Karma

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, madusa said:

Karma is an old ancient Indian belief and thought system that existed even before Buddha's time probably came from Hinduism. From what I read even Buddha himself did not give a very detail or clear explanation on Karma.

A thought exists that leads to a desire or intention follow by an action all these must take place before any Karma good or bad is generated.

The Thai man has the intention of killing that dog and he shares the bad karma if the dog dies because the action is completed to generate the bad karma.

You both share the bad karma. But Buddha did say that it doesn't always work that way. Even Buddha admitted that Karma is not like clockwork but most of the time it does work like clockwork.

 

I'm still not at all sure about 'karma' - as we all have examples of 'karma' that made us wonder - and other times when karma didn't come into play at all.....

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not even going to bother to argue about "I believe that even the most evolved mammals don't have a perception of being individual souls"......

 

There's nothing to argue there, it will be obvious to you, as soon as you care to observe.

 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

Personally, I have serious doubts about the those proclaiming they are enlightened - whilst relying on others to support them.

No enlightened person will proclaim to be enlightened.

[madusa]

19 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm still not at all sure about 'karma' - as we all have examples of 'karma' that made us wonder - and other times when karma didn't come into play at all.....

We are in a simulated world dick.  One day when we create our own simulated world would it be as good? It will be a simulated world within a simulated world.

[dick dasterdly]

18 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

I'm not even going to bother to argue about "I believe that even the most evolved mammals don't have a perception of being individual souls"......

 

18 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

There's nothing to argue there, it will be obvious to you, as soon as you care to observe.

 

I've deleted part of your post (I hope this is ok) as I agree with the point deleted, and and so am more interested in the quoted part.

 

As humans, how do we know that "even the most evolved mammals don't have a perception of being individual souls"?

[Nyezhov]

2 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

As humans, how do we know that "even the most evolved mammals don't have a perception of being individual souls"?

Well I tried to discuss that exact same issue with a Monkey the other day and got nothing but blank looks. However, as soon as I mentioned the Platonian concept of λογιστικόν, he became animated and excited tore my shirt pocket to steal my last package of cheddar cheese crackers. 

 

So there might be something there

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

I've deleted part of your post (I hope this is ok) as I agree with the point deleted, and and so am more interested in the quoted part.

 

As humans, how do we know that "even the most evolved mammals don't have a perception of being individual souls"?

Because of the behavioural patterns.

Animals are quite predictable, humans are not.

There can be thousands of examples, and i won't bother you with that, but as far as i know animals haven't developed any spiritual science, while humans, with all their faults, since pre-history, have been looking for explanations of the unexplainable.

[rockyysdt]

On 1/1/2019 at 5:28 PM, dick dasterdly said:

Everyone to their own.

 

Personally, I have serious doubts about the those proclaiming they are enlightened - whilst relying on others to support them.  Especially when it comes to being unable to produce their own veg. (as it may hurt a worm etc.) for the reasons mentioned previously.

 

The vast majority of humankind have to support themselves, and I see no reason why monks should be an exception.

 

But as stated previously, I'm not a Buddhist (just an admirer of most of his original beliefs)- and so see no reason to pretend that monks are close to 'perfection'.

 

IMO, if they were close to 'perfection', they would be self-sustaining on their own vegetable produce (produced be themselves rather than outside workers), and get rid of the stupid taboos about women touching them/amulets etc. etc..

 

Hi Dick.

 

Unfortunately Bikkhus (Monks) suffer from the same afflictions as do all of us.

The three afflictions are Greed, Aversion, & Delusion.

 

Although, outwardly, Bikkhus ordain in order to follow the path towards Awakening, each may have their own influences in life.

In a poor country where the uneducated have very few options, Monkhood can be a way of avoiding ones responsibilities.

Others may ordain with good intentions but, due to Greed, Aversion, & Delusion end up going through the motions.

Yet others may succumb to negative self thought.

 

There are many examples of Monks misbehaving.

 

They may engage in sexual misconduct, misuse their position to accumulate money, involve themselves with intoxicants or tobacco, and offer amulets with a promise of good luck.

