This is interesting - one of the arguments that I often see for belief in rebirth is that it makes people more moral, where the 'materialist' view leads to a tendency to behave in a nihilistic fashion where one seeks maximum pleasure (though anyone who has actually tried to become happy by a sustained effort to engage in sensual pleasure will, I would argue, realise that one lifetime, indeed, a few years, is enough to realise that this is extremely counter-productive).
If I understand you, it seems like the argument for belief in kamma that you're putting forward here is similar - we will be better off believing in it. But, and this also applies to the above argument regarding rebirth, it doesn't actually seem that there's any correlation between societies being Buddhist, and behaving in more moral ways (of course, we can't really measure people's happiness, so one might argue that such societies don't behave any more morally, but that their people are happier).
I would think that it might be necessary to take the other corollaries of the belief into account as an entire structure - that is, although as you point out kamma isn't vengeful or requiring worship (one thing that in my experience can be hard for Western non-Buddhists to understand about Buddhism is that the goal of Buddhist morality is not to be good in order to please some observer or to follow a handed-down set of rules with consequences which are not empirically verifiable), nonetheless it can be socially problematic inasmuch as people are seen as responsible for their own suffering (although of course that falls into the wrong view you mention), thereby militating against compassionate action in the here and now.
As someone who formerly rejected rebirth (and consequent kammic action over rebirth cycles) but would now describe themselves as a questioning agnostic, a further question that this essay raises for me related to belief - one which I think many injunctions to believe in rebirth don't address - is that, at least in my experience, we don't actually choose what to believe, at least not in the short term. There are all kinds of things that would make my life better if I could command myself to believe them, but - as in the case of everything that makes up our experience as individuals - it can't be disposed in the way that we would like it. So exhortation or intellectual decision to believe something isn't necessarily speaking to a quality it can operate on, so to speak.
Yes. I think we're on the same wavelength. In these short essays it's seldom possible to cover all the bases - I just try to set out the basic idea for further consideration. Often things get fleshed out in responding to comments :-)
I agree that the gap between the ideal and how it is has been put into practice on the scale of states is disappointing. Not perhaps as monstrous as communism, but with the possibility of war and oppression always there. Most of the so-called "Buddhist Countries" do not collectively behave as if karma was an operative force, just as the USA does not behave as though they "Trust in God" (as it says on their money. So we need to be cautious about utopian visions.
Collectives and individuals work on different principles. Don't get me started on the behaviour of multi-national corporations!
And yes it can lead to indifference, to the suffering of others who might be seen to somehow deserve their suffering. But I think of this as the Hindu conclusion. Buddhists have to add compassion to the mix. Even if someone has done something heinous, we must must be compassionate towards them if they suffer - and despite what some people will tell you, this is the message of the early Buddhist texts as well.
I agree that a large chunk of what we believe is simply conditioning from our early life: cultural, racial, familial etc. This of course shows up in the gap between our shiny new Buddhist ideals, and our actual behaviour. Living in a foreign country for a couple of years is a good way to highlight one's early conditioning as well! (or has been for me) However I can confirm that with effort change is possible!
What I would like to know is why there is such an objection to all of samsara being the product of karma? Is it the idea of guilt, of blame? How I understand it, and happily so, is that karma is like creative force, without it, nothing and no one would be. No samsara.
It depends on what you mean by "all of saṃsāra". But let's take the weather. Are you suggesting that the weather is karmic? In which case, what did the English do in a past life to deserve this?
As I say I think it is better to believe in some form of karma than not. So where do you get your version of karma from, and why does it appeal to you? You appear to be saying that if a tree fell in the woods without anyone to hear it, it would not make a noise.
Perception , feeling and consciousness friend – these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives and what one perceives that one cognises. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them, MN 43.9
"If, Ananda, their were no kamma ripening in the sphere of the senses, would there appear any sense-sphere existence?" - "Surely, not Lord." -- AN 3:76
For each of us samsara is a product of our experience. To posit it as existing outside of that is not possible because we are dependent on our six senses and can know nothing other than through these senses. Every moment of thought, begins with karma vipaka and ends with karma. Therefore, every moment of thought, ( except for a brief neutral couple of moments) is karmic. And so, all our experience, thus all our world, is karmic.
We co-create our world/experience and it is far too complex and subtle to be able to unpack how this creation unfolds. As humans we view and experience our reality from a human perspective. We also give meaning to our experience and understand it though this perspective. Science is an example of this, as are religious views, societal morals etc. They are all tenets through which we interpret our experience and to which we grasp as true. The same would apply to the doctrine of karma. It is part of the boat that gets us to the other shore. The Buddha taught methods to attain freedom from samsara and to this end and accord with current paradigms of his time, he taught in ways that were useful, and would lead to release.
