Is Karma a Law of Nature?
It seems Matthew Gindin is destined to ask, and answer, this question.
Did the Buddha actually provide us with any specific examples of how “action and result” manifested themselves as karma given concrete actions that he took precipitating concrete results.
My problem with karma revolves around the extent to which it either is or is not another manifestation of determinism.
Consider:
Karma: (in Hinduism and Buddhism) the sum of a person’s actions in this and previous states of existence, viewed as deciding their fate in future existences.
The key word being “fate”. Fate as in fatalism? Or does “what goes around comes around” in regard to the relationship between our past, present and future experiences involve some measure of autonomy? If some, how much?
Intention [to me] implies autonomy. Unless what we perceive to be our intention is really just a manifestation instead of the psychological illusion of intending freely. But let those here who believe in karma explain in more detail how this actually all works for them in terms of their own experiences involving actions that they have choosen and results that followed. Does what follows follow only because it must follow or does what follows follow because you freely chose this action instead of that.
To me, it is analoguous to those you claim that the heavenly bodies are instrumental in determining our future…but that somehow “I” is in there apart from all that. How with any specificity is a distinction made here?
The part that the author does not touch on at all:
What qualities in what minds revolving around what characteristics? In what set of circumstances?
Is character literally destiny? If so what role does “I” play in creating and then sustaining it?
And, on the contrary, in some situations, for some people, greed and hatred do not lead to confusion and suffering. And greed and hatred in regard to what particular situation viewed from what vantage point? Again, it’s this “one size fits all” mentality that religious leaders often try to foist on the flocks that concerns me.
And the gap between “common sense” and a “principle worth elevating to the status of a law”, has always varied profoundly across the course of human interactions historically, culturally and experientially.
But the whole point for any number of religious denominations is to not go there at all. Why? Because, in my view, the further you go down that path the closer you get to mine.