Buddhism, Karma and the Problem of Induction
Buddhism has changed over millennia from India, China, South East Asia, Japan, Korea, the West etc. as it incorporated customs and various religious traditions through its transmigration. And so, there are lifetimes worth of information to explore under the Buddhist rubric. My scope here is obviously not to investigate every facet of Buddhism, but to cut to the chase. When evaluating religious systems, you can most quickly gain a proper perspective by analyzing the epistemology- the theory of how knowing is possible in the system. If the system cannot account for how knowledge is possible then it is not possible to know the verity of the system on its own terms. It refutes itself. In terms of logical coherence Buddhism almost wears as a badge of honor a lack of logical consistency. Contradiction is your sister and the way to apprehend reality. One gets the sense of being insulted when trying to understand it as a system of thought. It’s like watching sleight of hand magic- when science and logic appear to help the Buddhist, he says ‘look at this’. But once it spoils the trick, he hides it and diverts attention and says ‘look over there!’
The distinction is made between Buddhism as a religion and as a philosophy and more commonly as a spiritual meditative practice. The latter is the cause of much of its popularity in the West. The adherents to the meditative side of Buddhism usually don’t seem to care much about the religious or philosophical side of it as they do not care deeply about any other philosophy or religion. People pick their worldviews like they stack food on their plates at Golden Corral. There is no coherence to the food relations (shrimp and waffles) they will be momentarily indulging in, just what looked good the second they saw it. This is the depth of analysis most people do in their lives with their worldview. Do these pop-culture Buddhists know what “Buddhism” is? In “recent decades, scholars of Buddhism have been reluctant even to render that noun in the singular, speaking instead of “Buddhisms” in an effort to reflect the wide range of doctrine and practice across time and space. Thus no scholar of Buddhism would dare attempt to identify some essence or even defining characteristic of Buddhism, instead offering, when asked, a rather dry historical narrative: “Buddhism is a religious tradition that began in India around the fifth century B.C.E., founded by a figure known as the Buddha...” “No one, in other words, would dare to venture “what counts as genuine Buddhism”. “But it may be that modern Buddhism has existed long enough to require its own periodization, in which each period of modern Buddhism has its own favored “science.” (pg.891-2, Donald S. Lopez Jr. is the Arthur E. Link Distinguished University Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan)
It “is impossible to know exactly what the Buddha taught. He did not write down his teachings, nor did his early disciples. The only written versions were recorded several hundred years after his death, following centuries of being passed on orally- and of being interpreted in multiple ways.” (pg.130, 4th Edit. Experiencing the World's Religions, Michael Molloy) This is in contrast to Christianity where the first disciples wrote down, and the church circulated Christ’s teachings while they were still alive and many eyewitnesses (Acts 1:21-2) of his life and death and resurrection. (1 Cor.15:1-8, Heb.2:3, Lk.1:1-4, 1 Jn.1:1-2) But I don’t really see where this matter’s anyway since it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of Buddhism as a practice like the historical accuracy of Christ’s bodily resurrection would have on his teachings. (1 Cor. 15:16-22; Act 2:22-32, Jn. 11:24-5) And given Buddhism’s affinity for change I don’t see why they would trust any continuity of history (given there is no continuity of self) or application of logic and uniform scientific laws to history anyhow. Why assume they apply to the past? And if they do, why don’t Buddhists believe in the historicity of Christ’s bodily resurrection and preceding prophecies about him?
The word Buddha means “enlightened.” Buddha was a man who basically attained enlightenment through techniques presumably provable by adherents (all sentient beings) giving it a good shot. So, regardless of whether he even existed you can try the techniques out for yourself. You are encouraged to prove the truths of Buddhism through subjective intuition or mystical states of mind. This of course presupposes truth can be attained in this manner by just any old sentient body. That is, the truth about the universal external world of matter and other people can be acquired by exploring the inner realm of your private mind. Or that one can make universal conclusions about the universe without universal experience. Mind is universal therefore (therefore is an argument indicator, i.e. logic) this makes knowing possible. Zen Buddhists use koans to stop the mind from automatically imposing meaning on experience and allow it to experience the present directly. (Buddhism & Phenomenology) But- “There are many philosophies and interpretations within Buddhism, making it a tolerant and evolving religion.” Also making it prone to competing truth claims about itself. Scholars (the newer ones) consider it, a “way of life” or a “spiritual tradition” more than a religion (after it fell apart under scrutiny- pg.887-8 here). This views it more along the lines of meditative self-improvement methods, or mind science.