The doctrine of the niyamas is not that of the Buddha, but, if I remember correctly, was introduced by Buddhaghosa. The passage from which he gleaned such a view, was a teaching for those believing that all karma was done in the past and negated the continuity or karmic actions in each and every moment.
Look forward to your response, With metta, Amrtaketu
The topic is the possibility of a hierarchy of values, which I used karma to illustrate. I don't publish this blog to invite general online arguments. If you have something to say on the topic I'll be glad to read it. If not then could you move on.
As I say - it seems best to believe in some form of karma, and I'm not too bothered about which one you believe in - see my posts in May about "truth". I'm just not interested in arguments about the doctrine of karma.
Any argument which is still going after 24 centuries we must pragmatically set aside as insoluble: i.e. we must leave aside the question "is it true?" and ask "what would be helpful?".
If you would like to read a detailed discussion of the history of the teachings on niyamas (especially with regard the Triratna Buddhist Order) then I would direct you to Dhīvan's article: 'Sangharakshita, the Five Niyamas and the Problem of Karma'.
I disagree with your comment, "it seems clear that individuals and societies would be better off if they believed in some form of karma. The karma doctrine has clear survival, safety, social, and self-esteem value." Possibly, but the traditional beliefs in karma blame deformities on past-life actions, explains inequalities, slavery and trampling of human rights as products of one's karma. Respected teachers have also said that the holocaust and tsunamis that killed countless people was because somehow in past lives the people that died were just reaping the results of their past wrong doings.
Also you state, "karma is not vindictive, it is not vengeful." What about all the passages in the Pali Canon of describing people who do evil actions going to hell? There is even two sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya that go into excruciating detail of what hell is like.
The main problem with karma is that it can used to explain everything and no one can verify it! Any belief that seems to describe everything in actually doesn't explain anything at all.
Finally as for Stephen Batchelor, I don't think he is at all agnostic on the belief in rebirth. His latest book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist," clearly says that he has no interest in rebirth at all.
Bottom line, belief in Santa Claus could show that a society somehow benefits from it. No matter how nice it would be for me to believe in a fictional character I simply can't. To believe in something, you know with your inner being to not be true is to live an inauthentic life.
We do not disagree on rejecting the idea of blaming specific misfortune on past evils - as I say, and even give a quote on. "Respected teachers"? Not my teacher. Not me (although I command very little respect!). But let's look at that belief system and ask "why is it wrong to believe that everything that happens is a result of karma?" Does it in fact undermine my argument about how karma contributes to helping people to meet their needs? I can't see that it does. If you believed that your actions contributed to the world's disasters that would be highly motivating, wouldn't it?
Tales of the hells can be taken in at least two non-literal ways. Firstly they are motivational stories - allegory. Secondly one can see the stories of hell as psychological metaphors. Hell is state of mind. In fact hell is the state of mind of the angry person. It works for me. Literalism is unhelpful.
I begin by saying that no belief in karma can be verified or indeed falsified, and set this aside to examine how values other than "factual truth" can contribute to the well being of individuals and societies. Did you read that bit? Because in identifying that as "the main problem" you seem to have missed my main point.
I haven't read Bachelor's new book. My understanding was that he described himself as an Agnostic Buddhist. I'm not particularly interested in Bachelor, though I have nothing against him. Disinterest is not the same as declaring one way or the other. I'm also disinterested in rebirth - which is nothing to do with truth or falsehood.
According to Karl Popper, and I have every reason to think this is the best way of looking at things, *no belief can be verified*, it can only be shown by counter example to be false. This is one of the fundamental tenets of modern science which seeks always to disprove hypotheses, to find counter examples.
How would you know if karma is true or not? You can't know this. The only intellectually honest position is agnosticism; although I suppose disinterest is fine. You say you believe it is untrue, so prove that it cannot be true. I leave that to you as an exercise. But perhaps you could spell out for us the criteria which you would judge karma to be untrue? Could you show me a counter example which definitely disproves any (or all) version(s) of the karma doctrine?
BTW show me your "inner being" as I don't believe you have any such thing. What you have is a collection of unconscious prejudices and beliefs and these are an unreliable guide to behaviour.
