Are the laws of Kamma Revealed or Deduced?

[Shonin]

The experiences of past existences that occurred in this life ARE the memories encoded in our brains.

Right, of this life, but not previous lives. We can safely imagine there is a physical mechanism for the storage and retrieval of our current-life memories. We cannot imagine, however, a physical mechanism which can retrieve memories of past lives, as our biological brains has had no physical contact with the conditions to which those memories were formed.

If you have to invent invisible entities to account for holes in your hypothesis then you know you're on shaky ground.

We have no reliable data on how or even if the experiences of previous lives are recalled. Therefore, your conclusion is entirely unsafe.

I'm making a leap of faith here with regard to the validity of claims regarding past life recollection, so yes, my conclusion is unsafe.

'Where does the past exist?'
I think that is as silly a question as asking 'where does our universe exist?' An event exists relative to events past and future to it.

It's not the same. The universe is the set of all 'wheres' thus 'where does the universe' exist makes no sense, just as 'when does time exist' makes no sense'. However you are making the assertion that somehow 'the past exists now'. What does it mean to say something exists now? It means it has a location (even a distributed one) and it means that it is part of the everychanging reality that is the universe, thus it is impermanent...

'Everything is impermanent.'
I can't help but believe that the 'permanence' of the past is dependent on the continuance of samsara. End the cycle of rebirth and end the past and future.

I can't help but believe you are clutching at metaphysical straws You didn't answer the point. Everything that exists is impermanent. If the pas continues to exist now it is subject to impermanence.

'If the past exists now it's the present.'
No argument here. The past may 'exist' insofar as it can be recalled.

The point is that this means it isn't the past, thus 'the past exists presently' is false. Recollections existing now are not the past being recalled. They are memories being recalled, which we interpret as the past.

I'm not adamant on these points, it's just me thinking through the problems myself.

I understand.

[5heaps]

We do not directly perceive this force [.......] We just imagine it.

i already agreed to that. however, just as inference exists and can be known, when the mind is tamed the mind can perceive its objects directly.

In the end, it looks like I'm going to have to thoroughly read Nagarjuna to have a sharper understanding of these philosophical arguments within Buddhism.

this is a matter of valid cognition (pramana), which means studying Sautrantika+Dharmakirti

svabhava past dharmas

depends what selfnature we're talking about

The experiences of past existences that occurred in this life ARE the memories encoded in our brains.

intellectuals discounting the function of mental experience

[Shonin]

We do not directly perceive this force [.......] We just imagine it.

i already agreed to that. however, just as inference exists and can be known, when the mind is tamed the mind can perceive its objects directly.

I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Inference is not something external that can be known or perceived directly. Inference is an intellectual process that is carried out when we cannot perceive directly. It is an assumption (perhaps a reasonable one) or a hypothesis about that which is unseen and based on that which we did see and/or previous experience and/or logical necessity as we see it.

The experiences of past existences that occurred in this life ARE the memories encoded in our brains.

intellectuals discounting the function of mental experience

Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?

[Typos edited]

[tiltbillings]

Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?

I thought they were stored in the Akashic Records.

[Shonin]

Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?

I thought they were stored in the Akashic Records.

Well it's certain that something is stored there

[Sanghamitta]

Madame Blavatsky's royalties perhaps.

[5heaps]

Inference is not something external that can be known or perceived directly.

i didnt imply they were external. most of your experience is of internal objects. most of the things you call external objects has been proven to be internal. you experience your emotions directly, but also conceptually

the point is that just as inference exists, so does your nonconceptuality. what you said about billiard balls is correct but it is not pervasive to all instances of mind. this is something exciting. if its true, youve suddenly dismissed centuries worth of philosophical, mathematical, etc theory. its only fitting that one should do so on the quest to realizing the four noble truths.

Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?

theyre mainly mental aspects (Tib: rnam-pa, Skt: akara). the physical changes which go on are only something of excitement to people with no introspection and no real understanding and observation of memories -- they may even say observations of memories are hallucinations, just to escape their scientific responsibilities.

