Is There A Rational Basis To The Idea Of Karma?

[Several]

...and I hope y'all have a good vassa.

[leolibby]

Kamma is very complex, like the butterfly effect in chaos theory.

I believe krishna says that in the bagavad-gita/.

[leolibby]

look at the buddhist countries and their derivates (india...)...

there, they consider wealthy pretty people as having good karma, as good people...

in thailand, the school book said, the farang who "was poor and ugly"...

thats the way buddhist countries categorize people - after material standards... good karma, eh?

I noticed that too. Fact is: as a country gets more developed, and the people have more control over life, religion declines.

But poor countries, where the peope have little control, religion increases.

[camerata]

We have established that a belief in karma does not help anyone on a spiritual path...

No, that hasn't been established at all. The Buddha's explanation of kamma is at the heart of Buddhist practice. What happens to us after we die is just a small part of the whole picture, and since it can't be empirically verified, better not get obsessed with it.

Kamma means that intentional "moral" actions have consequences. Many of the results occur in the present life, but you can only prove this to yourself experientially. The Thai proverb, "Tham dee, dai dee, tham chua, dai chua" (Do good, get good, do evil, get evil), encapsulates the whole idea.

The objective of Buddhism is to eliminate suffering - as much as possible - through a transformation of the mind. You achieve this transformation by training the mind to behave the way you want rather than letting the ego make a slave of you. It isn't easy. You need to have a framework (the Buddha's teachings) and rules to follow (the precepts and the Eightfold path). You can't get anywhere by demanding empirical evidence for everything before you start or by sitting around intellectualizing. You have to actually do it. This is why the Buddha said, "Ehipassiko," investigate and see for yourself.

Old age, sickness and death comes to us all in the end. I have health problems too, but I focus on doing good kamma now so that I'll be happier during the rest of my life. If I sit around saying, "Why me?" I'm just letting my ego take control and make me feel bad. That's the problem - an inflated sense of self results in suffering. For sure my health problems are due to cause and effect. Whether this is solely kammic, genetic, experiential, or a combination of all three makes no difference to me in the present moment. What I do know for sure is that I've been happier since I started practising Dhamma.

[rockyysdt]

I am also lost on that point.. and one reason I started this thread was to address it.

Hi L.

I'm putting some information together giving another take on what the Buddha might have been teaching.

In order to reap the benefits practice can offer what you should do is divide "what appears" the Buddha taught into two groups:

1. The unprovable (Metaphysical: kharma is described in this thread, re birth into many lives, nibbana the place etc).

2. The provable (the Three Characteristics).

The immutable truths are:

• Impermanence: Everything in existence is impermanent and will eventually die/decay.
  
• Dukkha: Suffering, aging, sickness, dissastifactoriness, attaching ones happiness on that which is impermenent.
  
• Anatta - Non Self: There is no permanent self. The thing we call "I" is in a constant state of change.
  

All these can be tested and proven by us.

The facts are, we are all going to eventually die.

Unless we losen the grips of aversion, delusion, & greed, we will suffer along the way, and

if re birth and kharma transfer into future lives is true, the non self of that which is re born and which may suffer consequentially will have very little, if anything, in common with our current "I".

You lonly know your "l" so any link between possible lives will be akin to total strangers.

As far as we (ego, or I) is concerned it will be all over.

In other words, your best bet is to practice the eightfold path in order for your mind/body to become awakened free of greed aversion and delusion, thus shedding the affects of Dukkha.

The three characteristics are immutable (provable).

This is why Buddhism is a way of life, not a religion.

If you want to practice a religion, then open your heart to belief as in other religions.

Understand though, that this cannot be proven as it is beyond this fathom long carcass.

Anything metaphysical cannot be proved by the physical.

Edited August 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Thesis: Karma is a meaningless superstition not supported by empiracle evidence.

The idea of karma adds no substance to Buddhism.

The Buddha did not invent "kharma".

In the Buddhas time "kharma" which may have originated in the shramana tradition, already permeated the thinking of the day including, Brahmanism, Hinduism, and Janism.

Everything comes down to the interpretation of what the Buddha was saying.

Buddhagosa, the grandfather of Theravada, interpreted the Buddhas works literally.

With a fervent religious background, and an admission that his work on the Pali Canon was done in order to receive good kharma and hopefully be reborn in the house of Brahman and wait there until the coming of the next Buddha to receive his awakening, he cobbled together a religion. Was he unbiased? How accurate were his translations of a dead language?

