, It just felt like that needed to be said.)

 

Please ignore me.

 

Peace & Love!

Daoist philosophy is filled with references to fulfilling one's destiny. It is a reoccuring concept in Chinese literature.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Marblehead]

Daoist philosophy is filled with references to fulfilling one's destiny. It is a reoccuring concept in Chinese literature.

 

I will automatically disagree with this. Philosophical Taoism speaks of fulfilling one's potential, not destiny.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

Oh no, feel free to ask away!

 

PS. Er... How do you delete posts? ;

 

Hehehe. You cannot delete my posts. Whatever I say is written in stone.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

 

Oops, sorry Marblehead, I thought you were someone else. So many expectations, prejudices and melatonin molecules to dispose of! Guess I'll join you at rejoicing in non-attached bliss now that that's over.

 

Hehehe. Actually, I rather enjoyed your definition of karma in the above post. It is much closer to what I hold to than what has been said by many.

 

Cause and effect rule.

 

And I agree, justice is not always served. It's nice to believe that 'what comes around goes around' but oftentimes what goes around keeps going to the same people and it never returns to the origin.

 

Yes, Indeed, non-attachment to dogma is the easiest path. Non-attachment allows for total free-will.

 

Peace & Love!

[Athanor]

Non-attachment allows for total free-will.

I agree, but I don't think it's easy at all. One basic principle of a society is that the members can be manipulated through certain aspects of the society itself. These aspects are things from average income, through general aim of people, as far as the belief and attitude of the members. Marketing on all level is based on this manipulation, and there are very precise systems which can tell what will be a profitable manipulation.

This is only possible because people do not use their potential of free will. It is much harder to live our life in a totally unique and not attached way than to give in to attachments as the rest of the society, to become somewhat homogeneous with others, and to rely on others on a much larger level than necessary.

 

This leads me to another interpretation of karma. If you live your life according to certain rules and parameters, your life will be the result of those rules and parameters. This can be understood as the results of one's life are the karmic consequences of those karmic principles which are embedded in the rules and parameters of the society. The more you rely on these, the more you rely on karma. Yet, if you reach total non-attachment, the consequences predetermined by the society's rules and parameters won't affect your life - or at least they'll affect it on an infinitesimal level. In this case you indeed bring your own free will into effect, and you will not have to face the usual karmic consequences.

 

Of course relying on the society is just one side of the whole, the same type of attachment goes to natural phenomena and many other things too.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Athanor

[Marblehead]

I agree, but I don't think it's easy at all.

 

Ha. You caught me making a generalized statement. I agree with you. However, once we have attained a sense of non-attachment remaining that way is easy.

 

 

 

If you live your life according to certain rules and parameters, your life will be the result of those rules and parameters.

 

Yes. I would call this 'cause and effect'.

 

You know, it's not that I have anything against the concept of karma, it is just that I have something against those who preach that we have no free will. That's a cop-out and the beginning of apathy and justification for acts unbecoming.

 

Peace & Love!

[Athanor]

You know, it's not that I have anything against the concept of karma, it is just that I have something against those who preach that we have no free will. That's a cop-out and the beginning of apathy and justification for acts unbecoming.

I don't know whether I have free will or not. But I found that it doesn't matter. We do the same thing if we are bound to do it according to external circumstances and inner states (mental, emotional, etc. states) because all is predetermined, and when we are allowed to choose free because we have free will.

The only difference is in recognizing free will itself. When you recognize that you have it, it will become a very important parameter that will change all your behavior. However, this change also occurs if free will is not actually there but you still recognize it as if you'd have it, because it will still become a parameter in the process. A very powerful parameter actually, which will alter the outcome of all your behavior, regardless whether this behavior is actually the product of free will or determination.

 

In this approach, the question whether you have free will or not is not important.

[Marblehead]

In this approach, the question whether you have free will or not is not important.

 

I have no arguement against this thought pattern.

 

So looking at it from my point of view, those who believe everything is predetermined are using their free will to hold to that understanding and actually, life may be a little easier for those people because they don't have to justify their actions. All they need say is "The devil made me do it."