After six years of searching, Siddhartha Gautama (the man who became Buddha) “found enlightenment while meditating under a Bodhi tree. He spent the rest of his life teaching others about how to achieve this spiritual state.” There are various types of Buddhism as well- Theravada, Mahayana, & Tibetan Buddhism. Which makes one wonder how truth is attained by the inner mind and yet so many contrary variations arose within Buddhist societies. Somehow error and delusion are also intuited, which should alarm Buddhists. (e.g. Mount Meru- pg.887)
Without looking into the multi-varied emergent Buddhist traditions arising as they all looked within, let's try to see what is common to them all- that which constitutes them as Buddhist.
One thing that doesn’t change between Buddhists is the belief that everything changes and there is no permanent self or ego. Self is sort of a reification of a continuity of karmic induced mental states. The whole cosmos is a symbiotic association of constant flux engulfing mind and matter. Which makes it all the more miraculous that the timeless Buddhist truths arose amidst contradiction and insanity in enlightened minds of selves who momentarily appeared before vanishing away. The other enduring truth emerging from changing flux is the existence of suffering. This is a result of the desire of people which also never changes until we apply a permanent halt to it within ourselves (well, ok not ourselves, but whatever momentary bundle of constantly changing flux we are). The description of how they use the term ‘desire’ sounds like how Christians would use the word covet or inflamed lust. Covetousness we can agree is the cause of enormous suffering. (2 Tim. 3:1-5) Michael Molloy (pg. 130-1 book referenced above) notes “The Three Marks of Reality”. Reality “manifests three characteristics: constant change, a lack of permanent identity, and the existence of suffering. This view is the foundation for the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path...” I suppose the laws of math and physics not changing is a given since they are necessary to build all the temples and statues of Buddha.
We are becoming what we love and so interestingly in Buddhism the elimination of ‘self’ stems from a belief in the absence of a personal God. This is in the face of his clear revelation of Himself. (Psa.19:1-4, Rom.1:18-23) “Compared with such Christian expressions as 'the glory of God', 'love of God', 'the Divine Bride', etc., the Zen experience must be judged as singularly devoid of human emotions. There is in it, on the contrary, something that may be termed cold scientific evidence or matter-of-factness. Thus in the Zen consciousness we can almost say that what corresponds to the Christian ardour for a personal God is lacking.” (The Zen Koan, 5. Factors Determining the Zen Experience -D.T. Suzuki) Buddhism sort of makes you into a law instead of a person.
There are also “4 nobles truths” and “The Eightfold Path” which are the same among Buddhist traditions. I guess these permanent truths were accurately intuited from the flux to the minds of the devotees.
The truth of suffering (dukkha)
The truth of the cause of suffering (samudaya)
The truth of the end of suffering (nirhodha)
The truth of the path that frees us from suffering (magga)
Collectively, these principles explain why humans hurt and how to overcome suffering.
The Eightfold Path Training in Wisdom (Prajan) Right views—believe The Four Noble Truths, rejecting all false views Right intention—improper thoughts must be purged Training in Morality (Shila) Right speech—truthful, clear, non-harmful communication Right action—live non-exploitatively and properly toward others Right livelihood—live simply Training in Concentration (Samadhi) Right effort—work toward detachment from the world Right mind—understand the nature of oneself and reality Right meditation—dispel all distractions, total focus on enlightenment
You are probably thinking what I am- right according to who or what? And how can one know? To say ‘Well, not right as opposed to wrong, but as whole or complete” doesn’t dissolve any doubts.
