causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions that are indifferent to any ethical qualities we might impute to actions. — John

That is simple materialism.

Buddhism has always accepted karma. The word was often translated, in the works of European translators, as 'the law of cause and effect' and sometimes presented as being something like Newton's laws, albeit applying to the ethical domain, rather than to the movements of physical mass.

I think that kind of presentation was an example of what came to be called "Protestant Buddhism", which was the idea that Buddhism was a 'scientific religion', so as to appeal to the advocates of the European enlightenment. (In fact the word 'enlightenment' was chosen as the translation for the Buddhist term 'bodhi' for the same reason i.e. to appear scientific and not unlike European religions which were said to be superstitious by the 'enlightened' philosophers.)

However the early Buddhist text's presentation of karma was nothing like that at all. Here is an excerpt which casts some light:

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.

Thanisarro Bikkhu.

One of the illustrations of this was the legend of Angulimala. That name means literally 'finger necklace' - and the reason this character had that name, is because he was a murderous bandit, who used to set upon travellers in the forest and kill them, and made a necklace out of their fingers. (He was, I suppose, what we would call today a 'serial killer'.)

Anyway, one day he set upon the Buddha, with the intention of making him the next victim; however the Buddha converted him, and he became a monk, and eventually an arhat. His is the only case of a murderer who joined the Buddhist order; and also an illustration of the way that karma is not all-powerful.

We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. — Wayfarer

This is obviously a modern concessional interpretation of the understanding of Karma and is not in accord with the folk understanding of it. This reads more like cognitive behavior therapy. The notion of karma I am speaking about is some kind of superstitious belief such as for example that if you do evil you it might become your karma to be reborn in one of the Hells, or as a hungry ghost or as a toad or cockroach or whatever. I attended a Tibetan Buddhist course about twelve years ago in Sydney, and this kind of superstitious version is precisely what was taught there.

This is obviously a modern interpretation — John

Not so, it is based on the Pali texts. The Buddha re-defined karma so it was no longer dependence on rites and rituals. I agree, Tibetan and other traditional forms of Buddhism have superstitious elements in them but I don't count the idea of karma among them. I can't see a more obvious fundamental ethical principle than 'as you sow, so will you reap'.

I agree, Tibetan and other traditional forms of Buddhism have superstitious elements in them but I don't count the idea of karma among them. — Wayfarer

This is simply incorrect. Their idea of the operation of karma is most certainly a superstitious one. There may be non-superstitious understandings of karma, but unless it is understood as "instant karma" or the effect of one's actions on ones' actual states of mind, then it is a superstitious understanding. So, for example the karma of a murderer, a rapist or one who exploits people financially, would have to be understood as an inevitably tormented and miserable state of mind, now in this present life to qualify as non-superstitious. Do you think these kinds of understanding are convincing, and in accordance with experience?

I can't see a more obvious fundamental ethical principle than 'as you sow, so will you reap'. — Wayfarer

Yes, but when it comes to outward conditions the principle obviously does not hold. So, if those who do evil are not punished for it in an afterlife (Christianity) or another life (Hinduism, Buddhism), then the only other possible scenario in which the principle could hold is that their inner state is inevitably
one of misery.

Their idea of the operation of karma is most certainly a superstitious one. There may be non-superstitious understandings of karma, but unless it is understood as "instant karma" or the effect of one's actions on ones' actual states of mind, then it is a superstitious understanding. — John

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think there's some means by which the cumulative effects of actons shape experiences far into the future, by some means which is currently unknown to science. And because we can't accomodate it into the procrustean bed of scientific materialism, it is rejected as superstition.

Some concrete examples - there was a researcher named Ian Stevenson who dedicated 30 years to studying children who claimed to recall previous lives. His method was to interview the children and then attempt to correlate their stories against documentary evidence and eye-witness testimony.

In Sri Lanka, a toddler one day overheard her mother mentioning the name of an obscure town (“Kataragama”) that the girl had never been to. The girl informed the mother that she drowned there when her “dumb” (mentally challenged) brother pushed her in the river, that she had a bald father named “Herath” who sold flowers in a market near the Buddhist stupa, that she lived in a house that had a glass window in the roof (a skylight), dogs in the backyard that were tied up and fed meat, that the house was next door to a big Hindu temple, outside of which people smashed coconuts on the ground.