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't know whether I have free will or not. But I found that it doesn't matter. We do the same thing if we are bound to do it according to external circumstances and inner states (mental, emotional, etc. states) because all is predetermined, and when we are allowed to choose free because we have free will.

The only difference is in recognizing free will itself. When you recognize that you have it, it will become a very important parameter that will change all your behavior. However, this change also occurs if free will is not actually there but you still recognize it as if you'd have it, because it will still become a parameter in the process. A very powerful parameter actually, which will alter the outcome of all your behavior, regardless whether this behavior is actually the product of free will or determination.

 

In this approach, the question whether you have free will or not is not important.

The question is more of identity than about free will.

 

Who am I?

[Athanor]

I have no arguement against this thought pattern.

 

So looking at it from my point of view, those who believe everything is predetermined are using their free will to hold to that understanding and actually, life may be a little easier for those people because they don't have to justify their actions. All they need say is "The devil made me do it."

 

Peace & Love!

Exactly

 

However, when after committing a crime they face the judge and they try to defend themselves saying "I had no choice, I have no free will, I was determined to do that", the judge can also say "I am determined to send you to jail". So this actually doesn't make someone avoid consequences either

[Athanor]

The question is more of identity than about free will.

 

Who am I?

When I try to examine this question then the above argument indeed loses its meaning.

However, when I tried to find an answer to this, I could only find that I can't find an answer, i.e. that I don't find a single thing which can be called "I" or "me", or my "self". I can't identify the inner observer. So obviously I can't tell about its parameters, capabilities and limits, neither can I tell what affects it and how.

However, I think enlightenment may be something like becoming fully aware of our real identity, "who we are" in reality. But I have little knowledge on how to do it, I mostly rely on Shankara's Atma Bodha in this issue.

[Marblehead]

Exactly

 

However, when after committing a crime they face the judge and they try to defend themselves saying "I had no choice, I have no free will, I was determined to do that", the judge can also say "I am determined to send you to jail". So this actually doesn't make someone avoid consequences either

 

 

Yes. And here we are touching on the concept of taking responsibility for our actions. I am a strong supporter of this concept. We must take responsibility for our actions. We have choices. We choose to do whatever it is we have done. Sure, sometimes our choices are narrowed down to only two: to act or to not act. But these are still choices.

 

And you are right, the judge makes the 'best' choice based on the evidence available to him/her.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

The question is more of identity than about free will.

 

Who am I?

 

Hi Lucky,

 

Good seeing your post. You are always a challenge for me. Hehehe. (Meaning that in a positive way.)

 

Your question is fair. Yes, I am the accumulation of everything that has effected me in one way or another.

 

But no, I won't let you get away with excusing negative behavior because you were raised by abusing parents or whatever. The only way I could possibly accept this would be if the person were determined to be mentally retarded, ie, was unable to judge between right and wrong.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Who wants to be a slave to an untenable concept such as karma! I don't!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

 

ralis

[Marblehead]

Who wants to be a slave to an untenable concept such as karma! I don't!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality

 

ralis

 

 

Nor I.

 

Peace & Love!

[Lucky7Strikes]

When I try to examine this question then the above argument indeed loses its meaning.

However, when I tried to find an answer to this, I could only find that I can't find an answer, i.e. that I don't find a single thing which can be called "I" or "me", or my "self". I can't identify the inner observer. So obviously I can't tell about its parameters, capabilities and limits, neither can I tell what affects it and how.

However, I think enlightenment may be something like becoming fully aware of our real identity, "who we are" in reality. But I have little knowledge on how to do it, I mostly rely on Shankara's Atma Bodha in this issue.

Well, if there is no you. Who is there to exercise free will?

[Marblehead]

But there is an Athanor and there is a Lucky as well.

 

And yes, dear hearts you too have free will. And, of course, this means you, we each, are responsible for our own actions.

 

I will agree that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to put one's finger on "I am" but we are none-the-less.

 

Peace & Love!

[Athanor]

Well, if there is no you. Who is there to exercise free will?

Actually, if you ask a Buddhist "What does reincarnate, what is the particular thing that is you, that carries your karma to the next life?", they won't give you a fair answer either.

I didn't say there is no "me", I said that I can't think of anything that could be truly me, the real me - because the things I can think of are mostly just parts of the whole "me-concept"