Such misbehaviour shouldn't be used to measure the teaching, but rather demonstrate the difficulty humans face when attempting to live by the 4 Noble Truths.

 

The precepts (you describe as taboos) each have their purpose.

The precepts relating to sexual misconduct such as refraining from touching a woman, are designed to avoid sexual stimulation.

Sexual drive is particularly powerful and significantly supports ones Ego, something which would play havoc with ones practice.

 

Amulets are not a Buddhist teaching.

If Monks offer these for sale with the promise of good luck, they have succumbed to greed and delusion.

 

Another precept is that a Bikkhu must refrain from declaring ones Enlightened state.

Such a proclamation is a demonstration of Ego, something which would have been extinguished in the Enlightened.

 

Regarding the need to be self sustaining, a Bikkhus' primary goal is to Awaken (become Enlightened).

If successful a secondary goal would then be to teach.

 

If growing ones own food or living self sufficiently diverts resources from Awakening then sustaining oneself through Alms is important.

Offering Alms is then a virtuous act which can be psychologically important to the giver.

 

Being offered Alms comes with responsibility.

If the Bikkhu is a loafer and accepts Alms with no intention of diligently practicing , then he is a fraud.

The Karma may end up being quite considerable.

Edited January 2, 2019 by rockyysdt

[Rancid]

On 11/17/2018 at 4:50 PM, richard_smith237 said:

It’s a human construct.. there is no such thing as karma.

We can all chose to believe what we want to believe.

 

Lets take a simplistic example for comparison. We have the good looking guy born into wealth and privilege and lives that life to fullest, then the crippled beggar who suffers every day of his life. The Abrahamic religions will tell us its Gods Will, that's it. Karma says that life is about reward and punishment for things that have occurred in previous lives (although sometimes a miserable life is chosen for reason of learning). It is a system of justice, you earn what you get.

 

Because you can't see UV radiation doesn't mean you aren't being burnt.

[VincentRJ]

The concept of Karma is best explained by the modern, scientific concept of 'Epigenetics'.

https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/fundamentals/

 

"Epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in gene expression (active versus inactive genes) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence — a change in phenotype without a change in genotype — which in turn affects how cells read the genes. Epigenetic change is a regular and natural occurrence but can also be influenced by several factors including age, the environment/lifestyle, and disease state."
 

[thaicurious]

Karma isn't what happens. Karma is what you do with what happens.

[VincentRJ]

24 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Karma isn't what happens. Karma is what you do with what happens.

And what you do is influenced by your genes. There is nothing you can do, think, or say, which is not fundamentally related to your genes.

[jak2002003]

On ‎11‎/‎17‎/‎2018 at 1:51 PM, mauGR1 said:

I believe Karma exists, i also think that it's very difficult to understand how it works.

If your heart is telling you that something is bad, it surely is, though.

That is 'conscience' not Karma.  

 

Karma, as it seems most Buddhist people believe in (at least here in Thailand) does not seem to be plausible. In fact, it seems to go against the Buddhist philosophy.  

 

Even now, reading through these previous posts, I see some posters saying Karma is some kind of punishment / reward or justice system.  This is totally against Buddhist teachings.  It is also very harmful to people, for example, not having any compassion to a disabled beggar because you would think he 'deserves' it or is being punished for he actions in his past life. This is cruel and does not make any sense.  

 

Look closely at the Karma idea.  There are many people who have great lives, have lots of money, power, good health, everything they want, yet they are immoral, cruel and greedy people. 

 

There are kind, loving people who give so much to their fellow human beings and have a good conscience, yet they many be disable, stuck down with painful cruel disease etc.  So this shows to me that the common understanding about Karma is inaccurate. 

 

I think Karma is about cause and effect.  From an action there will be a consequence or reaction.  

 

As Buddhists believe there is no self as such, then these reactions or consequences are not going to happen only to the person doing the thing, they will effect all things around them, like the story of going back in time and stepping on a butterfly which then effects lots of things in the future.  

 

If people do lots of bad, negative and destructing actions and thoughts in their lives then this will impact negatively on the world around them (and effect their life too, although they might not get any bad things from it themselves, it certainly will prevent they racing true happiness and enlightenment).  

