tartbrain: > Big Question, "Why are things the way they are?" > The 'Big Question' in this debate is the South Asian docrine of 'karma', which both Barry and Curtis failed to define.
The karma theory states that when an action occurs, there is a corresponding re-action. This definition of karma was stated very clearly in the Buddha's very first sermon. The concept of karma may originate in the shramana tradition of South Asia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma Things are the way they are because of the law of cause and effect. The Buddha's karma theory states that *causation* is the natural law, just like gravity is a law of physics. It's a totally mechanical theory - there's no 'soul-monad' in it. > If past action results in particular current > conditions... > All actions, without exception are subject to the law of karma. All actions are inter-dependent on other actions, which the Buddha stated as 'when this occurs, that will occur' - the law of dependent origination. But it is doubtful that the historical Buddha taught a theory of reincarnation. For the reincarnation to operate, there must be a reincarnating soul-monad, which the Buddha denied. So, without a reincarnating soul, there would be nothing to reincarnate! > However, does it matter? > The Buddha's karma theory doesn't discuss the first cause of creation. But the karma theory does assume that action-reaction takes place on the mental level as well as on the physical level. The debatable point is, 'is there a moral reciprocity, or not'? And, like Buddha, Immanuel Kant wrote that there is a 'categorical imperative' that makes acts right or wrong. But Kant did not deny the mechanics of action. Kant also postulated that there is an 'apriori' knowledge, (gnosis) that is, a sense that is transcendental to, or beyond the world of physical matter - a metaphysics of morals. 'Caste' doesn't refer to one's race, but to the birth circumstances of a person, such as gender and profession (jati and division of labor). The Hindu caste system doesn't pertain to skin color. In India caste means 'class', and there are different classes in almost every society. The question is, are there intrinsic, different classes in society or not? And if so, on what basis is a person classed? Curtis and Barry seem to think that that Hindus are classified as 'brown' or 'little', but not all Hindus share these characteristics. > I am sure catcalls will follow this post -- > but there is a value judgement... > The question is, does a mental thought cause another corresponding re-action now, or in the future? In other words, is there such a thing as moral reciprocity? That's a metaphysical question, one that is debated in almost every society. Curtis: > I am proposing that karmic thoery is not > just the basis for cruelty in the vast > majority of its believer's lives... >