The thing is that we believe loads of things we have no way to verify or falsify - we all believe in many collective fictions created by the various groups we participate in. Intellectually we may accept something as factual but often this does not change our behaviour. Factual truth is not a powerful motivator for most. Indeed I'm reading a lot of neuroscience at present and it's clear that the conscious reasons we give for actions are often completely decoupled from our unconscious motivations - we rationalise after the fact very often. Advertising people have known this for 30 years or more.
Let's put it another way. If we took your attitude to the limit then we could not enjoy any work of fiction - it's all just lies. And yet fictional works clearly have value, sometimes enormous value. Works of fiction are amongst our most cherished cultural artefacts. It is worth suspending disbelief for a time and allowing yourself to be caught up in a film or a novel in order to have the *experience* the creator was trying to convey. To cherish the canon of English literature, or the Pāli literature for that matter, is not to be inauthentic. A fiction is not necessarily an evil, or even inauthentic.
Looking forward to seeing your definitive falsification of karma which should clear up a lot of things in the Buddhist world after all these centuries.
Regards Jayarava
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
[Image]I wrote last week about Philology and the idea that a text has one true reading over and above the multitude readings that individuals with varying hermeneutics find. [see: Truth and Philology] A few days later I listened to a BBC radio documentary about science and god, and in one segment evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson commented that religious beliefs can have "truth value" and "survival value". The latter determine how we will behave and are therefore of much greater importance to evolution than the former. In fact he suggested that the truth value of beliefs counted "for zip" in evolutionary terms. I started to think about the various kinds of values that affect what we believe, for instance: survival, utility, power, aesthetic, truth. I was aiming for a broad overview and I don't claim this is a complete list.
What occurred to me was that the list had some similarities with Maslow's hierarchy of needs. If you don't know about Maslow it would be a good idea to glance at a summary. Maslow was a psychologist who was interested in what contributed to a happy healthy human being. He saw that in order for someone to fulfil their potential certain things had to be in place. His hierarchy then placed broad categories of needs in the order that they need to be fulfilled - often visually represented as a pyramid. The needs are physiological: food, water, sheltersafety: dealing with immediate threats to lifesocial: belonging, love, affectionesteem: status within a social group and self-esteemself-actualization: fulfilling our individual potential. The point is that if needs lower down the pyramid are not met, then it is difficult to try to meet those above, for example we're not so worried about self-esteem if we are starving. I think the idea works best at the lower levels. Exceptions become apparent such as the lonely and alienated artist creating their best work, or the hermit who does not need or want company. Perhaps it is best to think of Maslow's hierarchy as a very broad generalisation that is true most of the time despite obvious exceptions.
If Sloan Wilson is right and the survival value of religious belief is more significant than the truth value, then this opens up an interesting discussion. Survival is all to do with the lower two levels of the pyramid. Factual truth, while sometimes also having a survival value, is a more abstract value and belongs higher up the hierarchy and so will only become important when lower values have fulfilled their function. I want to look at belief in karma as an example and see how this scheme might apply.
Karma is not simple homogeneous belief structure. There are wide variations in how it is understood and applied. But let us say for argument's sake that karma concerns the way behaviour in this life determines the circumstances in which 'we' will be reborn. This is not too far from what most Buddhist traditions say is true about karma.
In terms of factual truth we are not in a position to say one way or the other whether karma is true - and this is true of any and every variation of karma belief. To demonstrate any theory of karma we would need to have reliable access to memories of former lives, or we would need to have the ability of the Buddha to predict the destination of the deceased, and confirm our predictions. What we have are a series of oft-repeated generic anecdotes, and references to exceptional individuals who display precocious talent. They are pretty poor evidence, though sufficient for some. We do have a further dilemma here because doctrinally the individual reborn is not the same as the one who acts, nor different, but arises in dependence on causes. So in fact the link between one being and another is quite difficult to understand. Personality clearly does not survive death, so how can memories? Are memories somehow distinct from personality? Are memories stored in some way external to the being, and in this case why are they specific to the individual? The problem of continuity is profound - in order to literally recall past lives there must be continuity, which is tantamount to proposing an ātman. If we are not simply credulous, we quickly end up in a metaphysical tangle.