 

If more humans did good, moral, kind and helpful things and thoughts in their lives, this is positive (I will say good karma) and the world will have less suffering, be a nicer place, and people generally happier.

 

I was turned off from the Buddhism when I encountered problems and sadness with some peoples attitude to my blind friend.  He was going through a tough time surviving as his life long partner had died and he was finding it hard to cope due to his sight loss. 

 

He was told by Buddhists,  that it was his fault for his suffering as it was basically punishment or justice for him as he must have done bad karma / bad things in his past life.  That is not lord Buddhas teaching, that is not compassion and does not reduce suffering, and so is destructing to everyone involved.  Sadly it seems that if we cling to the common understand of Karma it does not fit into the Buddhist way of life. 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2019 by jak2002003

[55Jay]

Good things happen to good people.  Bad things happen to bad people. 

 

If good and bad are valued 50/50, then karma merchants have a 50% chance on being right about their predictions.

 

When good things happen to a "bad" guy, he's just lucky.  When a bad thing finally comes along, surely he "had it coming". 

 

When bad things happen to a "good" guy, it's just bad luck and Karma merchants won't have much to say.  If good things happen, they'll surely claim credit for being accurate.

 

[thaicurious]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

And what you do is influenced by your genes. There is nothing you can do, think, or say, which is not fundamentally related to your genes.

Deja Vu, I've had this argument before. Last time with a friend's physics professor husband. I'm not sure, but I think I won that argument, or at least put a pause to it when it went quantum, theories I don't pretend to comprehend but enjoy playing with, that just maybe, before arising into this existence, I'd instructed myself to create the genes & epigenetics of this life that might incline me towards certain doings or thinkings or sayings. Now where's shrugging off personal responsibility or denying free will?

 

More practical, maybe there's a delay factor that we might take the time to consider what some might claim or even scientifically show we'd otherwise be inclined towards. For instance, my sweet tooth might be telling me to eat that ice cream cone while at the same time some killer gene might be telling me to stuff the cone into frustrating guy's face behind the ice cream counter who filled the waffle cone when I'd asked for a sugar cone, ruining my sweet tooth experience. Outside of maybe someone's psychopathy, which is worse than sad, I'm pretty sure I get to choose to not harm others even if they frustrate me and my genes, or me in my jeans which is more likely the case.

 

So, yeah, we have to take into account that our genes made us born with defective legs, but again, that's not karma. Karma is not even that you get sad if your brain inclined towards depression. You might be born manic depressive and so you might get more sad about defective legs than someone with defective legs but born without a leaning towards depression. So neither are your genes your karma.

 

And if it is not your doing, if you didn't make yourself sad about a born defect but that you have a genetically predisposed brain that tends towards depression, then that also is not your karma. But you still can make decisions on what to do with your sadness. If you actively try to make others sad because you are sad--outside of psychopathy or depending upon the degree--well, then that might be some karma making.

[giddyup]

On 11/17/2018 at 2:13 PM, Neeranam said:

Rather inappropriate thing to say on a Buddhist forum.

Of course karma exists. I've seen it when spending time in a temple in northern India,  where the Dalai Lama lives. More than half the world believe in it. All Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, and many Christians.

Just because half the world believe in something doesn't make it true.

[thaicurious]

14 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

If good things happen, they'll surely claim credit for being accurate.

 

Yeah, some things are just a tad too convenient. Some new agers go as far as to use this as an excuse to justify their own harming of others, ie, if I hurt you, it's only payback for you having hurt me in a past life. Not my fault.

 

The only problem with that besides basing a life on delusion is that Karma making begins now.

[VincentRJ]

55 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Deja Vu, I've had this argument before. Last time with a friend's physics professor husband. I'm not sure, but I think I won that argument, or at least put a pause to it when it went quantum, theories I don't pretend to comprehend but enjoy playing with, that just maybe, before arising into this existence, I'd instructed myself to create the genes & epigenetics of this life that might incline me towards certain doings or thinkings or sayings. Now where's shrugging off personal responsibility or denying free will?

