Here you appear to be asking “why/how does karma work as it does?”. The short answer is we don’t know or that’s the way the universe is structured.
That’s different from the question “how does karma work?”, which Buddhists talk about.
Similar to :
Why/how does gravity work as is does? Same short answer as for karma.
How does gravity work? You get a pull in a particular direction. An object will move in a specific path under the effect of gravity. You describe this with various degrees of success depending on the complexity of the situation.
How is karma different? It’s hard to isolate and measure.
How many times has it already been stated that there is no permanent “I” in Buddhism?
The “I” is obliterated every second.
And the goal is to end rebirth. IOW the goal is to NOT live eternally.
A woman checks on an elderly neighbor to make sure he is okay. She runs some errands and buys some groceries for him.
You want her to connect the dots as : “I do this because if I don’t, I may be reincarnated as a toad.”
Or “I do this because Buddha said … ‘If we fail to look after others when they need help, who will look after us?’”
Then another neighbor comes along and tells her to stop because the elderly guy is Muslim. “For truly it is written … let the Muslims rot in hell.”
Then she might stop because she is afraid of getting beat up or she is convinced by his argument. Or she might continue and she justifies it with another quote from Buddha or some passage of Buddhist scripture.
Is that it? Is that what you are looking for?
And here you would point out that Buddha and and the other guy’s source just made up that stuff. That there is no way to choose between the two, that is no way to pick the right approach. It hasn’t been demonstrated to be true for all. (Or so it seems to you.)
Am I on the right track here? Have I got the gist of it?
Here’s a question for you guys: isn’t the phenomenological basis for the doctrine of karma the experience that behavior has consequences? And this observation (and who would deny it?) leads to the question: how far do those consequences go? Is there any limit to them?
Okay, let’s forget fucking Buddhism. Besides, it’s just one more fucking religion to me.
Let’s focus instead on how you yourself have come to connect the dots existentially between “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then”. In this regard, refresh my memory, are you a moral objectivist? Do you embody a religious narrative?
Given a particular set of circumstances in which to sustain the exchange.
Let’s bring this down to earth.
Take Kant’s assessment of telling lies. Given that you know what Buddhism is to you, how do you imagine a Buddhist might react to lying?
Note to Buddhists:
What do you make of lying in human interactions? As it is embedded in your understanding of enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave.
Let’s discuss it. In regard to the vast number of contexts in which lying can play a part.
Instead, for Larry or Moe, it’s straight back up into the fucking intellectual contraption clouds
Have you had any actual religious experiences? And, aside from how you experienced them “in your head” how would you go about demonstrating them such that others might find it helpful in choosing to behave morally on this side of the grave so as to attain immortality on the other side of it.
What am I missing here? Given this exchange above…
…was I wrong to assume that Curly was suggesting that Horgan failed to be persuaded regarding Buddhism because he didn’t try hard enough?
Though admittedly, as with Curly, I have to agree that this part of the exchange “MAKES NO SENSE AT ALL”.
And, yeah, okay, I could be the problem here this time. Help us out.
As for “what the fuck is wrong with you” – me – in regard to how the universe or what in the universe is implicated in the part where enlightenment and karma on this side of the grave makes contact with reincarnation and Nirvana on the other side of it, I’m still mystified as to how a Godless religion explains this.
As for this…
…I’ll leave to others to speculate as to what prompts Curly to go off the deep end and engage in frenetic, sputtering personal attacks of this sort.
I’m back on ignore now. And, incredibly enough, he’s not even a fucking objectivist!!!
Though, sure, like he insist of me, he may well be “dumb”.
Sixty-six times have these eyes beheld the changing scenes of Autumn.
I have said enough about moonlight,
Ask me no more.
Only listen to the voice of pines and cedars, when no wind stirs.
Just about what someone – meaning me – would expect from a poster hell bent on keeping a discussion of religion as far removed from the lives that we live and the deaths that we will experience as possible.