However, the belief in karma has other values. One of Sloan Wilson's suggestions is that beliefs are important because they help communities establish what is acceptable conduct and how the community should be organised. Clearly religious beliefs are powerful in this sphere. Karma is part of a moral system which emphasises personal responsibility. In small societies every one knows what everyone else is doing. In a group of up to 150 (the higher Dunbar number) it is difficult to keep breaches of moral codes secret - everyone knows everyone else's business. But in larger groups it becomes progressively more difficult to know the business of others, and secrecy is more possible, and perhaps more likely. One of the functions of the belief in karma is to 'police' unobserved actions. The fact that we are not caught, not observed acting, does not exempt us from the consequences. This kind of proxy observation, then, is a useful tool for social cohesion because it encourages everyone to follow societal norms even when unobserved or when there is no chance of being caught doing something wrong. Values of fairness and safety will be served if everyone 'knows' that the consequences of actions follow even when done in secret.
On the individual level karma offers a general principle, alongside the ethical guidelines that inevitably accompany it, for helping an individual determine how to behave. As I have often repeated, the Buddha equated karma and intention. So not only are one's secret actions covered by karma, but even one's private thoughts! Karma represents a pan-opticon more pervasive than anything dreamed up by 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who coined the term. This potentially sinister view of karma need not result in a Catholic Church style set-up with 'priests' overseeing the process and moderating 'forgiveness'. In early Buddhism, indeed, there is no forgiveness just consequences, though interestingly later Buddhists changed this and allowed for even the unforgivable actions to be ameliorated, and for god-like beings to intercede and save the sinner from themselves. Karma is a system that needs no human intervention and this is part of the beauty of it. There is no role for a persecuting authority figure disguised as a forgiving intercessor, who gains an advantage over us by knowing our dirty secrets. The individual is empowered.
Despite the doubtful truth value of the belief, it seems clear that individuals and societies would be better off if they believed in some form of karma. The karma doctrine has clear survival, safety, social, and self-esteem value by helping people to behave in ways that naturally maximise these. Because the goals of the belief system are expressed in broad general principles they are not specific to one time, place, or culture. Ultimately having these more basic needs met supports the search for liberation. The belief in karma has advantages over beliefs in overseeing gods, or a surveillance society, because it is impersonal. Yes, it dictates that suffering is caused by unwholesome actions, but karma is not subject to the foibles of gods or people: karma is not vindictive, it is not vengeful, it does not demand worship or sacrifice.
There is a minor problem in deciding which form of the karma doctrine to believe in. Do we accept that everything is due to our previous actions, or are there other less personal causes operating in the world? I've explored the early Buddhist view on this in my essay Is Karma Responsible for Everything? To quote from my conclusion in that essay: The idea that everything that happens is a result of kamma is a common enough wrong view to have a name: Pubbekata-hetu-ditthi (literally 'the with-past-actions-as-cause view'). For a canonical discussion of this you could try the Devadaha Sutta (Majjhima Nikāya 101). Bhikkhu Thanissaro's version on Access to Insight comes with a useful introduction. However people in different traditions will probably find it more conducive to follow the karma belief of their own tradition. We do need to be clear that we cannot assert the karma belief as factually true, but we can point to it's pragmatic usefulness. In this I think I may differ from Stephen Bachelor who acknowledges that such beliefs can only be provisional (hence the phrase 'agnostic Buddhism'), but does not assert the value of them.
8 Comments
Close this window Jump to comment formThis is interesting - one of the arguments that I often see for belief in rebirth is that it makes people more moral, where the 'materialist' view leads to a tendency to behave in a nihilistic fashion where one seeks maximum pleasure (though anyone who has actually tried to become happy by a sustained effort to engage in sensual pleasure will, I would argue, realise that one lifetime, indeed, a few years, is enough to realise that this is extremely counter-productive).
If I understand you, it seems like the argument for belief in kamma that you're putting forward here is similar - we will be better off believing in it. But, and this also applies to the above argument regarding rebirth, it doesn't actually seem that there's any correlation between societies being Buddhist, and behaving in more moral ways (of course, we can't really measure people's happiness, so one might argue that such societies don't behave any more morally, but that their people are happier).
I would think that it might be necessary to take the other corollaries of the belief into account as an entire structure - that is, although as you point out kamma isn't vengeful or requiring worship (one thing that in my experience can be hard for Western non-Buddhists to understand about Buddhism is that the goal of Buddhist morality is not to be good in order to please some observer or to follow a handed-down set of rules with consequences which are not empirically verifiable), nonetheless it can be socially problematic inasmuch as people are seen as responsible for their own suffering (although of course that falls into the wrong view you mention), thereby militating against compassionate action in the here and now.