 

More practical, maybe there's a delay factor that we might take the time to consider what some might claim or even scientifically show we'd otherwise be inclined towards. For instance, my sweet tooth might be telling me to eat that ice cream cone while at the same time some killer gene might be telling me to stuff the cone into frustrating guy's face behind the ice cream counter who filled the waffle cone when I'd asked for a sugar cone, ruining my sweet tooth experience. Outside of maybe someone's psychopathy, which is worse than sad, I'm pretty sure I get to choose to not harm others even if they frustrate me and my genes, or me in my jeans which is more likely the case.

 

So, yeah, we have to take into account that our genes made us born with defective legs, but again, that's not karma. Karma is not even that you get sad if your brain inclined towards depression. You might be born manic depressive and so you might get more sad about defective legs than someone with defective legs but born without a leaning towards depression. So neither are your genes your karma.

 

And if it is not your doing, if you didn't make yourself sad about a born defect but that you have a genetically predisposed brain that tends towards depression, then that also is not your karma. But you still can make decisions on what to do with your sadness. If you actively try to make others sad because you are sad--outside of psychopathy or depending upon the degree--well, then that might be some karma making.

As far as I understand, Karma within the Buddhist tradition, relates only to characteristics and tendencies which are transmitted during the process of Rebirth, whereas the ancient Vedic concept of Reincarnation seems to be more associated with a personal identity or soul.

 

Characteristics and tendencies in modern science are associated with genes, and the new science of epigenetics is beginning to discover how our behaviour in this life modifies the expression of those genes, which we all inherit. It is the expression of those genes that is affected by our behaviour, not the actual coding sequence.

 

However this is a new science and there is a lot yet to learn. When the human genome was first 'cracked', it was only a very small percentage of  genes that were cracked, known as protein-encoding genes. The vast majority of the genetic material was initially described as 'junk DNA', because no-one could find a purpose for it.

 

The Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth are imaginative explanations which would have made sense in those ancient times, in the absence of modern concepts of genetics, which now include epigenetics which seems particularly relevant to the processes of Karma. (In my humble opinion, of course ???? ).
 

[mauGR1]

2 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

On 11/17/2018 at 1:51 PM, mauGR1 said:

I believe Karma exists, i also think that it's very difficult to understand how it works.

If your heart is telling you that something is bad, it surely is, though.

That is 'conscience' not Karma.  

Yes, the 2nd line refers to what we can call conscience.

The rest of your thoughtful post, which i am mostly in agreement, mirrors my 1rst line, i think 'Karma' exists, but (i speak for myself) i cannot understand exactly how it works.

I am interested in the subject though.

[Neeranam]

On 1/1/2019 at 10:24 AM, dick dasterdly said:

Surely Buddhist monks can take the same approach and garden their own food - i.e. be VERY careful by using a trowel (gently) in the first few inches, before using a spade when necessary?

I are there any Buddhist sects that are as strict as Jains and other Hindu ones when it comes to not eating underground food?

 

I remember in india there was a monk who would never lol mosquitoes, or even use repellent.

 

 

[thaicurious]

10 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As far as I understand, Karma within the Buddhist tradition, relates only to characteristics and tendencies which are transmitted during the process of Rebirth, whereas the ancient Vedic concept of Reincarnation seems to be more associated with a personal identity or soul.

 

Characteristics and tendencies in modern science are associated with genes, and the new science of epigenetics is beginning to discover how our behaviour in this life modifies the expression of those genes, which we all inherit. It is the expression of those genes that is affected by our behaviour, not the actual coding sequence.

 

However this is a new science and there is a lot yet to learn. When the human genome was first 'cracked', it was only a very small percentage of  genes that were cracked, known as protein-encoding genes. The vast majority of the genetic material was initially described as 'junk DNA', because no-one could find a purpose for it.

 

The Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth are imaginative explanations which would have made sense in those ancient times, in the absence of modern concepts of genetics, which now include epigenetics which seems particularly relevant to the processes of Karma. (In my humble opinion, of course ???? ).
 