There is a balance Buddhists attempt to walk, between ‘feasting and fasting’, again a similar goal Christians pursue by faith in Christ’s power and the searching of the Spirit of God. But they pursue this by meditation, which is basically Godless thinking and phenomenological introspection and drilling down deep into ‘Mind‘for enlightenment. The path Buddhists propose (assuming it doesn’t also change as things are want to do) is “The eightfold path” to nirvana. Nirvana is to extinguish or blow out like a candle, the covetous desires of self. One truth that flux did not convey clearly is regarding nirvana- “The various schools of Buddhism understand nirvana in different ways, but they generally agree that nirvana is not a place. It is more like a state of existence.” According to Donald Lopez, nirvana “is not the suppression of these negative states of mind, but their eradication. An eradication which, at least in the early tradition entailed the permanent extinction of mind and body. An extinction that occurs because the causes of their reproduction have been destroyed. There can be no mind and body because there is no karma to cause them. There can be no karma because there is no desire or hatred to motivate deeds.” (33 min. mark)
There is Nirvana during life and then after death, as long as sentient beings driven by ignorance and acting on self-desire create karma causing perpetual rebirth. Again, this is perplexing since consciousness has always existed. You are probably wondering whether a self emerged acting on a conscious desire first, starting suffering and karma, or karma initiated the ball rolling- either way it's all a repeating cycle and Buddhist don’t recommend trying to resolve such things. (You see where Mt. Meru got us.) Like if nirvana is our extinction and the universe is cyclical, how do we come back for another cycle in the next universe? Or if every cycle is different (more like a spiral) and there is an infinite past, how did we ever get here now in the present? Or how are different cycles cyclical? What is being repeated exactly?
Now, true, in Buddhism- the cause of suffering is human desire and if you end all desires, you end suffering; get rid of a self and you get rid of sufferings. “What they want to get rid of is the notion of self-interest. They want to say, being self-interested is being irrational.” (18:54 min) As if rationality is desirable in this case. Thinking of one’s self as a bundle of mental states caused by previous ones helps to eliminate an idea of self and thus acting on self-interest. Strictly speaking, you are not thinking, rather thought is occurring. Basically, you are like self-conscious occurrences of a causal law in various phases; which, come to think of it may not be helpful either.
The universe seems to be cyclical- it is constantly dissolving, remaining empty, reemerging and then existing for a while. This eternal truth also managed to manifest itself unscathed from the prison of change. Buddhists like to flatter themselves that modern evolution theory was anticipated by them; others are not as persuaded. Some critics of this unscientific nature of Buddhism argue, “that its conceptions of the “nonduality” and “ungraspability” of the mind amount to a critique of the scientific worldview.” Logic and science keep you from true reality. To a Buddhist the universe and consciousness have always coexisted and so cannot exclude each other. According to Donald Lopez, Buddhists do not engage in questions of the origins and endings and do not believe consciousness arose from matter. Furthermore, natural random selection is a contradiction to karmic conceptions. (start 26:44 mark) And in evolution, species strive to avoid extinction where in Buddhism that is the goal. (36:30 mark; also here at the 43:58 mark)
Karma is the warp and woof of the universe- which introduces causation and the philosophical problem of induction into the Buddhist equation. Causation is what gives rise to conscious states of being which disappear but cause the next series of states of being to arise in the future. (15 min mark) And although you might try to identify the ‘self’ as that which joins these successive states of being over time (memory, personality type etc.), your momentary fleeting bundle of perceptions would be mistaken. How can you trust that your thoughts in the next instance will be accurate effects of previous causes without assuming an unchanging causal law and the inability of your mind to err?
We are told, ‘karmic seeds’ never lose their potency; that is any pleasure or pain is unerringly the result of a past deed, regardless of time. The weight of every word and deed are carefully measured and punished by karma. Your future states of mind are caused by previous ones. (This is where Christians would concur. Gal. 6:7-8) Cause and effect must be of the same substance as a seed is the same substance of the sprout it produces, so mind and matter can never be the cause of one another. (24:52 mark) Truth cannot arise from contradiction it would seem. Mind causes mind and cannot be the cause of matter; although somehow your mind moves your body and physical laws are effects of karma. Buddhists are strict dualists. (yin & yang) And mind has always existed. Buddhists explain karma as analogous to seeds producing only after their kind (rice grows rice etc.) thus involving the law of identity in logic; which would contradict the constant change they demand. There is no identity in constant flux.
