Tweet
Dear Monastic Community, dear Lay Community,
in the past months and years I had some very interesting philosophical discussions with friends.
Prior to these I had been a devoted Buddhist for many years. However, these discussions plus my own thoughts that succeeded them by now have lead me to get out of my previously well-maintained, as I would call it, 'Buddhist bubble'. The following post of mine addresses the Law of Karma, although there are also other points regarding Buddhism which I by now consider to be questionable. For the sake of simplicity however, I leave it at that and stick to this one topic.
Maybe my post may at some point sound somewhat caustic. I would like to say that it is not at all my intention to attack or to hurt anyone with it. I ask these questions solely out of, if you like, a 'spiritual quest for truth'. In the end, my post has grown quite long. However, I regard all points in it as necessary in order to fully express my doubts, which is why I didn't want to shorten it. So here we go:
If the Law of Karma is to be understood as some kind of natural law then we have to act on the assumption that it works in accordance with objective rules or measures. There is to my knowledge no point in stating that the law of karma was somehow subjective. Because if the law of karma was to go by, say, subjective evaluations of individuals with regards to deeds, it would be impossible to identify any clear-cut, distinct rules of this law. And with that we would get into hot water, as this would open the doors for ambiguity and arbitrariness. But these are not normally characteristic for natural laws. To make this point more clear: it would mean that the subjective evaluation of a person could distort the consequences that are provided by this law. So, if someone subjectively was of the opinion that, say, killing human beings is not all that bad, his evaluation of this deed would thus change his karmic result for killing someone - in this case by lessening the bad results presumably associated with it.
However, for all I know, the Buddha claimed to have identified such rules. Thus we are dealing with a law that, so they say, provides beings with consequences for their actions, be they good or bad - in accordance with objective rules. If we now assume that this was truly the case then this assumption would have a whole range of quite piquant philosophical implications.
To begin with, this would mean that the Law of Karma was able to calculate how to repay any kind of deed. And this
And, on top of that, all of that would mean that there even was an objective agency that was actually able to judge certain deeds in the first place. Because, in order to carry out a fair and just calculation, this agency of any kind whatsoever would actually need to have clear-cut valuation standards for all imaginable deeds - not to mention complicated borderline cases, as for example, say, assisted dying. The Law of Karma would then need to reckon up these valuation standards with the above mentioned additional frame conditions, in order to finally to come to a conclusion for an appropriate karmic result for one deed out of countless. Sounds tough, doesn't it? We also have to assume that the Law of Karma was able to correctly and objectively evaluate all of these factors, because otherwise it wasn‘t a natural law. Or not a righteous one (in which case should hope that it isn't true). Or neither natural nor righteous. Or even a fairy tale?
A natural law takes effect always and everywhere. And, as mentioned: for every single being, everywhere, at all times. So how for all in the world is this supposed to work?
Let‘s now look at some tricky cases that make me wonder.
Let‘s say, someone is at the polls and chooses to vote for a political party. Does the Law of Karma now take into account why this person has voted for that party? Does it know anything about the party programme? And does it also know how serious the party is about it? And does it take into account the efforts that this person exposed itself to in order to come to an informed vote decision? And, as already mentioned, how can it apply clear-cut standards by which it can rank a vote decision for one party that, say, takes a more serious stand for climate protection and social justice, as ethically of higher value as that for a different party?
Let‘s look at another more abstract example. Someone convinces his family to switch from using Whatsapp as a messenger to use Signal, out of concerns for privacy and also because the person doesn‘t want to support the business models of the data industry. This is a deed that, as all deeds, is somehow karmically potent, isn't it? Now, Law of Karma, what do you say about that? Is that a good deed? And if yes, why? And how, Law of Karma, do you know whether it is good? Do you have any idea of IT? Or did you ever before in your beginning-less history have to deal with such a case?
Now one could dodge behind explanations as, say: it is the intention that matters. And if the intention is good, then the karmic result must be good as well. But this only relocates the problem. Because then the Law of Karma would then need to know, when and why an intention was to be ranked as accordingly good. And this, in my opinion, for almost all cases is not possible at all, exactly because context, reasons and motives (as stated above) of our reality are far too complex.