Contemporary scholars versed in Sanskrit and Pali and involved with their own translation of the early texts of the Buddha are coming up with new conclusions.

Kharma:

The Buddha liked to model his messages around the thinking of the day.

Everyone in his era already new of "kharma" and believed that there lot was predestined by kharma from past lives.

The Buddha had a different message.

He wasn't saying: "This is my Kharma, I can't do anything about it!"

Kharma is linked to Vipaka.

Kharma is Action.

Vipaka Consequence or Fruits of action.

He lived in a agrarian time and used examples the people of the day could relate to.

He described an orchard in which there were apple trees, pair trees, and apricot trees all of which would fruit at different times.

Some trees were mature and would fruit annually whilst others were young and could take many years to fruit.

Basically what the Buddha was saying was that "there is Consequence to our Actions".

The consequence may not be immediate but will eventually fruit.

Kharma (verb "action") leads to Consequence (fruits of action).

This ties in with his message to observe the Mind.

All action (Kharma) comes from mind.

With poise, balance, and equanimity (goal of meditation) one can observe ones mind (intention of action).

By cleaning up ones intentions, ones actions (kharma) will alter vipaka (consequence).

Don't look to the metaphysical.

The metaphysical, as with all religions provides consolation, but your focus should not be on the other world.

Look to the immutable truths.

Anatta - Non Self.

Dukkha - Unsatisfactoriness.

Impermance.

These will give you your answers.

Relief will only come by dealing with things (practice).

Without personal experience through practice, we will never get it.

Finally, to me, Buddhism isn't an intellectual work, it's a system setting out a practice.

Practice is everything. Without practice there is no escape.

Edited August 3, 2012 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

Yes.

[Johnniey]

I find it very hard to believe that a buffalo can acquire good karma to be reincarnated as a human.

How do animals become human and which kind of animals are most commonly reincarnated as humans ?

To practise Buddhism do you have to believe this.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect App

[rockyysdt]

I find it very hard to believe that a buffalo can acquire good karma to be reincarnated as a human.

How do animals become human and which kind of animals are most commonly reincarnated as humans ?

To practise Buddhism do you have to believe this.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that they don't?

[fabianfred]

Incomplete from a Buddhist perspective. People of other religions plus athiests don't care about nibbana.. it is not desirable. I can't speak for every religion though. Let me ask: Is Buddhism to you an objective, almost scientific fact? or is there faith at some level?

When i first started to study it was a belief but since then my personal practice and further study has caused me to have complete confidence in the truth of the main tenets....rebirth, non-self, karma,dependant origination, and nibbana. I now have unshakeable belief (but actually personal knowledge which cannot be proven to others) and could not be converted or swayed by any means.

What makes nibbana desirable?

It is the only escape from rebirth in one of the 31 realms and therefore the only true escape from all suffering.

Wow, you really have a talent for seeing negative things.

createing negative (bad) karma by causing suffering to other beings...is a negative act and therefore will attract a negative result.

[fabianfred]

Reincarnation was as close as they could get to understanding the concept of rebirth....so rebirth = reincarnation is what they heard him say,

That seems likely. if reincarnation is literal, then why can't we all remember our past lives? (and learn from our mistakes).. yet Buddha remembered all his past lives when he became enlightened.... why? Is it like if you complete all the levels in a video game, you get magic powers?

Those who practice meditation quite often get the ability to see a few of their past lives...they have earned this ability through their practice...but even Arahants don't usually see more than seven past lives. For ordinary people the ability to see past lives would be a distraction and perhaps harmful. If one were an important historical person in a past life it might cause on to have an inflated ego in this. And who would want to remember the horrors of a past life in one of the lower realms?

It's like the story of the intelligent fish that lived in the sea.

This fish heard wonderful stories about the Great Ocean that was the source of life for all fishes.

So he went to look for that Great Ocean.

He swam around and around...searching everywhere in his sea....but he never found that Great Ocean.

We have established that a belief in karma does not help anyone on a spiritual path... it is just a way to explain (usually) misfortune. Plane crashes, WWII atrocities, Buddha's headaches... that's all negative. Karma probably started out as a way to frighten children into behaving... like "if you keep self-gratifying yourself, you'll go blind."

WE haven't established anything......you might have made you mind up about this question...do not assume we agree with you.

Edited August 4, 2012 by fabianfred

[Johnniey]

I find it very hard to believe that a buffalo can acquire good karma to be reincarnated as a human.