What makes Buddhists believe that the future logical and scientific and moral laws will be like the past ones? Especially since one of their 3 marks of reality is constant change. To claim it a law of karma begs the question. They believe it for no reason arrived at from observation or deduction, but through intuition. Perhaps they can escape David Hume that way. The Western pop-Buddhist will need to abandon his hopes that Buddhism and science are kinfolks. Science looks outside at matter and laws, applying logic and math- Buddhism looks inside at mind at things which defy logic and math. So, how do we know we can trust all intuition? Seeing that intuitionists within Buddhism and from various religious systems themselves arrive at contrary revelations. “Today in Japan, for example, thirteen major schools of Buddhism involving 56 sects are officially recognized.”
“We have come to have deep faith in the True Nature which is the same in all sentient beings.” (pg.49 Manual of Zen Buddhism- D.T. Suzuki) All sentient beings can attain enlightenment as Buddha because: “The position of Zen Buddhism is that One Mind pervades all and therefore there is no distinction to be made between the Buddha and sentient beings and that as far as Mind is concerned the two are of one nature.” (Footnote 2 pg.78) “Absolute faith is placed in a man's inner being. For whatever authority there is in Zen, all comes from within.” “Zen is the spirit of a man. Zen believes in its inner purity and goodness. Whatever is superadded or violently torn away, injures the wholesomeness of the spirit.” "The way to ascend unto God is to descend into one's self"; — these are Hugo's words. "If thou wishest to search out the deep things of God, search out the depths of thine own spirit"; — this comes from Richard of St. Victor. When all these deep things are searched out there is after all no "self" where you can descend, there is no "spirit", no "God" whose depths are to be fathomed. Why? Because Zen is a bottomless abyss.” - (Daisetz Teitaro Suzuki) A bottomless pit is an appropriate metaphor.
This faith in the mind's capacity (of all sentient beings) to directly apprehend reality is asked to be taken on faith. And for other advocates of other faiths which oppose Buddhist worldviews, on what grounds does a Buddhist have for making this request to others, or do others have in taking up this challenge? Why should a Christian abandon Christianity to try Buddhist techniques for apprehending reality? It’s as if Buddhists feel no need to justify their claims with science or logic and if they tried to justify them, they would thereby discredit the claims. Like saying there is a prize in this box of Cracker Jack’s but you have to eat the contents to find it. Why should you pursue this prize? It’s the best prize ever. Why should I believe you that it’s in there? Don’t believe me, just eat until you find it.
Suzuki elucidates their use of ‘faith’ here: “The effective and conative centres which are really the foundations of one's personal character are charged to do their utmost in the solution of the koan. This is what the Zen master means when he refers to 'great faith' and 'great spirit of inquiry' as the two most essential powers needed in the qualification of a successful Zen devotee. The fact that all great masters have been willing to give themselves up, body and soul, to the mastery of Zen, proves the greatness of their faith in ultimate reality, and also the strength of their spirit of inquiry known as 'seeking and contriving', which never suspends its activity until it attains its end, that is, until it has come into the very presence of Buddhatā itself.” (10. Various Generalizations on the Koan Exercise) But even if we have the experience of apprehending ultimate reality, why not doubt it as an altered state of mind and not actually apprehending ultimate reality. In other words, why make the feeling of apprehending ultimate reality the same as actually apprehending ultimate reality? Delusions would be apprehended by minds in Buddhism in the same way that other mystical experiences would; and the world is full of mystical experiences and delusions to choose from. The ’common religious experience’ or mystical state was believed to be the real root of all religions. (The Myth of Disenchantment pg.162, 190,5) I recently spoke with a young woman who claimed Odin appeared to her when she was dying with Covid and saved her life. Should I accept her experience of Odin as proof of his non-corporeal existence? In spite of Buddhists telling us we can directly experience reality (Kant’s noumenal realm) when we bypass the logical apparatus. Which in Kantian terms constructs the experience partly caused by our perceptions of the thing in itself and partly the conceptions of our mind producing our phenomena and applying meaning where there is none. Buddhists would appear to say- ‘Forget Kant’s phenomena which is illusion and have a mystical experience of true reality (noumena) following our techniques.’
