Buddhism 101

Brought up in a discussion about karma (kamma?) in another thread: What is karma, and how does it work? Does it rely on things like the existence of past lives to function, and if so, what is the evidence for those assertions (which presumably must have some physical meaning to affect the world in any way)?

For that matter, is karma a descriptive claim or a normative one? (That is, does it just describe how things should be, or how things actually are?) If it's descriptive, what's the evidence for it?

edited 1st Nov '11 12:54:39 PM by Enthryn

I made a long ass post about all this earlier that will answer these questions in depth more.

But for now...SHORT VERSION.

Kamma is a system of cause and effect that everything is held to. Ants have kamma, you have kamma, your dead grandma has kamma (she is likely a super model now), gods have kamma, demons have kamma, ghosts have kamma (and also die because they are alive), and so on. Everything has it.

BUT WHAT IS IT?!

Basically kamma is the result of an action. Anything and everything you do generates kamma. There are four types of kamma: positive, negative, neutral (it does nothing to you), and Enlightenment.

Now kamma is judged based on...intention, circumstance, action, and result (both immediate and further down the line). As for how this works...No one knows exactly how to measure it save a few beings like Yama who can read it.

Also...kamma affects you and those around you. Everything is interconnected. You can't live without affecting other things and this applies to your kamma and the kamma of others. The fruits of your actions may fuck over other people too. LOVELY.

Kamma in Buddhism is descriptive. It is not something anyone wants. Because kamma is a soulless system of doom THAT FEELS NOTHING FOR YOU AND DOOMS YOU ANYWAY. As for proof of it...I have none and I am searching for it. All I have are stories from people who say they have had past lives and that is not enough for me. I believe in it and the cosmology to an extent as it seems sensible to me and I am Buddhist, but I am agnostic about it. My belief is shaky and exists partly so I can have the motivation to prove it right or wrong. Which is how faith in general works in Buddhism. You have it merely for motivational purposes.

edited 1st Nov '11 1:06:52 PM by Aondeug

Okay, I think I understand what you mean now. But I'm still not sure where it's supposed to come from. I understand physical cause and effect: energy and matter interact with each other according to certain physical laws, and the patterns of cause and effect that we observe in the world are due to the combination of many of those small-scale interactions.

If karma affects the real world in any observable way, it must either operate on a similar principle, or it must be radically different from anything observed in nature. (Is there another possibility?) If the former, questions like this arise: Which particles have karma, and how does karma affect their properties (energy, momentum, etc.); is it an inherent trait like quantum spin, a physical force, or something; and why hasn't it been detected by particle physics yet? Also, if it's a physical force, why does it — unlike all known laws of physics — have any correspondence at all with the particular moral notions of this one species of primate on a small rocky planet orbiting an unremarkable, ordinary star?

If the latter, what is it, if it's a principle of cause and effect utterly unlike the ones that we observe?

I just don't see where something like karma could come from and still not be observed scientifically, if it's something with a measurable effect on the universe.

edited 1st Nov '11 1:23:28 PM by Enthryn

And that's the question that I and other Buddhists have a problem with. We don't know where it comes from or how to observe it. We can observe it if it is real because the only things we cannot observe in some form are those that don't exist in reality. Which are things that have become Enlightened in the case of Buddhism.

Everything else can be observed either by us, naturally or with the help of technology, or some other manner of being. If we go by the religious canon then gods have some knowledge on how to observe it since some like Yama can not only see it but read it and roughly determine how the kamma will play out. Because it's constantly changing and because of the other beings determining the exact result of any one bit of kamma is either impossible or incredibly difficult and likely only to be relevant for a short period of time. Which is effectively the same as "impossible" since then exactness has no actual use since the window of opportunity with it is so fucking short.

I'm not sure where one would even start looking. Neither are most people.

I would like to see many people with many different theories run off and try to test it in a variety of different ways. But the problem remains...where do you start looking?

As for morality...If kamma is a thing then it is not our morality that defines kamma, but kamma that defines our morality. Which means we have some form of natural understanding of the concept that results in the forming of our moralities. We're a very, very small part of the universe in Buddhism as well. There are many other realms (which may be other planets) and many other beings both sapient and non-sapient in existence according to Buddhism. Basically aliens. In fact we mean very little in the cosmic scheme of things. We aren't heroes destined to save reality or the special children of a God. We are simply very smart monkeys that don't like pain.

edited 1st Nov '11 1:33:24 PM by Aondeug

Question? If reincarnating into a deva is an attainable possibility, why does anybody try to reach nirvana at all?