How do animals become human and which kind of animals are most commonly reincarnated as humans ?

To practise Buddhism do you have to believe this.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that they don't?

Think about it - I said I find it hard to believe.

I'm confused as I've heard in my study of Buddhism that humans and animals both have Buddha nature and both can achieve enlightenment,

Can non-humans take part in conscious self-improvement, I think not.

I believe that the soul of a buffalo is reincarnated as the soul of a buffalo.

I love debating these things as was encouraged by my Tibetan teacher in Daramsala, 20 years ago.

Now what about a tree - does it have a soul and how can it create karma?

[fabianfred]

I find it very hard to believe that a buffalo can acquire good karma to be reincarnated as a human.

How do animals become human and which kind of animals are most commonly reincarnated as humans ?

To practise Buddhism do you have to believe this.

Sent from my GT-I9100T using Thaivisa Connect App

Since the past is infinite we have all been in every one of the 31 realms in our past..... we ahve been every kind of animal, and person, deva, hell-being etc.

Do not forget that every single being in whatever realm in Samsara is just the same...simply beings...struggling along, up and down through innumerable existences until they get the message and escape. We are presently in the human realm and therefore have human form and intelligence...but those beings in the animal realm are in animal forms and have lower intelligence..

They are paying off the karma which got them there, with little opportunity to make good karma, but when exhausted they will take rebirth in whichever realm their past karma dictates.

If we act like animals when human we might take rebirth in the animal realm in our next existence..

We are all beings.....equally.

That is why we should show compassion to all beings.

[camerata]

The idea that humans are only reborn as humans and buffalo only as buffalo is not a Buddhist one. If that were the case, the main teachings of Buddhism and the objective of breaking free of samsara would be meaningless. Imagine being reborn as a buffalo for all eternity!

[lungmi]

The idea that humans are only reborn as humans and buffalo only as buffalo is not a Buddhist one. If that were the case, the main teachings of Buddhism and the objective of breaking free of samsara would be meaningless. Imagine being reborn as a buffalo for all eternity!

The Dalai Lama answered in a German TV interview about his reincarnation:

Yes, I will be reborn as a bee.

Why?

I like honey very much. (big smile)

--

An answer given by the highest level of wisdom.

Think about.

[rockyysdt]

The idea that humans are only reborn as humans and buffalo only as buffalo is not a Buddhist one. If that were the case, the main teachings of Buddhism and the objective of breaking free of samsara would be meaningless. Imagine being reborn as a buffalo for all eternity!

The Dalai Lama answered in a German TV interview about his reincarnation:

Yes, I will be reborn as a bee.

Why?

I like honey very much. (big smile)

--

An answer given by the highest level of wisdom.

Think about.

Hi L.

Sounds like he was joking or 'taking the mickey".

The Dalai Lama teaches loving kindness/ boundless friendliness.

He's the friendliest guy and always exudes kindness, compassion, friendliness and care for others.

He also likes a joke.

Edited August 4, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The idea that humans are only reborn as humans and buffalo only as buffalo is not a Buddhist one. If that were the case, the main teachings of Buddhism and the objective of breaking free of samsara would be meaningless. Imagine being reborn as a buffalo for all eternity!

Hi camerata.

I was hoping you could correct some of the statements/claims above.

For example, in Buddhism we are taught there is no soul.

Also anatta (non self) in which what is viewed as the self is constantly changing.

The anatta associated with re birth might be so different from an earlier that there maybe very little if anything in common.

The way everyone is freely talking about re birth into and from many lives, and escape from samsara to nibanna (noun) it's as if one is tacitly acknowledging a soul or entity common to each lineage.

How does that align with no soul, nothing inside to be re born except process and memory?

Edited August 4, 2012 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

There is no soul....soul implying a permanent unchanging thing which goes from life to life, changing exterior form.

Rebirth and non-self means that there is no permanent unchanging self...... what directs us from one rebirth to the next is our karma from past lives and the most recent one.....

The 'us' mentioned here is our spirit or real self in the way we try to describe the indescribable, and put into words something outside of human language. It is continually changing, as is everything else in nature. It is creating new karma and paying-off old karma all the time...and this cycle will only stop once we reach nibbana and stop creating any more karma and therfore the need to be reborn into samsara.

[Johnniey]

There is no soul....soul implying a permanent unchanging thing which goes from life to life, changing exterior form.

