[Buddha-l] Re: karma and action

[Bob Zeuschner]

Hi Richard --
Yes, I saw the term "intentional" in your original message. I understood 
you as suggesting that substituting "action" would reveal that the term 
karma is not a metaphysical term.

As I understand the use of karma on this list and elsewhere, it is so 
filled with metaphysical implications that I find it not much different 
from similar unfalsifiable claims of "original sin" or "eternal souls."

As such, I find it an interesting way to think about things, and it 
might even provide a useful guide to personal decisions, BUT I find no 
reason to accept it as some truth about the way things are. IMHO.

Thus, to substitute "action" for "karma" would lose almost all the 
genuine metaphysical meaning from the term, and mislead the hearer.
Best,
Bob

Richard Nance wrote:

> On 10/23/05, Bob Zeuschner <rbzeuschner at adelphia.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Yes, "karman" means action.
>>HOWEVER, the way most people have been using relevant to meat eating, it
>>is a special sub-category of actions. It is those actions which are
> 
> reflexive, that is, actions such that consequences similar to the act
> rebound upon the agent...
> 
> Bob -- if you reread my comments carefully, you'll see that I've
> anticipated this objection. I wrote:
> 
> 
>>given that this is a list devoted to
>>Buddhism, "intentional action(s)"
> 
> 
> So far as I'm aware, "intentional actions" and "actions such that
> consequences similar to the act rebound upon the agent" are presented
> as coextensive within the tradition. (This leads to the thorny problem
> of whether and how fully-fledged Buddhas have intentions. Thankfully,
> for the purposes of this discussion, we don't need to worry about that
> problem very much.)
> 

Bob Zeuschner wrote:
> Actions of certain types (i.e., intentional actions which cause 
> _dukkha_) will have consequences which will resemble the act, and will 
> rebound to affect the actor.
> This is the metaphysical dimension. The claim is not empirical, is not 
> testable, and makes no predictions which could falsify it.
>