Okay, then I am back to noting that if Buddhists don’t know how enlightenment and karma and reincarnation and Nirvana are intertwined in how the universe works, then why should others become Buddhists? Sure, one can take a “leap of faith” to Buddhism as with the other religious denominations, but then we are back to all of those hundreds and hundreds of additional religious denominations that are basically in the same boat. To the best of my current knowledge, Buddhists demonstrate nothing in the way of connecting the dots between enlightenment and immortality beyond what was believed to be true in the head of the Buddha.
Ah, but what does that matter if in believing it yourself you are comforted and consoled?
I get that part, sure. In fact, I wish that somehow I could make that leap myself.
How gravity works is not often linked to “morality here and now” and “immortality there and then”. Unless Jim pushes John over a cliff and John dies. Then some may wonder if Jim’s behavior was immoral. And gravity having led to John hitting the rocks below, killing him, will John then go on to an existence on the other side.
And how do Buddhists talk about karma…how karma works in regard to the existential trajectory of their own lives and then the part after they are dead and gone.
In fact, that’s that part I keep coming back to over and over again: karma as it is intertwined in the actual experiences that Buddhists have over the years.
Come on, I make a distinction here between [b]I[/b] in the either/or world and “I” in is/ought world. [b]I[/b] in the life that we live on this side of the grave and whatever the fate of “I” on the other side of it.
Sure, biologically, our bodies/brains are never exactly the same from minute to minute, but what does that really mean in regard to the things that happen to us that all rational human beings can agree are happening to us.
And, okay, for those committed Buddhists among us, once mere mortals die is their “I” itself obliterated for all time to come?
After all, that’s what makes so many hundreds of millions of other religious folks choose the God denominations. As Christians, Muslims, Jews etc., “I” as a “soul” does in fact continue on for all of eternity. And that is by far one of the biggest attractions of Western religions.
And what of Nirvana? If no “I” in the manner in which we understand that here and now, what exactly does become in sync with “the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism”.
Yup, and his justification is incredulity. That’s what other religions are doing, so it must be the case. ‘Come on’.
It reminds me of the Sufi tale, which is a tradition with some similarities to Buddhism…
and notice how iamb just caanot notice buddhist ideas if a lack of self. even though this is oointed out to him. in posts he quotes from. and complains the posts are about him.
So he quotes the part about him that is a secondary part of a post about Buddhism, that deals precisely with the issue he is incredulous above.
He doesn’t want to participate in the practices AND he can’t even read information about the religion, unless it seems to him to serve his purposes. He is our Nasruddin.
Sure, in a universe where human autonomy does exist, Buddhists are free to make their own distinction here. And if one accepts the assumptions that underlie it, end of story.
Simply scrap the part about demonstrating any of it.
But: with a God/the God, the fate of “I” before and after the grave, is something that anyone can grasp. It’s all encompassed in God’s Will. That may not be demonstrable either but at least its presumed existence ties everything together.
And, yes, if you and others wish to argue that Buddhists just don’t know how the universe “works” in regard to the behaviors we choose here and now and the fate of “I” there and then, so be it.
But if someone were figuring on knowing the right thing to do on this side of the grave and concerned with what becomes of them after they die, which spiritual path would seem more definitive to them?
Note to Buddhists:
Is this the case? Is the “I” that you know and love here and now obliterated for all of eternity when you die? No reunion with loved ones? No explanation from a God/the God as to why life as a mere mortal is what it is? No assurance/explanation from a God/the God regarding Divine Justice? No punishment for the wicked?
No, I’m speculating as a mere mortal who construes “I” here as an existential fabrication rooted in dasein, that religion is the mother of all psychological defense mechanisms. It allows someone, in my view, to ground their own sense of self in an ontological and teleological perspective on existence. It gives them a font from which to derive enlightened and/or moral behaviors on this side of the grave, and it assures them that in whatever manner is professed, existence goes on beyond the grave.
And, thus, in being able to think that human existence is not essentially meaningless and absurd…and that it does not end at death… this comforts and consoles them them in a way that is well beyond my reach.
So I can only conclude that in the end, all the squabbling here aside, the religious folks “win”. Hands down.