Rebirth and non-self means that there is no permanent unchanging self...... what directs us from one rebirth to the next is our karma from past lives and the most recent one.....

The 'us' mentioned here is our spirit or real self in the way we try to describe the indescribable, and put into words something outside of human language. It is continually changing, as is everything else in nature. It is creating new karma and paying-off old karma all the time...and this cycle will only stop once we reach nibbana and stop creating any more karma and therfore the need to be reborn into samsara.

Once the spirit or real self (sounds like soul to me) reaches nibbana where does this entity go?

I think the soul refers to an incorporeal part of living things that continues after death. Then Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of the soul.

IS there any scientific evidence on the existence of the "non-self". I know there is plenty on the existence of the soul.

[camerata]

I was hoping you could correct some of the statements/claims above.

I think I'll leave it to you and the other members to explain if a tree has a soul.

it's as if one is tacitly acknowledging a soul or entity common to each lineage.

How does that align with no soul, nothing inside to be re born except process and memory?

There is no soul as far as Theravada doctrine is concerned, so there's no contradiction. My take on this was posted in your topic a few months ago.

Edited August 4, 2012 by camerata
Clarification

[BuckarooBanzai]

One is entitled to ones opinion. The Buddha said take the middle road. Is this what is taking place on this thread. I think not. You are the judge.

[fabianfred]

There is no soul....soul implying a permanent unchanging thing which goes from life to life, changing exterior form.

Rebirth and non-self means that there is no permanent unchanging self...... what directs us from one rebirth to the next is our karma from past lives and the most recent one.....

The 'us' mentioned here is our spirit or real self in the way we try to describe the indescribable, and put into words something outside of human language. It is continually changing, as is everything else in nature. It is creating new karma and paying-off old karma all the time...and this cycle will only stop once we reach nibbana and stop creating any more karma and therfore the need to be reborn into samsara.

Once the spirit or real self (sounds like soul to me) reaches nibbana where does this entity go?

I think the soul refers to an incorporeal part of living things that continues after death. Then Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of the soul.

IS there any scientific evidence on the existence of the "non-self". I know there is plenty on the existence of the soul.

The state of nibanna (not a place or realm) means no more rebirth in samsara....but this doesn't mean a snuffing-out and no further existence. But what kind of existence is incomprehensible to us in our present limited form and understanding. It cannot be described using our language but can only be known when experienced by one who has reached this state.

We live in a 3 dimensional world...but would find it impossible to imagine existence in a higher dimensional form.

The Buddha's middle path does not imply always having to take a middle stance. It seeks the peace to be found in Nibbana...avoiding the extremes of both pleasure and suffering...like a pendulum stopped in the middle.

[rockyysdt]

There is no soul as far as Theravada doctrine is concerned, so there's no contradiction. My take on this was posted in your topic a few months ago.

The problem with a subject such as "what the Buddha actually taught' is that we can only post views.

Re reading the linked thread was good and brought back excellent discussion, but I don't think it answered the questions.

It skirted around answering the issues.

Our current topic is Karma and from this, related subjects such as re birth.

If re birth involves many past and future lives, and if an identitiy exists which is common to all these lives(permanent), then words such as soul, spirit, identity are merely labels for the same thing.

That which is common to an individual and is permanent.

On the other hand, if you say, awakening is the realization that all existence/consciousness is one, and that the unawakened individual state of "non self" is the universal appearing as a singularity in time and space, then I can accept this model as it maintains an element of permanent whilst not requiring an individual soul or spirit.

Edited August 5, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Trying to define or understand the metaphysical (kharma) is like trying to find the end of the world by walking.

And yet it is often used to explain.. for example, ants drowning in water because thhey were moving toward sugar

Note to self: Don't try satire in a forum, even with smilies.

Are we working towards the Buddhist version of the Nanny State?

The ants are working out their Karma. Attachment to Huli's and Mrs Huli's sugar results in death and rebirth as a cockroach.

But if we see ourselves having a responsibility to protect them from their self-destructive tanha, then we have sinned in placing temptation in their way.

There must be an alternative.

[camerata]

One thing all Buddhists agree on is that kammic potential follows us through successive lifetimes. We have a kammic inheritance.

As I understand it, the animal kingdom is kill or be killed. Lots of fear, lots of suffering. Just being an animal is the fruit of unwholesome kamma.

An ant moving towards sugar is bijaniyama - the law of heredity. It is genetically programmed that way. A human using sugar to intentionally kill an ant is kammaniyama (human behaviour: good/bad actions bring good/bad results).