Stevenson was able to confirm that there was, indeed, a flower vendor in Kataragama who ran a stall near the Buddhist stupa whose two-year-old daughter had drowned in the river while the girl played with her mentally challenged brother. The man lived in a house where the neighbors threw meat to dogs tied up in their backyard, and it was adjacent to the main temple where devotees practiced a religious ritual of smashing coconuts on the ground. The little girl did get a few items wrong, however. For instance, the dead girl’s dad wasn’t bald (but her grandfather and uncle were) and his name wasn’t “Herath”—that was the name, rather, of the dead girl’s cousin. Otherwise, 27 of the 30 idiosyncratic, verifiable statements she made panned out. The two families never met, nor did they have any friends, coworkers, or other acquaintances in common, so if you take it all at face value, the details couldn’t have been acquired in any obvious way.

That was one of more than two thousand cases that Stevenson documented. There were a large number he didn't proceed with. Of course, his research is mostly just dismissed because such things 'can't happen' (which I predict will be the case here also).

That is simple materialism. — Wayfarer

It isn't really. It allows that material causation is the only mode of activity for bodies. When it comes to thought, the mode of activity would be reason. I think Spinoza's way of thinking cogitans and extensa as attributes of substance or God makes very good sense. So, there can be no causation operating between the different kinds of modes that are expressions of these different attributes, because they are one thing being expressed in different ways. To posit causal relations between them would be to commit a category error.

So, in sum, reality is no more fundamentally material (extensa) than it is thought (cogitans). Materiality and thought are both expressions of 'something' (substance or God) which is not either exclusively.

Is religion a superstition, in a sense? — Ann

Yes, in a sense. Or better: in certain forms.

So are you calling most religious people morons? — Ann

Most of them are, yes. Most people in general are morons.

This would then mean that you are saying only you are the logical and rational person, which no person can be — Ann

No, this is a non-sequitur. It's probably true that I am more intelligent than the average person, but I don't care much about intelligence. One could be intelligent but evil or miserable and an ignoramus but kind and compassionate. I would much rather be and/or be around the latter than the former.

No, I don't agree with that at all. I think there's some means by which the cumulative effects of actons shape experiences far into the future, by some means which is currently unknown to science. And because we can't accomodate it into the procrustean bed of scientific materialism, it is rejected as superstition. — Wayfarer

If we have no scientific, logical or experiential reason to believe it, then it is, for us at least, superstition. I believe that would be a fair definition of the term. If you, for example, have a very powerful intuitive inner conviction that something is so, to the degree that you have absolutely no doubt about it, then your belief in it will certainly not count as superstition for you, you will have experiential reasons for your conviction; but for others it will nonetheless count as superstition. There doesn't seem to be any way of getting around that.

if we have no scientific, logical or experiential reason to believe it... — John

...such as that presented in the italicized quote above...

Now you are just being obscure.

Hang on a minute. The debate was about whether there is or could be any evidence of karma, in the sense of some causal factors that have consequences in 'some future life'. So I presented an actual case which appears to suggest that very thing, in the form of a child, who claimed to have memory of a previous life, which was then cross-checked against documentary and witness evidence of the claimed former life. That is the quote I posted above. I expected you not to accept it, but I didn't expect you to completely ignore it.

The problem is it doesn't show any casual relationship with respect to the past and future experience.

If we accept those instances are as they are claimed, it only shows people have knowledge or memories of a life. Knowing who someone is, where they lived, what happened to them isn't the causation of future experiences based on what happened in the past. It's an experience of the present.

I don't think that section was there when I responded, but I might be mistaken.

In any case I don't see how such events if they are veridical would be evidence for karma at all. It's not even clear that they would support a belief in reincarnation as opposed to, for example, some kind of clairvoyance.

In any case I don't see how such events if they are veridical would be evidence for karma at all — John

So let me get this straight - you're saying that even if there is documentary evidence that there are causal relationships that can extend from one life to another, this wouldn't constitute any kind of in-principle explanation for the idea that actions can have consequences in future lives. Is that what you're saying?

And, say it is 'some kind of clairvoyance'. How would 'some kind of clairvoyance' be any more or less credible? What does that add?

The point is it not evidence of karma. In such a case, there is no specification or relationship of earlier life compared to later life. Here the only consequences of causality shown is people remember events from an earlier life. It doesn't show, for example, that treating others better will mean your future life will be better. All it shows is that someone with particular memories of past life has been caused.

And, say it is 'some kind of clairvoyance'. How would 'some kind of clairvoyance' be any more or less credible? What does that add? — Wayfarer

Well, it casts doubt on reincarnation. These experiences might just be a new person's knowledge and memory of someone else's life, which they mistake as their own. It's not really about being more or less credible, but rather that an instance of such clairvoyance is indistinguishable from reincarnation by the evidence.