I don't believe I had concerned myself with concepts of reincarnation (outside of an example I used of one person  wrongly justifying hurting another as payback for a supposed past life experience) in answering another post and I'm not recently studied in Hinduism so I'm not certain as to their concept of that. I believe Buddhism looks at that not as soul though as someone else mentioned in a previous post that's not often how it is relayed culturally, especially in a one that combines Buddhism with the magical thinking of animism as in Thailand. I like the example of the Buddhist concept of reincarnation as a lighting of a previously unlit candle off another already lit candle. The one flame is of the other flame but the 2nd candle's flame is not the 1st candle's flame; for, observably so, it is its own flame, described as anatta.

 

I'm not certain as to whether or how you are trying to weave in genetics to some overall theory of or replacement for karma unless you are using it as some proof of karma. By itself, genes seems more mechanical even if still a matter of cause and effect. That karma is about cause and effect does not mean all things cause and effect are karmic for the cause and effect of karma is a matter of conscious intent. Whether or not genetics are in some quantum way expressions of conscious intent or strictly mechanical, the science might not yet be in on that. Even to speculate so, I don't know how pragmatic that is because while we can correct or rehabilitate a personally conscious intent, as far as I know we can't think a gene to change by intending in thought alone even if you can by intent and follow through with practice change its expression. I can't gene splice myself by wishing it or intending it so.

 

While that might not be a proof of karma it seems an observable example of how intent might work. That it provides example of how karma might work, I don't know how that relegates karma to the realm of imagination.

 

Just because a culture had not yet the science to prove with mathematics, or genetics or however, neither means an observable truth was not previously known, nor does it necessarily relegate prior knowledge as inferior particularly when still applicable.

[thaicurious]

Edit of above post

:

That karma is about cause and effect does not mean all things cause and effect are karmic (edit: in the sense of personal karma) for the cause and effect of (that) karma is a matter of conscious intent.

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I'm not certain as to whether or how you are trying to weave in genetics to some overall theory of or replacement for karma unless you are using it as some proof of karma. By itself, genes seems more mechanical even if still a matter of cause and effect. 

Genes might appear to be mechanical because of the published diagrams showing their chemical construction, which look a bit like Meccano sets ???? . However, the reality is very complex with so many interacting factors, including our behaviour and the environment which affect the expression of those genes. These factors affecting the expression of the genes, change during the course of our life, and such changes are inherited by our children. 

 

This process seems a remarkable match to the Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth, if one discounts the fairy-tale notion of a mystical spirit (representing the characteristics and tendencies of the deceased) leaving the body upon death, and hovering around, waiting to penetrate the womb of a pregnant lady. ????

 

Long before the modern methodology of science was developed, certain remarkably intelligent and imaginative individuals from the distant past thought of explanations for certain phenomena which, many centuries later, have been shown to be fundamentally or broadly correct, although not necessarily correct in the fine detail, which is quite understandable.

 

For example, we tend to think that the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus, was the first person to propose the existence of the atom. However, this might not be true. There was an Indian philosopher by the name of Acharya Kanad who probably lived during the times of the Buddha, before Democritus was born, who not only proposed the existence of the atom, but also the existence of molecules composed of atoms.

 

"This theory occurred to him while Kanad was walking with food in his hand, breaking it into small pieces when he realised that he was unable to divide the food into any further parts, it was too small. From this moment, Kanad conceptualized the idea of a particle that could not be divided any further. He called that indivisible matter Parmanu (atom).
Kanad further held that atoms of same substance combined with each other to produce dvyanuka (biatomic molecules) and tryanuka (triatomic molecules). Kanad also put forward the idea that atoms could be combined in various ways to produce chemical changes in the presence of other factors such as heat."

 

That karma is about cause and effect does not mean all things cause and effect are karmic for the cause and effect of karma is a matter of conscious intent.

 

Cause and effect, sometimes referred to as 'dependent origination', is a fundamental Buddhist principle which applies to everything, including Karma. This is one reason why Buddhism can appeal to those with a scientific leaning or background.

 

However, that which is conscious is not clear cut, if you accept the existence of the unconscious or subconscious which contains repressed emotions and tendencies which motivate us to behave in certain ways without our realizing it.