[Johnniey]

There is no soul....soul implying a permanent unchanging thing which goes from life to life, changing exterior form.

Rebirth and non-self means that there is no permanent unchanging self...... what directs us from one rebirth to the next is our karma from past lives and the most recent one.....

The 'us' mentioned here is our spirit or real self in the way we try to describe the indescribable, and put into words something outside of human language. It is continually changing, as is everything else in nature. It is creating new karma and paying-off old karma all the time...and this cycle will only stop once we reach nibbana and stop creating any more karma and therfore the need to be reborn into samsara.

Once the spirit or real self (sounds like soul to me) reaches nibbana where does this entity go?

I think the soul refers to an incorporeal part of living things that continues after death. Then Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of the soul.

IS there any scientific evidence on the existence of the "non-self". I know there is plenty on the existence of the soul.

The state of nibanna (not a place or realm) means no more rebirth in samsara....but this doesn't mean a snuffing-out and no further existence. But what kind of existence is incomprehensible to us in our present limited form and understanding. It cannot be described using our language but can only be known when experienced by one who has reached this state.

We live in a 3 dimensional world...but would find it impossible to imagine existence in a higher dimensional form.

The Buddha's middle path does not imply always having to take a middle stance. It seeks the peace to be found in Nibbana...avoiding the extremes of both pleasure and suffering...like a pendulum stopped in the middle.

Thanks for he reply.

I wonder if this incorporeal entity goes to some kind of world in a different dimension- beyond this physical world, as in Hinduism.

[khaowong1]

Events occur in life that lie outside Kamma too. A good person drowns in a flood, a bad one wins the lottery.

Have you ever thought that karma can be from a previous birth?

Of topic a bit but I've been asking several monks recently if bad karma can be erased by positive actions or 'tamboon'. Some say it can and some say that once you do something which is bad, it will always return, either in this life or a later one.

"some say that once you do something which is bad, it will always return, either in this life or a later one".

That's my understanding also. Along with doing something good too. I'll have to get back to you on this. It's even a big discussion among monks.

[khaowong1]

There is no soul....soul implying a permanent unchanging thing which goes from life to life, changing exterior form.

Rebirth and non-self means that there is no permanent unchanging self...... what directs us from one rebirth to the next is our karma from past lives and the most recent one.....

The 'us' mentioned here is our spirit or real self in the way we try to describe the indescribable, and put into words something outside of human language. It is continually changing, as is everything else in nature. It is creating new karma and paying-off old karma all the time...and this cycle will only stop once we reach nibbana and stop creating any more karma and therfore the need to be reborn into samsara.

Once the spirit or real self (sounds like soul to me) reaches nibbana where does this entity go?

I think the soul refers to an incorporeal part of living things that continues after death. Then Buddhism doesn't deny the existence of the soul.

IS there any scientific evidence on the existence of the "non-self". I know there is plenty on the existence of the soul.

The state of nibanna (not a place or realm) means no more rebirth in samsara....but this doesn't mean a snuffing-out and no further existence. But what kind of existence is incomprehensible to us in our present limited form and understanding. It cannot be described using our language but can only be known when experienced by one who has reached this state.

We live in a 3 dimensional world...but would find it impossible to imagine existence in a higher dimensional form.

The Buddha's middle path does not imply always having to take a middle stance. It seeks the peace to be found in Nibbana...avoiding the extremes of both pleasure and suffering...like a pendulum stopped in the middle.

Very good Fred.. I like it.

[khaowong1]

Reincarnation was as close as they could get to understanding the concept of rebirth....so rebirth = reincarnation is what they heard him say,

That seems likely. if reincarnation is literal, then why can't we all remember our past lives? (and learn from our mistakes).. yet Buddha remembered all his past lives when he became enlightened.... why? Is it like if you complete all the levels in a video game, you get magic powers?

Those who practice meditation quite often get the ability to see a few of their past lives...they have earned this ability through their practice...but even Arahants don't usually see more than seven past lives. For ordinary people the ability to see past lives would be a distraction and perhaps harmful. If one were an important historical person in a past life it might cause on to have an inflated ego in this. And who would want to remember the horrors of a past life in one of the lower realms?

It's like the story of the intelligent fish that lived in the sea.

This fish heard wonderful stories about the Great Ocean that was the source of life for all fishes.

So he went to look for that Great Ocean.

He swam around and around...searching everywhere in his sea....but he never found that Great Ocean.