As someone who formerly rejected rebirth (and consequent kammic action over rebirth cycles) but would now describe themselves as a questioning agnostic, a further question that this essay raises for me related to belief - one which I think many injunctions to believe in rebirth don't address - is that, at least in my experience, we don't actually choose what to believe, at least not in the short term. There are all kinds of things that would make my life better if I could command myself to believe them, but - as in the case of everything that makes up our experience as individuals - it can't be disposed in the way that we would like it. So exhortation or intellectual decision to believe something isn't necessarily speaking to a quality it can operate on, so to speak.
Oh, and isn't Mulatu Astatke great? :)
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Hi Genrenaut
Yes. I think we're on the same wavelength. In these short essays it's seldom possible to cover all the bases - I just try to set out the basic idea for further consideration. Often things get fleshed out in responding to comments :-)
I agree that the gap between the ideal and how it is has been put into practice on the scale of states is disappointing. Not perhaps as monstrous as communism, but with the possibility of war and oppression always there. Most of the so-called "Buddhist Countries" do not collectively behave as if karma was an operative force, just as the USA does not behave as though they "Trust in God" (as it says on their money. So we need to be cautious about utopian visions.
Collectives and individuals work on different principles. Don't get me started on the behaviour of multi-national corporations!
And yes it can lead to indifference, to the suffering of others who might be seen to somehow deserve their suffering. But I think of this as the Hindu conclusion. Buddhists have to add compassion to the mix. Even if someone has done something heinous, we must must be compassionate towards them if they suffer - and despite what some people will tell you, this is the message of the early Buddhist texts as well.
I agree that a large chunk of what we believe is simply conditioning from our early life: cultural, racial, familial etc. This of course shows up in the gap between our shiny new Buddhist ideals, and our actual behaviour. Living in a foreign country for a couple of years is a good way to highlight one's early conditioning as well! (or has been for me) However I can confirm that with effort change is possible!
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Sunday, May 30, 2010
What I would like to know is why there is such an objection to all of samsara being the product of karma?
Is it the idea of guilt, of blame?
How I understand it, and happily so, is that karma
is like creative force, without it, nothing and no one would be. No samsara.
metta
Amrtaketu
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Hi Amrtaketu
It depends on what you mean by "all of saṃsāra". But let's take the weather. Are you suggesting that the weather is karmic? In which case, what did the English do in a past life to deserve this?
As I say I think it is better to believe in some form of karma than not. So where do you get your version of karma from, and why does it appeal to you? You appear to be saying that if a tree fell in the woods without anyone to hear it, it would not make a noise.
Anyway, thanks for commenting.
Cheers
Jayarava
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Perception , feeling and consciousness friend – these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them. For what one feels, that one perceives and what one perceives that one cognises. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them, MN 43.9
"If, Ananda, their were no kamma ripening in the sphere of the senses, would there appear any sense-sphere existence?" - "Surely, not Lord." -- AN 3:76
For each of us samsara is a product of our experience. To posit it as existing outside of that is not possible because we are dependent on our six senses and can know nothing other than through these senses. Every moment of thought, begins with karma vipaka and ends with karma. Therefore, every moment of thought, ( except for a brief neutral couple of moments) is karmic. And so, all our experience, thus all our world, is karmic.
We co-create our world/experience and it is far too complex and subtle to be able to unpack how this creation unfolds. As humans we view and experience our reality from a human perspective. We also give meaning to our experience and understand it though this perspective. Science is an example of this, as are religious views, societal morals etc. They are all tenets through which we interpret our experience and to which we grasp as true.
The same would apply to the doctrine of karma. It is part of the boat that gets us to the other shore. The Buddha taught methods to attain freedom from samsara and to this end and accord with current paradigms of his time, he taught in ways that were useful, and would lead to release.
The doctrine of the niyamas is not that of the Buddha, but, if I remember correctly, was introduced by Buddhaghosa. The passage from which he gleaned such a view, was a teaching for those believing that all karma was done in the past and negated the continuity or karmic actions in each and every moment.
Look forward to your response,
With metta, Amrtaketu
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Hi Amrtaketu
The topic is the possibility of a hierarchy of values, which I used karma to illustrate. I don't publish this blog to invite general online arguments. If you have something to say on the topic I'll be glad to read it. If not then could you move on.
As I say - it seems best to believe in some form of karma, and I'm not too bothered about which one you believe in - see my posts in May about "truth". I'm just not interested in arguments about the doctrine of karma.
Any argument which is still going after 24 centuries we must pragmatically set aside as insoluble: i.e. we must leave aside the question "is it true?" and ask "what would be helpful?".