Well, it casts doubt on reincarnation. These experiences might just be a new person's knowledge and memory of someone else's life, which they mistake as their own. — TheWillowOfDarkness

FYI, the researcher concerned never said these accounts proved reincarnation; he simply said they suggest it.

t doesn't show, for example, that treating others better will mean your future life will be better. All it shows is that someone with particular memories of past life has been caused. — TheWillowOfDarkness

The article from which that passage was quoted acknowledges this point. However, even if that is so, the possibility of there being cause-and-effect relationships between two apparently separate lives, casts doubt on the dogmatic assertion that there is 'no evidence' for such causal relationships.

That's the problem though, for the nature of evidence is is to suggest, not prove. If we take the accounts at face value, they no more suggest reincarnation then this type of clairvoyance. Now you want to say that, given the evidence, it's reincarnation that suggested over an equally supported theory of clairvoyance. That doesn't work.

The article from which that passage was quoted acknowledges this point. However, even if that is so, the possibility of there being cause-and-effect relationships between two apparently separate lives, casts doubt on the dogmatic assertion that there is 'no evidence' for such causal relationships. — Wayfarer

So how about you listen to it! :)

The question of possibility and evidence are distinct. It's always possible that there are casual relationships between apparently separate lives. This fact doesn't specify whether there is evidence or not. It cannot cast doubt or lend support to questions of evidence because this true regardless of whatever evidence we might have-- even if we have, for example, evidence which shows no such causal relationships occurred at a particular time, it's still possible they might have. The question of evidence can only be dealt with by whether there is evidence or not.

Your argument doesn't make sense here. I mean does Stevenson have evidence consistent with casual links between apparently separate lives? If so, you have falsification of the assertion there is no evidence for such casual relationships. Assuming we take Stevenson's claims at face value, there is not just about last on assertions there is no evidence, for we know assertions of no evidence are wrong.

What I find particularly amusing in all of this though, is just how irrelevant reincarnation is to the question of causality and its significance. Even a careless investigation of causality reveals no-one lives separate lives. New life (whether it be someone else or your own) is always emerging and being affected by the actions which went before it. We don't need reincarnation to tell that how you behave now will affect future life.

Reincarnation is an incredibly selfish notion. It almost supposes that, if the care and respect of future life are to matter, it simply must be your life. So much energy is spent speculating or defending reincarnation, as if the meaning of ethics and respect for future life depends on it, when the simple presence of future life is enough to define that need.

Let's be clear here; I don't believe documented anecdotal evidence is ever good evidence for anything, unless the same anecdotal evidence is independently recorded by multiple investigators who we have good reason to believe are impartial concerning the question the evidence is being marshaled to answer. The anecdotes simply don't clearly establish any specific kind of causal link between past, now ended lives and present lives, so they cannot be supportive of the idea of karma.

Willow makes the point regarding the equivocal support for either reincarnation or clairvoyance (and we may well be able to concoct other hypotheses) in a way I storngly agree with, so there is no point me reiterating that.

I don't believe documented anecdotal evidence is ever good evidence for anything — John

Documentary evidence was used in all of these cases to corroborate the anecdotal evidence, and Stevenson collected and documented many of such instances. Of course, it is possible to deny it, or to believe that he was delusional - but it's still not the point. The point is that if there is such evidence:

A Turkish boy whose face was congenitally underdeveloped on the right side said he remembered the life of a man who died from a shotgun blast at point-blank range. A Burmese girl born without her lower right leg had talked about the life of a girl run over by a train. On the back of the head of a little boy in Thailand was a small, round puckered birthmark, and at the front was a larger, irregular birthmark, resembling the entry and exit wounds of a bullet; Stevenson had already confirmed the details of the boy’s statements about the life of a man who’d been shot in the head from behind with a rifle, so that seemed to fit. And a child in India who said he remembered the life of boy who’d lost the fingers of his right hand in a fodder-chopping machine mishap was born with boneless stubs for fingers on his right hand only. This type of “unilateral brachydactyly” is so rare, Stevenson pointed out, that he couldn’t find a single medical publication of another case.

then the dogmatic assertion that 'all causality is of the kind known to current science' is incorrect. That is the only point at issue.

Where are these cases documented apart from Stevenson's?

In any case they are one-off instances; which could reasonably be written off to coincidence, increduliy notwithstanding.

