Pablo ji,
I had written a couple of responses and decided against posting them for several reasons, one being that they'd come across as being too technical and lacking of humour. Also I feared that you would be put off by the length of the messages, being slow-witted, you will not get any one-liners from me but what is probably worse. ;-) I can't change any of this but I really wish to share some of my understandings with you. So I ask you from the outset, to be patient.
Like you I was born into a Sikh family and like you I do not believe in God. I wouldn't however call myself an agnostic since the concept of God does not form part of my thought process except when I read and discuss here or overhear my wife's conversations with others. ;-) And even then, I reduce all this to being simply reflection of a tendency to interpret experiences one particular way.
I have been influenced wholly by the Buddha's teachings, and although I have no expectation of influencing you, I expect however, that some of what I say will be useful.
You wrote:
My dabblings in Buddhism stopped when the concept of Karma came up - I cannot subscribe to any path/religion that states an act of kindness must be done for a better next life because that act then becomes selfish.
Just as you know others to possibly misinterpret particular teachings; you'd agree that you too are possibly misinterpreting the concept of karma. Indeed the probability is very high given your source must be one of the many schools out there all of who clearly disagree with each other. And obviously I am just one of those, but I tell you, they are wrong and I am right!! ;-) Don't let this put you off, read on and then decide whether you agree with me or not.
Everything that the Buddha taught points to that which makes up our lives and can be known from moment to moment. Right now as you read this message, there arises and fall away many different kinds of consciousness through the senses and the mind. In what comes across as "me seeing words on a computer screen", there are in fact some very different kinds of consciousness alternating between each other, such that if you really believed in the existence of such an entity as "I" and things such as "words" and "computer screen", you'd be quite wrong.
Let me explain:
"Seeing" is one mental reality which when it arises must experience a physical reality peculiar to it called "visible object" or simply, "that which can be seen". These two are merely kinds of elements with particular characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause. What you conceive of as words and computer screen is the result of another mental reality, namely "thinking". This happens as a result of the influence of other mental realities such as memory and attention which makes it that the object of thinking, namely words and screen are only "concepts", hence not real. Likewise the impression that you have of a "self" who experiences this or that and who can make choices, is also a result of the thinking process based on all the different experiences through the five senses and the mind. So when you end up taking the concepts of "me" and "things out there" as real and existing, this is due to another mental reality, namely "wrong view" or "wrong understanding".
Wrong view or self-view is from which most Buddhists read the Buddha's teachings and the reason for misinterpretation. But of course this is to be expected. Only if we've accumulated a great deal of wisdom from past lives (I know you are reacting to this ;-)), or if we are fortunate enough to meet such a person, will we at some point begin to understand correctly what is really being pointed at. And the impression one gets is that of a shift in perception, one comparable to taking a quantum leap. Of course, as it is in my case, this change of perception is only momentary and happens only once in a while, at other times, the same old way of perceiving things just continue. This is because the understanding is only at the beginner level of intellectual understanding. This is enough however, to recognize certain wrong perceptions, including those expressed in the form of the different religious and philosophical teachings and ideas out there. One determining factor is that while the Buddha's teachings leads to the 'now' with an understanding to distinguish 'reality' from 'concepts', other teachings in referring to concepts just encourages more ignorance about reality.
So when we come to the concept of karma, we should ask ourselves, what is it? Given what I've said so far, I think you could guess correctly that it must in fact be a reality. What reality? The mental factor of "intention" which arises with all consciousness.
In the case of the five sense experiences however, intention does not function as "cause" being that these are in fact "resultant" consciousness. And when we are for example, simply attracted to a pleasant sights or sounds, the intention there is not of the strength that will bring results in the future, although it does accumulate as tendency. When it arises during instances such as lying, stealing, killing etc., however, the intention then is strong enough to act as cause for the arising of results in the future. This is the case also when instead, such actions as kindness, moral restraint, generosity and so on arises. In the one the result is bad and in the other it is good.
So we learn to distinguish two distinct types of consciousness, one which is the nature of cause and the other that of result. We then understand that it is intention in the one, which is what leads to getting to experience the other in the form of either pleasant or unpleasant experiences through the senses. And it is from understanding this relationship that one is then lead to agree with the suggestion that good and bad intention or karma, gives rise to result in the form of rebirth in a happy or unhappy plain of existence.
So it is not just a matter of "belief" that one thinks about karma and rebirth. Thinking in terms of the next life as being result of karma, is a matter of fact and does not come without realizing that this life itself is result of past karma. And when it comes down to it, indeed it is all happening now, there is results of past deeds in the form of certain kinds of experiences, and there are those that are of the nature of cause for future result. Thinking then, that a good deed will result in good rebirth does not have to imply doing it to gain something. For someone who has had some grasp of the Buddha's teachings, it is clear that the aim is to get out of this whole mess. After all, the first of the Four Noble Truths states that all conditioned existence is Dukkha or Suffering and the cause for this is grasping, which is the second of these four truths. So someone who correctly interprets the Buddha's teachings would do good not in order to be reborn in a better plain of existence, but with the understanding in fact, of the harm of ignorance and attachment.
The encouragement is always to know the present moment reality by the "characteristic", where no label is attached, for example hatred is different in nature from kindness, is it not? And the understanding is that it is only when this has happened to any extent, that one's confidence in what is good and bad, right and wrong has any real basis. Let alone having to make reference to some set of teachings or teacher in order to then act one way or the other, there is no need even to try and talk oneself using reason, for doing what must be done. This is because it is all about the development of "understanding" which at some point grows to see the value of good for what it *is* and likewise, the harm of evil, the leader of which is "ignorance".
That said, I think it can be inferred from the above, that a "disbelief" in karma must in fact be an obstacle. This is because it would reflect not only not understanding the present moment, but also not acknowledging the reality / concept distinction. The perception must be that of a "self" who acts and who will receive results in the future, in which case accepting or not accepting karma makes very little difference since in both cases it takes the attention away from understanding the "impersonal reality" that karma is.
So what do you think now Pablo ji, would any of us have arrived at such kind of understanding on our own? Do we not need all the help we can get? And is it not rather that, left to our own devices, the "vices" would rule? But of course, first you'd need to recognize and acknowledge the vices for what they are, which I'm not sure that you do. Indeed you appear to be trying to justify having some them, and this I consider really dangerous.
What do you think Pablo ji?