 

Buddhist practices of meditation should help a person to understand and become aware of those hidden impulses in the subconscious.
 

[mauGR1]

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

This process seems a remarkable match to the Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth, if one discounts the fairy-tale notion of a mystical spirit (representing the characteristics and tendencies of the deceased) leaving the body upon death, and hovering around, waiting to penetrate the womb of a pregnant lady. ????

 

5 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Buddhist practices of meditation should help a person to understand and become aware of those hidden impulses in the subconscious.
 

Very good post, thanks.

Yet i believe that this physical world mirrors higher spiritual levels (or worlds ) of consciousness, in this case "the fairy-tale notion of a mystical spirit (representing the characteristics and tendencies of the deceased) leaving the body upon death, and hovering around, waiting to penetrate the womb of a pregnant lady. " is not to discount so lightly.

The great composer W.A. Mozart could play and compose exceptionally complex music at the age of six, it's not impossible that he brought that ability from some higher level of consciousness, for sure it was not his parents which taught him.

[VincentRJ]

40 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

The great composer W.A. Mozart could play and compose exceptionally complex music at the age of six, it's not impossible that he brought that ability from some higher level of consciousness, for sure it was not his parents which taught him.

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think the above statement is right. The father of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a German composer, conductor, teacher, and violinist. Refer the following Wikipedia article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Mozart

 

As I understand, a developing child in the womb is sensitive to sounds from outside the womb, and is influenced by his mother's reaction to those sounds.

 

Research has shown that a child who is exposed to classical music, whilst in the womb, will have a natural liking and interest in such music when he is born. When such an interest is later encouraged by the father, then it's not surprising if the child later shows great talent.

 

From the Wiki article: 
"Leopold discovered that his two children were musically gifted in about 1759, when he began with keyboard lessons for the seven-year-old Nannerl. The toddler Wolfgang immediately began imitating his sister, at first picking out thirds on the keyboard and then making rapid progress under Leopold's instruction."
 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

Yet i believe that this physical world mirrors higher spiritual levels (or worlds ) of consciousness, in this case "the fairy-tale notion of a mystical spirit (representing the characteristics and tendencies of the deceased) leaving the body upon death, and hovering around, waiting to penetrate the womb of a pregnant lady. " is not to discount so lightly. 

 

48 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Thanks for the compliment, but I don't think the above statement is right. The father of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was a German composer, conductor, teacher, and violinist. Refer the following Wikipedia article.
.

 

As I understand, a developing child in the womb is sensitive to sounds from outside the womb, and is influenced by his mother's reaction to those sounds.

 

Research has shown that a child who is exposed to classical music, whilst in the womb, will have a natural liking and interest in such music when he is born. When such an interest is later encouraged by the father, then it's not surprising if the child later shows great talent.

 

From the Wiki article: 
"Leopold discovered that his two children were musically gifted in about 1759, when he began with keyboard lessons for the seven-year-old Nannerl. The toddler Wolfgang immediately began imitating his sister, at first picking out thirds on the keyboard and then making rapid progress under Leopold's instruction."
 

It can be said that Wolfgang's father was a well talented musician, but not quite as talented as the son.

 

From the article you quoted :

 

The discovery of his children's talent is considered to have been a life-transforming event for Leopold. He once referred to his son as the "miracle which God let be born in Salzburg".^[4] Of Leopold's attitude, the Grove Dictionary says:

The recognition of this 'miracle' must have struck Leopold with the force of a divine revelation and he felt his responsibility to be not merely a father's and teacher's but a missionary's as well.^[4]

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2019 by mauGR1

[VincentRJ]

59 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

 

It can be said that Wolfgang's father was a well talented musician, but not quite as talented as the son.

 

From the article you quoted :

 

The discovery of his children's talent is considered to have been a life-transforming event for Leopold. He once referred to his son as the "miracle which God let be born in Salzburg".^[4] Of Leopold's attitude, the Grove Dictionary says:

The recognition of this 'miracle' must have struck Leopold with the force of a divine revelation and he felt his responsibility to be not merely a father's and teacher's but a missionary's as well.^[4]

Most of Leopold's children died during or soon after birth. Only one son and one daughter survived from 7 births, so I would assume Leopold would be have been very grateful to have had the two that survived. I also assume that Leopold would not have been aware that children in the womb are influenced by the sound of music. Nor would he have been aware of the existence of genes, their role in the inheritance of the parent's characteristics and talents, and the perhaps great significance of teaching a subject to a child at a very early age. Even Charles Darwin, who lived years later, was not aware of the existence of genes.