Ian Stevenson is not the only researcher in that field, but, as you can probably understand, it is a very controversial subject to study, and Stevenson was to all intents ostracised by the scientific mainstream for even undertaking such a study.

His magnum opus was a massive two-volume study Reincarnation and Biology, which is presented very much like a regular medical science text - except for the subject matter.

Nowadays there is a widespread consensus that his methods must have been wrong, that he was easily duped, gullible, and so forth. I have read up on Stevenson, and I really don't think he was that easily fooled - had his research methods been applied to some less controversial subject, nobody would have batted an eyelid.

But the point at issue is as follows: you were very quick to state that there could be no evidence of anything like 'karma' on the basis that 'causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions'. So, the possibility of past-life memories is one subject where there is actual empirical evidence which goes against that.

But that is usually rejected - and why? Maybe on the grounds that 'it's the kind of thing superstitious people believe'! And that, in turn, is because belief in re-incarnation is a taboo in Western culture, on two grounds - first because it was made 'anathema' by the Catholics in the 4th C; secondly because it appears to undermine materialism. (I know from experience that discussion of it makes many people exceedingly uncomfortable.)

Stevenson observed that, in Western cultures, attitudes to his research were generally along the lines of: 'why research that? Everyone knows it's a superstitious myth'. In Eastern countries, the attitude was: 'why research that? Everyone knows that it happens all the time.'

So that is the point I'm making - that some things are categorised as 'superstitious', because they contravene accepted wisdom, or the way we see the world.

Modulo essentialism as regards causation.

secondly because it appears to undermine materialism — Wayfarer

Are you speaking only about reincarnation here or do you include rebirth as well? The Buddhist would say that there is no non-physical soul that gets reborn, just the five aggregates reconstituting themselves, which is very close if not identical to a materialist view.

The Buddhist would say that there is no non-physical soul that gets reborn, just the five aggregates reconstituting themselves, which is very close if not identical to a materialist view. — Thorongil

The materialist view that the Buddha rejects is that at death and the breakup of the body, the elements return to their source, there are no further consequences of actions. That is categorised as nihilism. The opposite view is that there is an unchanging self or soul which continues to exist in perpetuity. So the 'two extreme views' are all variations of 'self doesn't exist' (nihilism) and 'self does exist' (eternalism). The 'middle path' is that the self, like everything else, exists in dependence on causes and conditions.

That said, I actually disagree with the dogmatic view that 'the Buddha teaches there is no soul'. My view is, the Buddha teaches that there is nothing which doesn't change. So there is no 'soul' conceived of as a monolithic or unchanging entity, which remains the same while everything else changes. Later Buddhism devised the concept of 'citta-santāna', 'mind-stream', which to all intents functions as a soul, although Buddhists will never agree that this is what it is, for dogmatic reasons.

But the point at issue is as follows: you were very quick to state that there could be no evidence of anything like 'karma' on the basis that 'causation as it generally understood consists in energetic physical interactions'. So, the possibility of past-life memories is one subject where there is actual empirical evidence which goes against that. — Wayfarer

Yes, I was just wanting to emphasize that karma-as-causation is not in keeping with the modern understanding of causation. We cannot formulate any adequate idea, in light of our general understanding of people and of the world, of how karma could possibly work.

I don't accept that these experiences, if they were truly as recounted, are necessarily "past-life memories". They could be some kind of glitch, like a "crossed-wire" ; which gives rise to a kind of clairvoyant recall of past events that may be 'stored' in eternity. They may be misconstrued as memories. I am not saying that past lives are impossible; I am saying that unless we have our own undoubtable memories of our own past lives, then we have no reason to believe in them.

Even if we had undoubtable memories of our past lives, would that give us any good reason to believe that we would have future lives; or any good reason to believe in karma? If I had a profound spiritual experience that revealed to me the intricate truth of the karmic relations of all beings, and it all seemed so lastingly self-evident to me that I was incapable of doubting it, then I would have good experiential reason to believe in karma. But the fact of such an experience would not give anyone else good reason to believe it.

Would you believe in something of little import to you or something that you were positively averse to on the basis of so little evidence as that provided by Stevenson's documented cases? In the interests of self-knowledge I think that someone who wants to believe in reincarnation should ask themselves why it is so important to them to believe such a thing. What difference could such a belief make, is such a belief necessary, a positive influence, or is it perhaps even detrimental, to the actualization of your desire to live a good life now, for example?