[Viscid]

If you have to invent invisible entities to account for holes in your hypothesis then you know you're on shaky ground.

I was not inventing anything, btw. I haven't any idea, if past-life recollection is assumed to be true, how one would be able to recollect past-life memories.

I'm sure if we just attribute the ability to Quantum Physics people would believe it, though.

[Sobeh]

"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later, and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of kamma.

"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play... The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said.

Maybe the OP can highlight the sections which are causing difficulty?

[Viscid]

Maybe the OP can highlight the sections which are causing difficulty?

I have no issue with that sutta. I interpret it as "action arises from intent, and one's current intent is a result of past intentional actions and contact." Fine, simple; behaviour in a nutshell. (As far as I know.)

It does not state that Kamma from one lifetime, following death, arises in another. (Right?)

[Shonin]

Inference is not something external that can be known or perceived directly.

i didnt imply they were external. most of your experience is of internal objects. most of the things you call external objects has been proven to be internal. you experience your emotions directly, but also conceptually

You're making speculative ontological assertions here.

the point is that just as inference exists, so does your nonconceptuality. what you said about billiard balls is correct but it is not pervasive to all instances of mind.

Sorry but this doesn't make sense. Inference is a cognitive process, non-conceptuality (whatever you mean by that) by definition isn't. They don't exist in the same way. And your conclusion here in no way follows from the premise.

this is something exciting. if its true, youve suddenly dismissed centuries worth of philosophical, mathematical, etc theory. its only fitting that one should do so on the quest to realizing the four noble truths.

Again, this is incoherent to me.

Are you claiming that memories are not encoded in our brains?

theyre mainly mental aspects (Tib: rnam-pa, Skt: akara). the physical changes which go on are only something of excitement to people with no introspection and no real understanding and observation of memories -- they may even say observations of memories are hallucinations, just to escape their scientific responsibilities.

Criticising the character of those who you disagree with is called an Ad Hominem argument. It is classified as a logical fallacy.

[5heaps]

Criticising the character of those who you disagree with is called an Ad Hominem argument.

asserting that people without shamata etc are incapable of ascertaining some things is not criticizing character, in the same way that saying you cant lift a 500kg boulder is not criticizing your character.

Inference is a cognitive process, non-conceptuality (whatever you mean by that) by definition isn't.

are you saying that there is no capacity to know without using a thought or concept?

You're making speculative ontological assertions here.

no, you are. direct perception is prior to thought and concept. at the very least you have to say that the direct perception is mistaken or obscured in some way. or you could be like a "scientist" and say it just doesnt exist, its a hallucination

[Kenshou]

5heaps, if you would, would you mind telling what Buddhist tradition you come from? I promise that I'm not out to criticize you about it, but the fact is that much of the time I have scarcely any idea what you're trying to say. Knowing your background might put your words in context and enable smoother communication.

I'm really trying to be non-confrontational here, but the truth is that I have a hard time understanding you.

[Sobeh]

It does not state that Kamma from one lifetime, following death, arises in another. (Right?)

And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later, and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

It hinges on the reading of the bolded portion, I think. The translation I used included the brackets "that which arises later <in this lifetime>, and that which arises following that", which you can see alters the meaning of the text (by adding words which aren't in the text). I'm unsure whether this gloss comes from a Commentary, or another source.

[Viscid]

It hinges on the reading of the bolded portion, I think. The translation I used included the brackets "that which arises later <in this lifetime>, and that which arises following that", which you can see alters the meaning of the text (by adding words which aren't in the text). I'm unsure whether this gloss comes from a Commentary, or another source.

Well, let's assume it means that Kamma which is influenced by one's intentional actions transmigrates from one lifetime to the next. The question is how, without recalling one's actions and behaviour from previous lifetimes and seeing the resultant actions and behaviour in subsequent lifetimes, can one come to know this?

We can see how our previous intentions and actions, such as when developing sila, conditions our subsequent intentions and actions. We can observe the process of behavioural change because we can recollect our past behaviour and compare it to our current behaviour. We would not be able to see the same process unfold between lives, however, as we are unable to recollect our actions and behaviour previous to our birth.