 

I really don't think there's any need to imagine a mystical spirit in order to explain the birth of an unusual talent, but if you find it useful or inspiring or comforting to think so, or to speculate that such a spirit might exist, then no harm done. It's your choice.

 

Personally, I come to Buddhism from an agnostic or atheistic perspective. What impresses me most is the rationality and common sense of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, rather than the airy-fairy speculative tales one finds in some of the scriptures. ????
 

[mauGR1]

14 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Personally, I come to Buddhism from an agnostic or atheistic perspective. What impresses me most is the rationality and common sense of the fundamental teachings of Buddhism, rather than the airy-fairy speculative tales one finds in some of the scriptures. ????

I also find nothing wrong with rationality, eventually science will explain the many mysteries of life.

I believe that Lord Buddha at his time was against the fanaticism of organised religion, and teaching a spiritual way free from the intellectual chains of said religion was an extraordinary achievement.

Still, "nirvana" or "paradise" or "freedom from samsara" could be just different words for different ways to achieve the same results.

[thaicurious]

16 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Genes might appear to be mechanical because of the published diagrams showing their chemical construction, which look a bit like Meccano sets ???? . However, the reality is very complex with so many interacting factors, including our behaviour and the environment which affect the expression of those genes. These factors affecting the expression of the genes, change during the course of our life, and such changes are inherited by our children. 

 

This process seems a remarkable match to the Buddhist concepts of Karma and Rebirth, if one discounts the fairy-tale notion of a mystical spirit (representing the characteristics and tendencies of the deceased) leaving the body upon death, and hovering around, waiting to penetrate the womb of a pregnant lady. ????

 

Long before the modern methodology of science was developed, certain remarkably intelligent and imaginative individuals from the distant past thought of explanations for certain phenomena which, many centuries later, have been shown to be fundamentally or broadly correct, although not necessarily correct in the fine detail, which is quite understandable.

 

For example, we tend to think that the ancient Greek philosopher, Democritus, was the first person to propose the existence of the atom. However, this might not be true. There was an Indian philosopher by the name of Acharya Kanad who probably lived during the times of the Buddha, before Democritus was born, who not only proposed the existence of the atom, but also the existence of molecules composed of atoms.

 

"This theory occurred to him while Kanad was walking with food in his hand, breaking it into small pieces when he realised that he was unable to divide the food into any further parts, it was too small. From this moment, Kanad conceptualized the idea of a particle that could not be divided any further. He called that indivisible matter Parmanu (atom).
Kanad further held that atoms of same substance combined with each other to produce dvyanuka (biatomic molecules) and tryanuka (triatomic molecules). Kanad also put forward the idea that atoms could be combined in various ways to produce chemical changes in the presence of other factors such as heat."

I did not say behavior has no effect on genetic expression--quite the opposite--just that I'd not anthropomorphize genetics, emphasizing (here, again) that karma is a matter of conscious intent. Quantum theory might argue a consciousness of genetics but even that or much of that is at some point subject to today's decision making by the whole human being which is the point at which personal karma arises, as opposed to a karma of a generalized being, of the initial unenlightenment of the illusion of observer and observed, this existence some call samsara.

 

Arriving at a view of a science as example of or extension of or as a reification of a Buddhist concept seems valid, even lovely, maybe even complimentary, but I'd be careful not to beat a  dead horse put before the cart as best way to get there. So better to look at Buddhism with regard to science not through some of its colorful language but by its concepts about which you also seem to enjoy with good understanding.

 

Imagination is not an inferior tool of exploration particularly for Buddhism which studies mind, consciousness. So imagination, not a polymerase chain reaction, reflections not molecular scissors, introspection not gel electrophoresis.