I was just wanting to emphasize that karma-as-causation is not in keeping with the modern understanding of causation. — John

I understand that, but it is different from my own outlook. I am not materialist - I'm not meaning 'materialist' in the sense of 'pre-occupied with wealth and status', but 'materialist' in the sense of 'believing that the physical or material domain is the only reality'. I think the domain that the physical sciences study is only a very narrow range, it's like peaking through a gap in the fence, if you like.

We cannot formulate any adequate idea, in light of our general understanding of people and of the world, of how karma could possibly work. — John

Who is this 'we'? I don't want to persuade you or anyone to accept the idea of re-birth, as it is obviously a deep question and also as I noted, culturally foreign, but as far as I am concerned karma is no less real than gravity.

I don't accept that these experiences, if they were truly as recounted, are necessarily "past-life memories". — John

“The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.” — Ian Stevenson

From the article mentioned previously.

Who is this 'we'? I don't want to persuade you or anyone to accept the idea of re-birth, as it is obviously a deep question and also as I noted, culturally foreign, but for karma is no less real than gravity. — Wayfarer

And yet you give no account of it nor of why you find it so compelling. Also, I asked three salient questions in my last response; and you have not attempted to answer any of them. That's your prerogative, of course, but it doesn't bode well for discussion or trying to uncover the truth, if that is really what you are interested in.

And yet you give no account of it nor of why you find it so compelling. — John

I had some experiences as a child. It seems indubitable to me.

I will try and answer your other questions:

What difference could such a belief make, is such a belief necessary, a positive influence, or is it perhaps even detrimental, to the actualization of your desire to live a good life now, for example? — John

It seems obvious to me that if one's life extends beyond the boundaries of this current existence, then there are many possibilities. Conversely, if life is simply a material process, whereby bodies are born and then act out of their various drives and then die, then hedonism and the quest for physical security and pleasure would be the only real goods.

Even if we had undoubtable memories of our past lives, would that give us any good reason to believe that we would have future lives; or any good reason to believe in karma? — John

Don't you think that is a rather silly question?

I didn't get into this to explain or justify my views on this subject. It was simply a matter of rebutting your dogmatic assertion that 'all causation is physical' and that belief in the 'effect of intentional action' is superstitious.

It seems obvious to me that if one's life extends beyond the boundaries of this current existence, then there are many possibilities. Conversely, if life is simply a material process, whereby bodies are born and then act out of their various drives and then die, then hedonism and the quest for physical security and pleasure would be the only real goods. — Wayfarer

If the influence of your life extends via your influence during life on those you share it with beyond your life then why should "hedonism and the quest for physical security and pleasure would be the only real goods"? That seems to reflect a very self-centred perspective.

Don't you think that is a rather silly question?

I didn't get into this to explain or justify my views on this subject. It was simply a matter of rebutting your dogmatic assertion that 'all causation is physical' and that belief in the 'effect of intentional action' is superstitious. — Wayfarer

Why do you suggest it is a silly question?

I made no "dogmatic assertion" that all causation is physical; I just said that our only understanding of causation is one that is couched in physical terms. And I also have not claimed that intentional actions have no effects. You are distorting what I have said, so that you can comfortably dismiss it without having to address any of the difficult questions for your own position.

I just said that our only understanding — John

OUR only understanding. What WE think is the case. That is what is dogmatic - the presumption that you are representing 'our' views, and how 'we' think. Note the implied normativity.

I don't really mind whether you believe it or not. I'm not trying to persuade you. This is a philosophy forum and the philosophical point can be made very simply: if there is some means by which causes and effects can be demonstrated between separate lives, then there is a causal mechanism which 'current science' or 'physical science' doesn't understand. That at least allows for the possibility of karma. But notice that Scientific American piece I quoted concludes:

Interestingly, and contrary to most religious notions of reincarnation, there was zero evidence of karma. On the whole, it appeared to be a fairly mechanical soul-rebirthing process, not a moralistic one. What those mechanisms involve, exactly, is anyone’s guess—even Stevenson’s. But he didn’t see grandiose theorizing as part of his job. His job, rather, was simply to gather all the anomalous data, investigate them carefully, and rule out, using every possible method available to him, the rational explanations. And to many, he was successful at doing just that. Towards the end of her own storied life, the physicist Doris Kuhlmann-Wilsdorf—whose groundbreaking theories on surface physics earned her the prestigious Heyn Medal from the German Society for Material Sciences — surmised that Stevenson’s work had established that “the statistical probability that reincarnation does in fact occur is so overwhelming … that cumulatively the evidence is not inferior to that for most if not all branches of science.”