---------------------------------------------
October
31, 2000
G------,
I’ve been thinking of our conversation a few days ago
concerning politics, religion, Buddhism, reincarnation, absolute truth,
etc. I was particularly struck by
your comments how many people do not want to think about their beliefs because
they may find them to be incorrect and thus forced to deal with doubt. I couldn’t help but think about your
belief in reincarnation and karma.
Have you ever thought you might be incorrect about these ideas? How do you know these are correct
notions? I thought I might try to
stimulate your thinking by stating some problems I see in reincarnation. I will be brief (my goal is no more
than one page!) so perhaps we can pick up the discussion over a beer sometime
when we have more time than we do at work.
1.
I see no reason to consider reincarnation to be
true. What reasons or types of
evidence convince you that such a belief is true and rational?
2.
The whole notion of reincarnation seems
inconsistent because there does not seem to be sufficient continuity between
the lives of the incarnations.
Mark Albrecht in his book Reincarnation
states the problem this way: "The
individual personality never reincarnates; only his or her karma survives death
and comes to rest on a totally different personality who is alleged to have
similar characteristics but has no memory that he or she ‘was’ another person."
3.
The idea of karma seems to be an incoherent
bundle of inconsistency.
a.
Karma doe not effectively deal with moral
evil. It seems, instead, to perpetuate
evil. If a person does evil then
in his or her next incarnation an appropriate amount of evil must come back
upon that person. But then that
evil that was done to the first person must be punished and so there is never
an end to the evil. There is no
way to break the cycle.
b.
How does one discover the moral requirements of
karma? Are these requirements
absolute? Do these moral
requirements hold in all lifetimes or just in a few? If the karmic law is evolving then how is one to keep up
with the current system of morality that karmic law is following?
c.
Karma leads to fatalism and a lack of compassion
for others. If I see a person
suffering it is reasonable to assume that they must be working off karmic
debt. If I intervene and help such
a person I am not allowing them to work off their karmic debt. Therefore the best thing to do is to
leave them alone and not help them.
Norman Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano in their book The Reincarnation Sensation state the objection this way:
"Fatalism, lack of concern for the suffering
of others, and general inaction are often traced to the two doctrines of
reincarnation and karma. If one
attempts to alleviate the burden of the sufferer, then the sufferer must endure
greater hardship in the next life because she did not ‘pay off’ her prescribed
karmic debt."
The
way the caste system in India has functioned is ample proof of the bad effects
that this doctrine has had in that country.
d.
Karmic law is impersonal. But the notion of law is meaningless
with a personal lawgiver behind the law.
Where does karmic law come from?
Upon what is this law founded?
4.
Toward what is reincarnation moving? What is the goal? When all the karmic debt is paid off
(if such a thing can happen at all!) then what? Most Eastern religions see the end as some sort of dissolving
of the individual personality into the basic Oneness of reality. Thus the goal is the obliteration of human
personality.
Well, I am almost out of space so I had best be stopping. I mean no offense by the above. I am seeking some rational understanding. I’m also seeking some good conversation—here’s hoping you do too!
--Richard