Godhood beats illumination, IMO.

edited 1st Nov '11 2:50:54 PM by SavageHeathen

Because being a deva isn't permanent. Also you're kind of a sociopathic douche in that you lack any understanding of empathy. You're also still subject to pain and suffering.

edited 1st Nov '11 2:51:18 PM by Aondeug

I just don't see what's the big deal about it not being permanent. If you pulled it off once, wouldn't you be able do it again?

edited 1st Nov '11 2:52:25 PM by SavageHeathen

What's Buddhisms stance on war?

Theoretically. You would have to begin building up stores of good kamma again since you blow most or all of it on being a deva. This takes a long time and involves you being a human many times. Also you retain next to none of your memories after rebirth because your soul splits upon death. Meaning you have like...1/4 of your past life memories and even then those are hard to discern from fantasy you made up. Buddhism doesn't give you a comprehensive guide on how to become a deva with surety so...

The Enlightenment option is mostly around for those who grow tired of this repeated cycle of birth, life, death, and rebirth. If you want to go on existing go for it. The ultimate end goal of Buddhism is not for you though you may be able to get benefits from the teachings.

^Necessary evil for the protection of living beings and nothing more. War for profit is Adhamma. Typically this means only wars for self defense purposes are considered okay though intervening to help others and better the world as a whole may be okay. Generally though avoid war since that's easier than doing the "Is this okay...?" game in the case of playing WORLD SAVIOR: THE HUMAN WAR EDITION.

edited 1st Nov '11 2:58:58 PM by Aondeug

How do you define war for profit? What if getting going to war and killing certain people would make the world a better place?

edited 1st Nov '11 3:01:05 PM by Kino

Interesting — it seems like the ethical conclusions of Buddhism are quite similar to my own conclusions from utilitarianism, even though the explanations are radically different. I definitely like the emphasis on context-sensitivity of actions.

It seems that any form of territory grabbing is a no-no. Or money. Or people to sacrifice. Or because you want to convert THOSE HEATHENS. Basically anything where the intention isn't "Protect my country" or "Protect some other country". If you have any other form of intention you are wrong though having a good intention doesn't put you in the right.

Because morality is hard and nobody understands.

Which again brings us to "Just try to avoid it because it's easier on you morally speaking".

^Yeah all actions are context sensitive. The precepts are more like general guidelines that hold up most of the time. To hold them as unbreakable rules is a bit silly since holding to them might cause more pain than breaking one of them.

edited 1st Nov '11 3:03:15 PM by Aondeug

I can live with that; how does self-defense factor into that?

Self defense is fine and dandy. If defending yourself or someone else means hurting an attacking individual then that fucker is going down. Letting said fucker kill you and some other person is worse than giving him a beat down or tasing him or killing him in extreme circumstances.

Because then innocent people die or get hurt instead of some douche because of your inaction.

Though killing said douche is to be avoided if possible. And getting said douche some sort of help to make him a not douche is to be sought by you or someone else.

edited 1st Nov '11 3:05:51 PM by Aondeug

Yes, but there’s also a chance you’ll end up in hell. And existence in the hell realms appears to last much longer than the already ridiculous lengths of the Deva realms.

edited 1st Nov '11 3:06:53 PM by Justice4243

The shortest state in a hell in Buddhism is 20 times your age when you die. We have a few of the longer stay times recorded, but there are many, many, many more hells. The stays get so long we put them in scientific notation. Like so...3.39738624×10^18 years long

To find out how big the next hell realm's stay is just take that number and multiply it by 8. Do this ad infinitum.

edited 1st Nov '11 3:08:10 PM by Aondeug

@Aondeug: Let's say you start a revolutionary war, to fight the injustices of those in power and destroy the ruling class. What kind of war would that be?

Depends on how the war is fought, why exactly you think they are injustices, and what you do after winning the war.

Which means..."Who the fuck knows, ask Yama".

edited 1st Nov '11 3:24:02 PM by Aondeug

Yama...

Great mustache, or greatest mustache?◊

What if you're defending yourself by initiating an attack?

If you have sufficient reason to do so then by all means do so. If not or you really don't and are merely saying that you do...Prepare to meet Yama in Hell. He's a nice chap.

edited 1st Nov '11 4:19:25 PM by Aondeug

Oh, hypothetical:

Lets say I'm behind a rifle on a ridge-line, overlooking a village that my team and I will have to travel through the next day. If I see armed men and shoot them, would that action be justified?

This might help.

Karma isn't really about if something is justified or not. The action will produce karma regardless. It could be good, it could be bad. A great deal of it seems to be in regards to the intentions of the person committing the act. And it seems gray morality questions receive grey answers with the Buddha not elaborating much on actions that could be either "good or bad".

edited 1st Nov '11 4:45:19 PM by Justice4243

Figures as much; life would be too easy if we had simple yes or no answers.

Indeed. Kamma can't be used to give simple yes or no answers. Only beings like Yama can read it clearly as of now and even then the results fluctuate so much that reading it and judging anything becomes a right mess.