With the Phenomenologists they would agree you directly experience reality with your mind by letting it impress itself upon you; which it presumably does with unfailing regularity. Buddhist's practice this by allowing a revelation to manifest- “satori” to the Japanese or “wu” in Chinese. (pg.229 Essays in Zen- Suzuki) Don’t dissect reality and compartmentalize it using logic which disconnects things from their environment artificially. Conscious reality is like a moving river flowing from one thing to the next. You don’t measure the amount of water flowing at a certain rate to understand it, you get in the river to experience it; to apprehend the true river. You strip away the contingent qualities (this or that particular eddy) and experience the essence of the thing in itself (river-ness). But even here you are stuck with a form of Kant’s transcendentally necessary mental apparatus, just a Buddhist metaphysical version, as the cause of your experience. The Buddhist ‘Mind’ or consciousness is not a ‘self’ with volition like God (or us by experience) for example, so you are forced to assume your partaking in the experience of mind (the effect of a cause- causation shows up everywhere) is not delusion.
Satori or revelational knowing is in contrast to logical or empirical analysis and it is quintessential Zen. “Logically stated, all its opposites and contradictions are united and harmonized into a consistent organic whole. This is a mystery and a miracle, but according to the Zen masters such is being performed every day.” The “very foundations of life” are “one indivisible whole”. (pg.230-1 Essays) This unification of the whole is what occultists like Manly P. Hall, and Helena Blavatsky and Aleister Crowley sought from each religion. The mystical experience in each religious system is what will unify the world unto the coming beast. Buddhism is partly popular for its tolerance of other religious systems or ability to conform to a future religion. It begins to map onto postmodern thinking as well.
Once you reach satori and begin practicing it as a way of knowing (Buddhism), you have encountered conversion minus all the emotion. It’s an exciting new method of practicing mental vacation, although probably not as easy as taking DMT. It “is simply an inner state of consciousness without reference to its objective consequences.” (pg.231-2 Essays) Since this is true knowing of true reality whatever you know empirically and logically is therefore misleading- except with regards to leading you to satori. Sure, scientific and logical thought is necessary to practical daily life, to build, govern, grow and distribute food, trade, count, measure, protect and defend, self-preservation (although there’s no self) but when it comes to ceasing from all productive activity (objective consequences) in order to enter that inner mental state of 'this is really true’, satori is your drug of choice. (Jer 17:9, Gen 6:5) Logical analysis can lead the horse to satori but can’t make him drink. And further logical analysis can leave him skeptical of whether what he is drinking is actually what it claims to be. It makes one wonder how we apprehend logical laws of thought with our mind and we partake in universal mind or consciousness yet somehow these realms of experience are inconsistent and contradictory- as yin is to yang. Or how after you enter logically antagonistic satori you come out with propositional truths about the real world and the illusory world. But if those propositions contradict each other, don’t worry contradictions are united when you get back into Zen mode. (Like if you ever experience waking from a dream with a brilliant insight only to realize it is non-sense once you think about it awake.) How come your sense apparatuses enabling you to operate successfully in the material world can’t be trusted with true reality. But the apparatus enabling you to experience satori never fails. Somehow you are precluded from possible error in that mental episode called satori. But forget that, just taste the fruit and see for yourself... your eyes shall be opened. (Gen.3:1-6)
Yin Yang is how opposite or contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent, and most rudimentary in mind and matter. Yinyang is the chi or qi (life force or vital energy) of the whole; similar in Daoism and Buddhism. “The native Chinese religious and philosophical movement called Daoism undoubtedly paved the way for Chan Buddhism and influenced it.” (pg.167 E.W.R., Michael Molloy) Some trace the yingyang origins to India. “Indeed, scholars have been able to identify a number of Buddhist doctrines and practices borrowed, sometimes with only the slightest revision, from Hinduism and Jainism. Such borrowings have not been acknowledged by the tradition but rather claimed as its own.” (pg. 894) According to this writer “yin and yang are the qi of the universe. These qi flow within the natural as well as the human worlds. They are the basic