 

From where comes even mathematics. Let's wiki that:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Where_Mathematics_Comes_From

"how finite humans living in a finite world could ultimately conceive of the actual infinite. Thus much of WMCF is, in effect, a study of the epistemological foundations of the calculus. Lakoff and Núñez conclude that while the potential infinite is not metaphorical, the actual infinite is."

 

Oh, so based on a justified belief in a metaphor. lol. Well, that's even more fun than I thought I'd find.

 

Rather than overlapping or substituting science for either religion or philosophy, however one enjoys defining Buddhism, a more accurate description might be seeing these things as coexisting or complimentary. That science has devised experimentation to confirm Buddhist theory of mind with current empirical evidence does not make science superior, just late to the game.

 

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination embraces the entire world, stimulating progress, giving birth to evolution. It is, strictly speaking, a real factor in scientific research.” ~~Albert Einstein

 

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

Cause and effect, sometimes referred to as 'dependent origination', is a fundamental Buddhist principle which applies to everything, including Karma. This is one reason why Buddhism can appeal to those with a scientific leaning or background.

 

However, that which is conscious is not clear cut, if you accept the existence of the unconscious or subconscious which contains repressed emotions and tendencies which motivate us to behave in certain ways without our realizing it.

 

Buddhist practices of meditation should help a person to understand and become aware of those hidden impulses in the subconscious.

This is why Buddha grades on a sliding scale: mitigating circumstances.

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, thaicurious said:

I did not say behavior has no effect on genetic expression--quite the opposite--just that I'd not anthropomorphize genetics, emphasizing (here, again) that karma is a matter of conscious intent. 

I'm not sure what you mean by anthropomorphizing genetics, and I'm not sure why you think there is anything significant in describing Karma as a matter of conscious intent, unless you mean that Karma is only about conscious intent and has nothing to do with subconscious impulses, which I don't think would be true.

 

If people are affected by the karma they inherited from previous lives, then those affects could include subconscious driving forces which we are not aware of. Most of what we do involves a conscious element, but is sometimes uncontrollable due to strong impulses, subconscious impulses, or spontaneous reactions that occur before we have time to think about it, such as suddenly jumping away from a snake we encounter, if we have a phobia about snakes.

[thaicurious]

59 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I'm not sure what you mean by anthropomorphizing genetics, and I'm not sure why you think there is anything significant in describing Karma as a matter of conscious intent, unless you mean that Karma is only about conscious intent and has nothing to do with subconscious impulses, which I don't think would be true.

Anthropomorphized because you said “Genes might appear to be mechanical …However, the reality is very complex with so many interacting factors, including our behaviour...”, none of which denies, unless attributing to genes, consciousness (which can be argued either way), rather still mere mechanics on the part of the genes (at least for practical consideration--ie what we might have control over now), however influenced. Should quantum physics one day show a consciousness of genetics, & should we individually learn to access/incorporate that into our being as we can, say, type our fingers to a keyboard, then it would not be anthro'd but actual.

 

Not plucking out of context, I also said even if jokingly conscious intent and karma thereby graded on a sliding scale in consideration of mitigating circumstances, so whether by subconscious tendencies, by pathologies borne by genes, etc. and then Included in that equation might be how awake is a person, how much control can someone get over their pathology, how willing are they to work on it, how strong is the pathology preventing or distracting from that aspect of free will, etc. Thus why intoxication is considered a violation of precept, the willful giving up of self control.

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

If people are affected by the karma they inherited from previous lives, then those affects could include subconscious driving forces which we are not aware of. Most of what we do involves a conscious element, but is sometimes uncontrollable due to strong impulses, subconscious impulses, or spontaneous reactions that occur before we have time to think about it, such as suddenly jumping away from a snake we encounter, if we have a phobia about snakes.

To inherit from a previous life assumes some survival of some soul-like aspect be that soul itself, consciousness, etc., however defined. Those arguments go back and forth while running circles and figure 8s. My concern is more with the practicalities of present living. I am but a candle lit now. My focus from as far back as I can recall has been exploration of consciousness in this life. I'm not afraid of snakes. Some of my closest loved ones have been vipers.