Deep waters

My new favorite punching bag, Paul Edwards, claims in his book that reincarnation implies the strongest form of dualism (between mind and body) and since dualism is philosophically untenable, reincarnation is out the window! Ironically, Buddhism teaches that dualism is ultimately incorrect, that all concepts including those of self and other are empty of inherent existence. When we look at a chair, can we find any existence beyond that which is imputed onto it by our own mind? I think Edwards would say yes. But then, in the absence of an observer, is it a chair any more? Doesn't the concept of chair bring with it all sorts of assumptions that only make sense to a human? In fact, essentially tautologically, all we can ever know arises in dependence on conceptuality. The idea of a reality existing independent from us breaks down upon investigation. It is this way with everything. Our body, our mind and our self. None are seen to truly exist, except in dependence upon conceptuality. This may seem untenable or paradoxical, but is undeniably true, and its truth becomes clearer as you meditate and observe the way the mind works. Reincarnation is an example of "relative truth," a phenomenon that exists in the relative world of concepts, but according to "ultimate truth" does not actually exist. This is true of any concept. It vanishes when probed deeply enough.

So in Buddhism, dualism of any kind is found to be ultimately lacking in truth, but that is the way things appear to us. It is also said that we need to work within this relative framework to begin with (training wheels) in order to reach the level ultimate truth beyond concepts. Therefore, designations of "good" and "bad", "reincarnation" etc are provisionally helpful, but in the end it is all just the arising of mind.

I have personally come to the conclusion that there is an elephant in the room that many people miss when discussing cognitive science. It is often reduced to physical events such as neuron firings and neurotransmitters, but ignores the fact of first person experience. It is a commonly expressed view that consciousness is an epiphenomenon riding on top of a sufficiently complex system. In this view, first person experience (whatever that is!) automatically arises in any system capable of performing in the same complicated way as a human. To me this answers nothing. It doesn't explain what first person experience is, nor why it is forced to arise, when one could imagine a sufficiently complicated machine that has no corresponding first person experience. As I see it, there's a big mystery here.

Now Buddhism doesn't seek to reduce or explain this mystery. In fact, awareness is seen as inexpressible and inexplainable, the ground from which all arises.

A view from the other side

In thinking about reincarnation, I decided to read some literature that's prepared to vigorously argue against it. I picked out a book that amazon.com recommended through it's pseudo-omniscient algorithm called "Reincarnation: a critical examination" by Paul Edwards. Leafing through, this is not meant to convert anyone. Rather it has the form of preaching to the choir, treating the views of his "opponents" contemptuously and impatiently. A section of the book that caught my eye is about karma. Here is an excerpt


Anybody not intimidated by the virulence with which the champions of Karma brush off objections to their theory will want to raise a very simple and, as it seems to me, utterly devastating question about the execution and more generally the "administration" of Karmic ordinances...

The claim that Karma operates autonomously invites the following questions: How, to begin with, are good and bad deeds registered? Is there some cosmic repository like a huge central social security office in which the relevant information is recorded and translated into some kind of balance? Next, how and where is it decided what will happen to a person in his next incarnation as a result of the balance of acts in his or her life?...

The believer in Karma,[...], must be prepared to claim that the earthquake was brought about in order to punish or reward the various people who suffered or benefited from the earthquake.


First off, I have to ask why this author's attack has such a personal quality to it. (Witness his first sentence which is a personal attack.) But let's accept that and try to get to his actual objections, which do not conform to my understanding of the Buddhist view of karma. Admittedly, there are many takes on karma, from Hindu to Jain to New Age, and some people in those schools may hold views that are susceptible to his attack, but maybe not. I will simply argue from the standpoint of my own understanding.

First, karma is indeed an autonomous process. I like to think of it as spiritual physics. There's no need for a cosmic moderator when it comes to the standard laws of physics such as gravity and quantum physics. So why should one be needed for karma? The author also refers to a "balance" revealing the common idea, which is not the Buddhist view, that karma reflects some kind of ledger with good deeds in one column, bad deeds in another, and then an overall balance. So if you kill someone and then save someone you are karmically neutral. This is not the Buddhist view at all. Put simply, virtuous actions will ripen beneficially in the future, negative actions will ripen negatively in the future, and this is essentially a definition of virtuous and unvirtuous. There's nothing about cancellation. In fact, karmic acts interact in complex ways, often having a snowball effect where one small deed will continue to magnify in importance as it informs your later actions. It is taught that these karmic seeds are embedded in our mindstream and flower when appropriate conditions arise. So it is not simply that karma causes things to happen, but that we encounter conditions based on our karma. So as for Edwards' question about how it is "decided" how one is reborn based on karma, there is no external agency that decides. Indeed, the bardo being is blown by the winds of karma (that is the tendencies embedded in its own mind) to a certain womb. One would think that coming from a critical scientific perspective, Edwards would not automatically criticize a theory based on anthropomorphizing it.