fabric of existence”. Everything has yin and yang aspects and as one quality reaches its peak the seed of the opposite germinates and it gives way to the other in an endless cycle- like seasons. This is to be interpreted as optimistic, that change is natural so embrace it rather than try to resist it for self-serving reasons. We need to get rid of the self if you recall. So, in this sense resisting is called for by following the 8-fold path. While nature is balanced, we can be although we aren’t for some reason (3 poisons), and nature doesn’t appear to need to follow any 8-fold paths like we do. Go figure. Do animals and other creatures make conscious moral decisions effecting karma? If not, how do they escape it? Maybe we should adjudicate lions for killing hyenas. How does man come to have the ‘three poisons’ in himself and find himself opposing them but animals don’t? If natural laws of cause and effect carry no moral connection how do karmic laws which cause states of mind obligate right behavior? Is karma in the physical world different than karma in the non-physical planes? Why aren’t both equally deterministic? Is suffering caused by physical laws the result of karma and not just physics? Why should someone be caring for others who don’t exist more than their self who doesn’t exist. Why is moral responsibility imposed upon a non-existent self in the next reincarnation? There is no point in questioning which came first, karma and Mind are eternal. Plus, if you capture a glimpse of reality, it is incommunicable in human language. This is why you must let go of the analytic mind apparently.
Another ingredient to a Buddhist epistemology is the idea of maya. Like about everything else, reality is debated among Buddhist schools regarding the nature of illusion. Can mind which is illusion account for illusion? “The intellect, or what is ordinarily known by Buddhist scholars as Vijnana, was relative in its activity, and could not comprehend the ultimate truth which was Enlightenment. And it was due to this ultimate truth that we could lift ourselves above the dualism of matter and spirit, of ignorance and wisdom, of passion and non-attachment.” (pg.64, Essays in Zen Buddhism- Suzuki) “In the true Essense there is neither samskrita (created) nor asamskrita (uncreated); they are like Maya or flowers born of hallucination... When you endeavor to explain object by subject and subject by object, you create a world of an endless series of opposites, and nothing real is grasped. To experience perfect interfusion, let all the opposites, or knots as they are called, be dissolved and a release takes place. But when there is anywhere any clinging of any sort, and an ego-mind is asserted, the Essence is no more there, the mysterious Lotus fades.” (pg.45 Manual of Zen Buddhism- D.T. Suzuki)
In an attempt to link Buddhism to modern science this writer explains: “living matter is physical matter, and dead matter is still physical matter. Matter is the essence of physical life, as is confirmed by the English word ‘mother’ which has its origins in the Latin word ‘Mater’. The Latin word ‘Mater’ (or ‘mother’) is the origin of the English word ‘material’. Life is matter; matter is life. This reality has been further developed and explained through Buddhist philosophy as form is empty, and empty is form. This is not a denial of the existence of physical matter, but it is an acknowledgement that there is a higher level of reality for observing the true nature of that physical matter.” He proceeds to see Quantum theory anticipated by Buddhism, which others also explain that subatomic matter is actually events linked together to create the illusion of permanent entities. Of course, all observation assumes the permanence of uniformity upon which observation (identity, contradiction, your mind exercising in them) is possible. If everything is absolutely changing then knowledge of this one fact would not even be statable. Buddhists wouldn’t have anything to say; but they say a lot.
“The truth of self-realization [and Reality itself] are neither one nor two. Because of the power of this self-realization, [Reality] is able universally to benefit others as well as oneself; it is absolutely impartial, with no idea of this and that, like the earth from which all things grow. Reality itself has neither form nor no-form; like space it is beyond knowledge and understanding; it is too subtle to be expressed in words and letters. 'Why? Because it is beyond the realm of letters, words, speeches, mere talk, discriminative intellection, inquiring and speculative reflection; and again it is beyond the realm of the understanding which belongs to the ignorant, beyond all evil doings which are in accordance with evil desires. Because it is neither this nor that, it is beyond all mentation; it is formless, without form, transcending the realm of all falsehoods; because it abides in the quietness of no-abode which is the realm of all holy ones.”