But even if intention was the right criterium by which this law operates, then the Law of Karma would be ultimately flawed. That is because, I think, intention alone is not good enough to evaluate a deed. Because even if the intention behind a deed is good (by whatever criteria this is evaluated), the implementation of a deed could still be ethically flawed. Here is an example. There is a monastery close to where I live in Germany. Some of the people who live in or attend this monastery like to, say, travel to Thailand every now and again, in order to visit and practice in monasteries there, to meet with Ajahns, and so forth. So one could say that they have good, high-minded intentions. As good as their intention may be, the way they are implemented, however, is usually by taking a long-distance air travel. Make no mistake about it: that is an absolute ecological catastrophe. Long-distance air travels are absolutely disastrous, as we all should know by now these days. Now, does the Law of Karma know about the environmental problems on our planet? And if yes, how? And does it take them into account accordingly?
My next point is the lack of any empirical evidence whatsoever. We as mankind have developed telescopes with which we can perceive the light from sources that are many many light years away from us. We have also developed instruments with which we can do measurements on a quantum level. But of something as colossal as the effect mechanisms of the Law of Karma we cannot detect anything measurable at all, not even rudimentarilly?
All of this makes me doubt. I am curious what you have to say about that. At this point I would like to ask to not be palmed off with statements as, say, "only a fully awakened Buddha is truly able to fully understand the workings of the Law of Karma". Because, quite frankly, in my opinion that would only be an alibi for a lacking interest in real understanding.
All of this being said, at this point in my life I am no longer willing to content myself with blurry and vague conceptions when trying to understand a supposed "Law of Karma". I have to say that, the way things stand at the moment, I am an apostate. Theoretically I am open to be convinced otherwise in order to restore my faith in Buddhism. However, for that to happen some very good explanations would be necessary.
Looking forward to your replies.
Kind regards
Michael
in the past months and years I had some very interesting philosophical discussions with friends.
Prior to these I had been a devoted Buddhist for many years. However, these discussions plus my own thoughts that succeeded them by now have lead me to get out of my previously well-maintained, as I would call it, 'Buddhist bubble'. The following post of mine addresses the Law of Karma, although there are also other points regarding Buddhism which I by now consider to be questionable. For the sake of simplicity however, I leave it at that and stick to this one topic.
Maybe my post may at some point sound somewhat caustic. I would like to say that it is not at all my intention to attack or to hurt anyone with it. I ask these questions solely out of, if you like, a 'spiritual quest for truth'. In the end, my post has grown quite long. However, I regard all points in it as necessary in order to fully express my doubts, which is why I didn't want to shorten it. So here we go:
If the Law of Karma is to be understood as some kind of natural law then we have to act on the assumption that it works in accordance with objective rules or measures. There is to my knowledge no point in stating that the law of karma was somehow subjective. Because if the law of karma was to go by, say, subjective evaluations of individuals with regards to deeds, it would be impossible to identify any clear-cut, distinct rules of this law. And with that we would get into hot water, as this would open the doors for ambiguity and arbitrariness. But these are not normally characteristic for natural laws. To make this point more clear: it would mean that the subjective evaluation of a person could distort the consequences that are provided by this law. So, if someone subjectively was of the opinion that, say, killing human beings is not all that bad, his evaluation of this deed would thus change his karmic result for killing someone - in this case by lessening the bad results presumably associated with it.
However, for all I know, the Buddha claimed to have identified such rules. Thus we are dealing with a law that, so they say, provides beings with consequences for their actions, be they good or bad - in accordance with objective rules. If we now assume that this was truly the case then this assumption would have a whole range of quite piquant philosophical implications.
To begin with, this would mean that the Law of Karma was able to calculate how to repay any kind of deed. And this
- for every single deed, however small and incidental it may be, as well as
- for any imaginable defaulted deeds,
- for every single one of the countless living beings in the universe,
- twenty-four-seven.