The final point I want to talk about is Edwards' describing karma as punishment and reward. In all three eastern religions, Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, karma is regarded as an unconscious automatic process, not a process of punishment and reward. If we see someone who is suffering and don't help them because we think it's their own karma that got them their and hence they deserve what they are now getting, then we are abusing the teachings and will ourselves experience suffering in the future as a karmic ripening of our own miserliness. This attitude also neglects the fact that everyone has accumulated vast amounts of negative and positive karma, and we just happen to be in a relatively fortunate situation at the moment. So to accuse someone else of having negative karma is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I'm not saying there is original sin, in fact, quite the opposite, all beings are Buddhas at their core, but by our very nature as sentient beings in the world of samsara, we are prone to act in ways nonbeneficial to ourselves. One further aspect about this I'd like to mention, and this is something I've brought up before, is that because the events which befall us are the result of our own past actions, that means we have the power to transform those circumstances. That doesn't mean we can wish really hard for something and it will come true. It is much more difficult than that. All the specialized practices taught by the Buddha are designed to transform one's mind. They work, but they require diligence and patience.

In a subsequent section Edwards points to the fact that the law of karma has no predictive value, and, as I understand him, is therefore of no practical use. His point is that when an earthquake happens, we can say after the fact that it was maturation of the karma of the people affected, but we could never predict the earthquake. Of course, I agree that karma has no specific predictive value, and so I will agree that it is not a scientific law, but that hardly closes the case on the matter. Karma has general predictive value, for if I kill someone, I will suffer as a result. Even if I get away with it, I will be tortured internally. I admit that there is no way to prove that everything that currently happens to me is a maturation of something I did in a previous life. Clearly I'm not going to be able to logically demonstrate this, but what I can say is that as I progress along the Buddhist path, as I gain more insight, those teachings of the Buddha and the Lama which I can check out for myself all turn out to be true, and this gives me increased faith that as I develop more, some of those items which I currently accept on faith will become evident.

To me, there is a fundamental wonder and mystery at the center of our ordinary, banal experience. This is our awareness, our consciousness. This is also the core of Buddhism, the star player as it were. Our own awareness, omnipresent and locationless. This is the mind of Buddhahood. (Do you think our awareness has a location? If so, doesn't that mean it has a physical shape? How can awareness have a physical shape?) So, as far as I'm concerned, Buddhism is homing in on exactly the right thing, and this view of mine is strengthened through my continued meditation practice. So even though karma is not a traditional scientific theory, I have faith that it is true nonetheless, and I certainly don't feel like Edwards has raised and "devastating" objections to it.

the hook of compassion

Just as one might need another's help to move a dresser
One might need another's help to realize happiness.
If the Buddha could snap his fingers and make samsara disappear
He would.

The Buddha's hook of compassion
Needs to catch our loop of faith
And once that connection is established
The blessings pour through,
And rest assured,
We will one day achieve Buddhahood,
Spontaneously helping countless sentient beings
Break through the veils obscuring their consciousness.

The more we call upon the Buddha and all enlightened beings for help,
The stronger our connection becomes,
The weaker the obscurations in our mind.
In the sky before me,
I see countless Buddhas and Bodhisattvas,
And in the plane around me,
Billions of people and other creatures
All reciting the prayer of refuge as one.

"I take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha.
By the virtuous merit that I collect,
By practicing giving and the other perfections,
May I attain the state of a Buddha,
To be able to liberate all sentient beings."

Untitled Mind

I am on a plane
The air is bright, brilliant spheres of light
Scattered tears, dark smoke filtering up
This dissolves, breaks, fades
There is darkness all around
And then I notice the smoke itself has a brilliant quality...

The emptiness of ideation

When I concentrate on a point I want to make,
It diffuses and grows ornamental curlicues,
Which themselves further elaborate,
Leaving the center empty.

Random thoughts about feelings

I'm sitting in my ole easy chair right now, a stick of juniper incense is burning in the holder behind me, and I begin to type a poem meant to capture my mood...


Worked up, a bit
Just gave a talk and had trouble articulating a point
Felt a bit uncomfortable
Traced the feeling back to defense of ego



In Buddhist psychology there are five skandhas.
Form, Feeling, Perception, Mental Formation, and Consciousness.
Form is the barest glimmer of structure.
Feeling is a sensation like heat or discomfort.
Perception begins to form judgments of desirable or undesirable.
Mental Formations are macroscopic thoughts.
Consciousness is the fundamental quality of awareness.

I would say that the discomfort that arose as I was talking was a feeling, a kind of tone, certainly not composed of gross verbalized thoughts, rooted in a judgment of the way the talk was going. I guess it's a little bit like a "growing sense of alarm," when you, for example, you wander into an unsafe neighborhood. There's this gradual buildup of a background feeling which informs the tenor of your thoughts, but which itself is not a word-level thought.

Mind sees an I

"I" is an expression of mind.
Who is it that perceives "I"?
Into what does "I" arise?

When thoughts of anger or confusion arise,
Who is it that experiences them?
Who is it that created them?
Who is it that looks to see?

When outer appearances arise,
Who is it that perceives them?
And when that one is perceived,
Who perceives it?

The mind is empty of unchanging solidity.
Yet awareness and appearances exist indivisibly.
The essence of mind is vast like space.

As the karmic shackles of conceptuality
One by one dissolve into awareness,
The mind of Buddhahood dawns
and the universe is illuminated.