If you would like to read a detailed discussion of the history of the teachings on niyamas (especially with regard the Triratna Buddhist Order) then I would direct you to Dhīvan's article: 'Sangharakshita, the Five Niyamas and the Problem of Karma'.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
Best Wishes
Jayarava
Thursday, June 03, 2010
I disagree with your comment, "it seems clear that individuals and societies would be better off if they believed in some form of karma. The karma doctrine has clear survival, safety, social, and self-esteem value." Possibly, but the traditional beliefs in karma blame deformities on past-life actions, explains inequalities, slavery and trampling of human rights as products of one's karma. Respected teachers have also said that the holocaust and tsunamis that killed countless people was because somehow in past lives the people that died were just reaping the results of their past wrong doings.
Also you state, "karma is not vindictive, it is not vengeful." What about all the passages in the Pali Canon of describing people who do evil actions going to hell? There is even two sutta in the Majjhima Nikaya that go into excruciating detail of what hell is like.
The main problem with karma is that it can used to explain everything and no one can verify it! Any belief that seems to describe everything in actually doesn't explain anything at all.
Finally as for Stephen Batchelor, I don't think he is at all agnostic on the belief in rebirth. His latest book, "Confession of a Buddhist Atheist," clearly says that he has no interest in rebirth at all.
Bottom line, belief in Santa Claus could show that a society somehow benefits from it. No matter how nice it would be for me to believe in a fictional character I simply can't. To believe in something, you know with your inner being to not be true is to live an inauthentic life.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Hello Dark Dream,
We do not disagree on rejecting the idea of blaming specific misfortune on past evils - as I say, and even give a quote on. "Respected teachers"? Not my teacher. Not me (although I command very little respect!). But let's look at that belief system and ask "why is it wrong to believe that everything that happens is a result of karma?" Does it in fact undermine my argument about how karma contributes to helping people to meet their needs? I can't see that it does. If you believed that your actions contributed to the world's disasters that would be highly motivating, wouldn't it?
Tales of the hells can be taken in at least two non-literal ways. Firstly they are motivational stories - allegory. Secondly one can see the stories of hell as psychological metaphors. Hell is state of mind. In fact hell is the state of mind of the angry person. It works for me. Literalism is unhelpful.
I begin by saying that no belief in karma can be verified or indeed falsified, and set this aside to examine how values other than "factual truth" can contribute to the well being of individuals and societies. Did you read that bit? Because in identifying that as "the main problem" you seem to have missed my main point.
I haven't read Bachelor's new book. My understanding was that he described himself as an Agnostic Buddhist. I'm not particularly interested in Bachelor, though I have nothing against him. Disinterest is not the same as declaring one way or the other. I'm also disinterested in rebirth - which is nothing to do with truth or falsehood.
According to Karl Popper, and I have every reason to think this is the best way of looking at things, *no belief can be verified*, it can only be shown by counter example to be false. This is one of the fundamental tenets of modern science which seeks always to disprove hypotheses, to find counter examples.
How would you know if karma is true or not? You can't know this. The only intellectually honest position is agnosticism; although I suppose disinterest is fine. You say you believe it is untrue, so prove that it cannot be true. I leave that to you as an exercise. But perhaps you could spell out for us the criteria which you would judge karma to be untrue? Could you show me a counter example which definitely disproves any (or all) version(s) of the karma doctrine?
BTW show me your "inner being" as I don't believe you have any such thing. What you have is a collection of unconscious prejudices and beliefs and these are an unreliable guide to behaviour.
The thing is that we believe loads of things we have no way to verify or falsify - we all believe in many collective fictions created by the various groups we participate in. Intellectually we may accept something as factual but often this does not change our behaviour. Factual truth is not a powerful motivator for most. Indeed I'm reading a lot of neuroscience at present and it's clear that the conscious reasons we give for actions are often completely decoupled from our unconscious motivations - we rationalise after the fact very often. Advertising people have known this for 30 years or more.
Let's put it another way. If we took your attitude to the limit then we could not enjoy any work of fiction - it's all just lies. And yet fictional works clearly have value, sometimes enormous value. Works of fiction are amongst our most cherished cultural artefacts. It is worth suspending disbelief for a time and allowing yourself to be caught up in a film or a novel in order to have the *experience* the creator was trying to convey. To cherish the canon of English literature, or the Pāli literature for that matter, is not to be inauthentic. A fiction is not necessarily an evil, or even inauthentic.
Looking forward to seeing your definitive falsification of karma which should clear up a lot of things in the Buddhist world after all these centuries.
Regards
Jayarava
Wednesday, June 09, 2010