The Karma cause-effect chain

[Malunkyaputta]

@no149

I know that such questions are not goal of core Buddhism, though I’m afraid this question remains unanswered to me as far as strict Theravada Buddhism is concerned, unless somebody would kindly refer to some AbbiDhamma text or an essay outside of the Canon.

So the question is how was I led to explore Buddhism?

I believe this is very true. There can be no empirical proof of the teaching anyway, so it is the inner light that counts.

[no149]

@no149

So the question is how was I led to explore Buddhism?

But that question is a fallacy isn’t it?

What does the pronoun “I” refer to? I’ve read some of the Canon’s text regarding this but still can’t wrap my head around it.
If this person is the person that was yesterday, this is a paradox because it isn’t the same. There’s no sameness equality . So I can’t claim logically that I created this thread can I? Because that person is not this person. Even a minor change breaks the equality and certainly lots has changed in this mind and body since then.
However I cannot say that Malunkyaputta created it either can I? Because the amount of changes relative to the person that created this thread and “me” is lower comparatively than to Malunkyaputta. In other words, there is more similarity between the person writing this and the creator of this thread, than between this person and Malunkyaputta.

So is similarity the answer? Doesn’t seem to be the case. Because as the time window goes larger, the amount of changes increases as well, so much so that the person writing this and the person at the age of 10 is different like day and night.
This problem can be attacked from another perspective, from a linguistic logical perspective. But let’s stick to this similarity argument for now.

How do you answer it? Is it simply kamma? Are there text from the Canon that undeniably answers it? I doubt it though.

(There are some answers to this dilemma in the Islamic mystic tradition known as Sufism, but I am interested in the Buddhism answers.)

[thistle]

I think this is an interesting thread but I have not responded so far because I’m not really sure what you’re asking. It seemed to me (in your first post) that you wanted to know if you have free will and would like to check what a Buddhist or Theravada persepctive on this is. Is this correct? Because in your last post I thought you’d wish to explore the self/non-self;not-self-intricacies. I mean these are all interrelated questions but I’m a bit puzzled about what you wish to discuss.

@no149

Now, when I meditate, or rather when I choose to meditate, it is still a thought or an impulse that comes from nowhere and I react to it by starting to meditate.

Why would it come from nowhere? You might not know where it came from but that doesn’t mean that it has no predecessor(s).

@no149

Well of course, I can’t stop reacting, it is impossible. So the Karma will always be in full effect, like it has always been, and exactly because of a previous cause which I - seemingly involuntarily- have reacted to, I meditate and ponder about the Buddha’s teachings (plus other teachings) now.

And can you observe changes? Does meditating or pondering over the teachings change the quality of reacting? Can you notice changes concerning the time span when reacting to a thought/a stimulus. Your statement kind of reads like a mono-causal, linear cause-reaction-cause-reaction-chain and I’m not sure this is helpful. Sometimes it does work on this level (Mind you, I just ate a piece of cake after thinking of the cake I had in the fridge ).
But in general, the workings are more complex, multi-faceted. It’s more like conditions that can add up to functioning as a cause. Ad you’ll get results out of that.

[Malunkyaputta]

As for the problem of “I”: Classical Theravada Buddhism (and people like the Ven. Bodhi) hold that annata does not mean to negate the phenomenon and empirical sense of individuality and the individual person. Rather, it explains their nature as illusionary and not pointing to an ontologic or metaphysical reality of a soul or similar. It would be bonkers to try to lose your empirical sense of self.

As for change and it’s definition: This is one of the unsolved puzzles of philosophy and in the end, humanity (cf. [Ship of Theseus])(Ship of Theseus - Wikipedia). This question, along with the question of monism against pluralism, was at the very start of Western and contemporary philosphy in ca. 600 BC.

I do not know how materialism and the natural sciences solve this today. Do they even solve it? What exactly happens with the atoms when I digest some food? I also do not know how Buddhism specifically approaches this, but I assume there will be something in the Abidhamma.