We have established that a belief in karma does not help anyone on a spiritual path... it is just a way to explain (usually) misfortune. Plane crashes, WWII atrocities, Buddha's headaches... that's all negative. Karma probably started out as a way to frighten children into behaving... like "if you keep self-gratifying yourself, you'll go blind."

WE haven't established anything......you might have made you mind up about this question...do not assume we agree with you.

Something that I tell people who ask about not remembering past lives, heck, I can't remember what I had for lunch last Tuesday let alone what my life might have been 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

[Xangsamhua]

Something that I tell people who ask about not remembering past lives, heck, I can't remember what I had for lunch last Tuesday let alone what my life might have been 2 or 3 hundred years ago.

Dr Ian Stevenson did some interesting empirical research on reincarnation/rebirth, which IMHO should not be dismissed (but always will be by the dogmatic doubters). Here's what Wikipedia says (from its article on Reincarnation).

Psychiatrist Ian Stevenson, from the University of Virginia, investigated many reports of young children who claimed to remember a past life. He conducted more than 2,500 case studies over a period of 40 years and published twelve books, including Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation and Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Stevenson methodically documented each child's statements and then identified the deceased person the child identified with, and verified the facts of the deceased person's life that matched the child's memory. He also matched birthmarks and birth defects to wounds and scars on the deceased, verified by medical records such as autopsy photographs, in Reincarnation and Biology.^[71]

Stevenson searched for disconfirming evidence and alternative explanations for the reports, and believed that his strict methods ruled out all possible "normal" explanations for the child’s memories.^[72]However, a significant majority of Stevenson's reported cases of reincarnation originated in Eastern societies, where dominant religions often permit the concept of reincarnation. Following this type of criticism, Stevenson published a book on European Cases of the Reincarnation Type. Other people who have undertaken reincarnation research include Jim B. Tucker, Satwant Pasricha, Godwin Samararatne, andErlendur Haraldsson.

Skeptics such as Paul Edwards have analyzed many of these accounts, and called them anecdotal.^[73] while also suggesting that claims of evidence for reincarnation originate from selective thinking and from the false memories that often result from one's own belief system and basic fears, and thus cannot be counted as empirical evidence. Carl Sagan referred to examples apparently from Stevenson's investigations in his book The Demon-Haunted World as an example of carefully collected empirical data, though he rejected reincarnation as a parsimonious explanation for the stories.^[74]

Objection to claims of reincarnation include the facts that the vast majority of people do not remember previous lives and there is no mechanism known to modern science that would enable a personality to survive death and travel to another body. Researchers such as Stevenson have acknowledged these limitations.^[75]

I wonder also about the possibility of Rupert Sheldrake’s theory of “morphic fields” as an explanation. Certainly, when reading Stevenson’s painstaking accounts, it occurred to me that the “reincarnated children” might actually be tapping in to some other deceased person’s memories.

"Morphic field" is a term introduced by Sheldrake. He proposes that there is a field within and around a "morphic unit" which organizes its characteristic structure and pattern of activity.^[18] According to Sheldrake, the "morphic field" underlies the formation and behaviour of "holons" and "morphic units", and can be set up by the repetition of similar acts or thoughts. The hypothesis is that a particular form belonging to a certain group, which has already established its (collective) "morphic field", will tune into that "morphic field". The particular form will read the collective information through the process of "morphic resonance", using it to guide its own development. This development of the particular form will then provide, again through "morphic resonance", a feedback to the "morphic field" of that group, thus strengthening it with its own experience, resulting in new information being added (i.e. stored in the database). Sheldrake regards the "morphic fields" as a universal database for both organic (genetic) and abstract (mental) forms.

That a mode of transmission of shared informational patterns and archetypes might exist did gain some tacit acceptance when it was proposed as the theory of the collective unconscious by renowned psychiatrist Carl Jung. According to Sheldrake, the theory of "morphic fields" might provide an explanation for Jung's concept as well. Also, he agrees that the concept of akashic records, term from Vedas representing the "library" of all the experiences and memories of human minds (souls) through their physical lifetime, can be related to "morphic fields",^[19] since one's past (an akashic record) is a mental form, consisting of thoughts as simpler mental forms (all processed by the same brain), and a group of similar or related mental forms also have their associated (collective) "morphic field". (Sheldrake's view on memory-traces is that they are non-local, and not located in the brain.)^[20]

^{(Wikipedia: Rupert Sheldrake)}