- the social background and circumstances of a person
- the past, upbringing and even past lives of a being
- the social, political and legal frame conditions in the context of the deed
- economically, socially and politically incentivising factors
(let‘s say for individual consumption decisions or decisions for a professional career, et cetera) - and many, many more
And, on top of that, all of that would mean that there even was an objective agency that was actually able to judge certain deeds in the first place. Because, in order to carry out a fair and just calculation, this agency of any kind whatsoever would actually need to have clear-cut valuation standards for all imaginable deeds - not to mention complicated borderline cases, as for example, say, assisted dying. The Law of Karma would then need to reckon up these valuation standards with the above mentioned additional frame conditions, in order to finally to come to a conclusion for an appropriate karmic result for one deed out of countless. Sounds tough, doesn't it? We also have to assume that the Law of Karma was able to correctly and objectively evaluate all of these factors, because otherwise it wasn‘t a natural law. Or not a righteous one (in which case should hope that it isn't true). Or neither natural nor righteous. Or even a fairy tale?
A natural law takes effect always and everywhere. And, as mentioned: for every single being, everywhere, at all times. So how for all in the world is this supposed to work?
Let‘s now look at some tricky cases that make me wonder.
Let‘s say, someone is at the polls and chooses to vote for a political party. Does the Law of Karma now take into account why this person has voted for that party? Does it know anything about the party programme? And does it also know how serious the party is about it? And does it take into account the efforts that this person exposed itself to in order to come to an informed vote decision? And, as already mentioned, how can it apply clear-cut standards by which it can rank a vote decision for one party that, say, takes a more serious stand for climate protection and social justice, as ethically of higher value as that for a different party?
Let‘s look at another more abstract example. Someone convinces his family to switch from using Whatsapp as a messenger to use Signal, out of concerns for privacy and also because the person doesn‘t want to support the business models of the data industry. This is a deed that, as all deeds, is somehow karmically potent, isn't it? Now, Law of Karma, what do you say about that? Is that a good deed? And if yes, why? And how, Law of Karma, do you know whether it is good? Do you have any idea of IT? Or did you ever before in your beginning-less history have to deal with such a case?
Now one could dodge behind explanations as, say: it is the intention that matters. And if the intention is good, then the karmic result must be good as well. But this only relocates the problem. Because then the Law of Karma would then need to know, when and why an intention was to be ranked as accordingly good. And this, in my opinion, for almost all cases is not possible at all, exactly because context, reasons and motives (as stated above) of our reality are far too complex.
But even if intention was the right criterium by which this law operates, then the Law of Karma would be ultimately flawed. That is because, I think, intention alone is not good enough to evaluate a deed. Because even if the intention behind a deed is good (by whatever criteria this is evaluated), the implementation of a deed could still be ethically flawed. Here is an example. There is a monastery close to where I live in Germany. Some of the people who live in or attend this monastery like to, say, travel to Thailand every now and again, in order to visit and practice in monasteries there, to meet with Ajahns, and so forth. So one could say that they have good, high-minded intentions. As good as their intention may be, the way they are implemented, however, is usually by taking a long-distance air travel. Make no mistake about it: that is an absolute ecological catastrophe. Long-distance air travels are absolutely disastrous, as we all should know by now these days. Now, does the Law of Karma know about the environmental problems on our planet? And if yes, how? And does it take them into account accordingly?
My next point is the lack of any empirical evidence whatsoever. We as mankind have developed telescopes with which we can perceive the light from sources that are many many light years away from us. We have also developed instruments with which we can do measurements on a quantum level. But of something as colossal as the effect mechanisms of the Law of Karma we cannot detect anything measurable at all, not even rudimentarilly?
All of this makes me doubt. I am curious what you have to say about that. At this point I would like to ask to not be palmed off with statements as, say, "only a fully awakened Buddha is truly able to fully understand the workings of the Law of Karma". Because, quite frankly, in my opinion that would only be an alibi for a lacking interest in real understanding.
All of this being said, at this point in my life I am no longer willing to content myself with blurry and vague conceptions when trying to understand a supposed "Law of Karma". I have to say that, the way things stand at the moment, I am an apostate. Theoretically I am open to be convinced otherwise in order to restore my faith in Buddhism. However, for that to happen some very good explanations would be necessary.
Looking forward to your replies.
Kind regards
Michael
Comment