(The Zen Koan, I. An Experience Beyond Knowledge- D.T. Suzuki)
“Those who study Buddhism only from its 'metaphysical' side forget that this is no more than deep insight, that it is based on experience, and not the product of abstract analysis.” …" in the study of Buddhist sūtras which contain the utterances of the deepest religious minds, one is inwardly drawn into the deeper recesses of consciousness; and finally one becomes convinced that those utterances really touch the ground of Reality.” (The Zen Koan, 5. Factors Determining the Zen Experience -D.T. Suzuki) Why abandon logic or “abstract analysis” to follow what’s within your mind – when logic is inside of minds if not only apprehended by minds?
“The Dalai Lama also notes that in Buddhist cosmology, there is a role for consciousness and karma, since Buddhist systems hold that the nature of a world system is connected with the karmic propensities of sentient beings. However, the Dalai Lama points out that this does not mean everything is due to karma, since many things merely arise due to the works of natural laws. As such, the Dalai Lama argues that "the entire process of the unfolding of a universe system is a matter of the natural law of causality" but that karma also influences its very beginning and that when a universe is able to support life "its fate becomes entangled with the karma of the beings who will inhabit it."[116] Because Buddhist thought sees consciousness as being interconnected with the physical world, Buddhists like the Dalai Lama hold that "even the laws of physics are entangled with the karma of the sentient beings that will arise in that universe."[117] Also noteworthy is “The current Dalai Lama has said that the entire traditional cosmology (which he ascribes to the fourth-century scholar Vasubandhu rather than to the Buddha himself ) is simply wrong and may safely be abandoned by Buddhists.” (pg.887 here)
“It is only in the twentieth century—and especially after Tibet came under Chinese control and the Dalai Lama went into exile in 1959—that the discourse of Buddhism and science emerged in Tibetan Buddhism.” (pg.888) Buddhism has been transformed (everything changes including Buddhism) by Western science since the 1870’s according to Donald Lopez. He lists other scientific failures Buddhists jettisoned (pg.885, 887), making the bold assertion: “For many professional scholars of Buddhism, who know Buddhist doctrine and history well, the idea that Buddhism and science (whatever one means by those terms) are compatible is so preposterous as to be unworthy of sustained analysis...” (pg.885)
This may very well be the case; however, it doesn’t appear that Buddhists offer a coherent justification for causation in the natural world; no engagement with the causal closure principle, that all physical effects have only physical causes (where is karma?). Instead, they claim causation is an eternal unchanging law that can only be known as a proposition intuited out of Mind while in an episode of satori. A position where no account will need to be offered for it; it is insulated from logical and scientific investigation and critique. And for good reason since logic will only lead one to ultimate failure to apprehend reality. (Albeit logic is absolutely necessary to operate in this subpar existence, we are forced to live in.) Remember “it is beyond the realm of letters, words, speeches, mere talk, discriminative intellection, inquiring and speculative reflection; and again it is beyond the realm of the understanding”. How do they know the future will be like the past? Because karma effects everything and is eternal. (Once you adjust for physical causation as the Dalai Lama was forced to concede.) How do we know future karma will be like past karma? Well, enlightenment will convince. And how can you know future satori states will be like past ones? Or why make the feeling of apprehending ultimate reality the same as actually apprehending ultimate reality? There is no logical answer to the skeptic, just an offer of their own turn at a Mind episode of enlightenment which is sure to convince. If you don’t care enough to try it out, you will perhaps in your reincarnation. If you further ask how, you know you are not simply embracing some deep level of delusion when you have these episodes it will be answered with ‘you will just know.’ Umm... No thanks. Why? When Christianity offers a coherent accounting of logic, science, morality, evil, the human mind, and the existence of delusions.
Comments