Edit: I believe that this is a very good and down-to-earth introduction to classical Theravada Buddhism which will help answering some of your questions. It is important to see that all the doctrines are connected and that Buddhist “scholasticism” has evened out most of the problems over the course of the millenia. This is one reason not to depart from it IMO.

[no149]

@thistle

I’m a bit puzzled about what you wish to discuss.

Well that is because I am indeed puzzled hehe.

@thistle

Why would it come from nowhere? You might not know where it came from but that doesn’t mean that it has no predecessor(s).

By “nowhere”, I did not mean literally no place. Can you imagine nowhere at all? Does “nowhere” exist?
So I basically meant that something “involuntarily” happens and in this case, it is an impulse to start meditating and the nature of that is not different from all the impulses that led me to know Buddhism. Do I choose anything at all?

And this question ties into the question about the subject of “I” because if what is considered commonly as the subject of the I pronoun, is in fact recreated on a moment by moment basis (because of continuous change), then could it be that the choices are created on the fly as well at the blink of an eye?
There is an explanation text in a book about the dharma idea of abidhamma that basically says that all these phenonenon is in fact music.
In music, every sound lasts just a moment and the notes are arranged according to harmony so the sounds flow like choices that we make.
(As a sidenote, in Sufism literature there is a lot of music metaphors too).

@Malunkyaputta

This question, along with the question of monism against pluralism, was at the very start of Western and contemporary philosphy in ca. 600 BC.

That is indeed a significant problem in the context of “I”.
Does “I” exist as a whole? Or is it simply the sum of its parts?
We say “my mind”, “my body”. If those parts detach from the subject, would “I” make sense anymore? Would it become an abstract whole that is void of the former parts, like an empty circle?

[Malunkyaputta]

@no149

We say “my mind”, “my body”. If those parts detach from the subject, would “I” make sense anymore? Would it become an abstract whole that is void of the former parts, like an empty circle?

The shirt you are wearing right now is just a billion of bouncing atoms.
Does it still make sense to call it a shirt? And to wear it?

In my oppinion, not-self was deviced against the Brahman idea of a Self or Atman. It has since been blown out of proportions. It just means that your mind and/or spirit is as conditioned and impermanent as anything else.

[Vaddha]

@Malunkyaputta

question of monism against pluralism

@Malunkyaputta

I also do not know how Buddhism specifically approaches this

Buddhism responds with dependent arising, as it often does to such ontological/metaphysical questions. Dependent arising is the Buddha’s core philosophical teaching and contribution.

“Well, is all a unity?”
“‘All is a unity’: this is the third cosmology.
“Then is all a plurality?”
“‘All is a plurality’: this is the fourth cosmology.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices. …
SN 12.48

[Malunkyaputta]

Thank you Venerable. I think that is a neat Sutta. And I think it is highly interesting that D/O is said to be told “by the middle way”.

[thistle]

@no149

So I basically meant that something “involuntarily” happens and in this case, it is an impulse to start meditating and the nature of that is not different from all the impulses that led me to know Buddhism. Do I choose anything at all?

I’d say that you get the chance to increase those “involuntarily” impulses for things that are wholesome and to diminish those that are unwholesome. That’s the training. The “Do I get to choose anything at all”-question is basically asking (to what extent) you have free will and would deserve another thread imo.
About the anatta-question: There are right now a couple of parallel threads discussing this, all with a slightly different focus.
As for being puzzled (which I count myself also in) I remember a general suggestion: One of my professors advised us students to always keep investigating and reading, saying: “You’ll still be confused but (every time) on a higher level.” I think that was good advice.

[Adutiya]

@Malunkyaputta

not-self was deviced against the Brahman idea of a Self or Atman. It has since been blown out of proportions. It just means that your mind and/or spirit is as conditioned and impermanent as anything else.

I don’t think kamma is exactly cause and effect. I’m under the impression that the Buddha abandoned his teachers (such as Alara Kalama and Udaka Ramaputta) because they stopped short of the goal thinking they had reached the goal. When the Buddha destroyed the taints/defilements and went all the way, he finally saw rebirth as it really is. I think that goes beyond impermanence and gets to the heart of not-self. I don’t think what carries over into a next life in rebirth can be reduced to atoms.