Previous Next Index Thread

Re: Does God Exist? The Debate Continues

 yku@moe.ac.sg (Yeo Khirn Hup) wrote:
 >Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I never did claim that reward or
 >punishment was involved. Still, isn't it true that according to the kamma
 >theory, good deeds tend to generate good effects and bad deeds, bad effects?
 >Otherwise how can
 That is true.
 The Buddha says:
 "According to the seed that's sown,
 So is the fruit you reap therefrom,
 Doer of good will gather good,
 Doer of evil, evil reaps.
 Sown is the seed, and you shall taste
 The fruit thereof." 
 When anything pleasant comes to us and makes us happy, we may be sure
 that our Kamma has come to show us that what we have done is right.
 When anything unpleasant comes to us, hurt us, or makes us unhappy,
 our Kamma has come to show us our mistake.  Kamma neither loves nor
 hates.  Kamma neither rewards nor punishes.  Kamma is never angry,
 never pleased.  Kamma knows nothing about us.  Does fire know you when
 it burns you?  No.  It is the nature of fire to burn, to give out
 heat.  If used properly, it brings light, cooks our food.  But if used
 wrongly, then it burns us and our property.  Its work is to burn and
 our affair is to use it in the right way. 
 Man is responsible for his own happiness and misery.  He creates his
 own heaven and hell.  He is master of his own destiny, child of his
 past, and parent of his future.
  
 The real essential nature of action (Kamma) of man is mental.  When a
 given thought has arisen in one's mind a number of times, there is a
 definite tendency of recurrence of that thought.  When a given act has
 been performed a number of times, there is a definite tendency of the
 repetition of the act.  Thus each act, mental or physical, tends to
 constantly produce its like, and be in turn produced.  If a man thinks
 a good thought, speaks a good word, does a good deed, the effect upon
 him is to increase the tendencies to goodness in him.  If, on the
 contrary, he does a bad deed, in thought, in speech or in action, he
 has strengthened in himself his bad tendencies, he has made himself a
 worse man.  Having become a worse man, he will gravitate to the
 company of worse men in future, and incur all the unhappiness of
 varying kinds that attends life in such company.
 >I never claim that it was, just that one shouldn't mistake one thing for the
 >other. The karma theory postulating a distant cause as a possible
 >explanation for a present effect is moral (or even religious) but not
 >scientific in nature.
 Buddhism makes no such distinction.  As I've said, it is essential to
 understand the nature of the universe and the laws governing it. 
 And Kamma is only ONE of TWENTY-FOUR causes that operate in the
 universe.  
 Perhaps now, you'd care to explain what is meant by your "scientific"
 in nature?  
 >: The Buddha's Teachings are open to scrutiny.  
 >Sure. But what I meant what that when someone says that you are such and
 >such because in your past life you did such and such, there is no way to
 >falsify or disprove his statement.
 As I've said - not totally.  The effects of some types of Kamma are
 immediate and experienced in one lifetime.  And its effects are not
 exactly equal as it is also dependent on the balance of forces
 accumulated by the being.  The effect is different if one puts a
 handful of salt into a cup of water, than if one puts a handful of
 salt in the river.

with word 'help' in message body                    netnews@sift.stanford.edu