Past-life memories research and karma

The way I understand it, the original concept of karma was no more than simply saying "every action has consequences" and carried no inference of reward or punishment and the consequences wouldn't necessarily happen directly to the person who created the original act.  It wasn't related specifically to reincarnation either.

I'm not sure that terms like 'processual karma' or 'developmental karma' are helpful. They seem to be a statement of the blooming obvious - if one accepts survival beyond death and reincarnation. Tagging straightforward survival with the label 'karma' seems both misleading and an unnecessary introduction of terminology. At least that's my interpretation.

I'll say from my own experience that identification of a past-life self for myself has been useful for a bi-directional understanding. That is, looking at the past-life self I am better able to understand myself. But even more so, because of introspection and observation of my current self, I am better able to understand that past-life self too.

Karma on the other hand (though I appreciate others may sub-divide it into different categories) to me it is a more connected with relations and thoughts involving other people. Not necessarily any actions, though it may often do so, but simply holding certain thoughts in relation to others, that has consequences. In that respect, following the track from our thoughts to the outcomes as a consequence of those thoughts, it becomes simply a restatement of free will. If we accept that we have free will, then we consider that we are able to generate outcomes in the world. So in this respect free will and karma are synonyms.

[Laird]

@Typoz, I thank you so much for that post, because it echoes my original sentiments, and gives me a platform for deconstructing those original sentiments, because I ultimately think that Ian's post is very helpful. OK, so, what do I mean by my "original sentiments"? I mean that I figured that "processual" or "developmental" karma is just an unnecessary neologism for "the persistence of the (personality of the) self after death and into its new life", and, duh, why would we need to attach the term "karma" to that?

Those were at least my original sentiments. Then, I thought about Ian's post more carefully, and I saw that he was pointing to something deeper: that when, by our actions, we "develop mental grooves", those mental grooves persist across lives, and become in a meaningful sense our karma (that which forms the basis of our ongoing personality and its reactivity/emotionality). Moreover, Ian is saying that this "groovy" (haha) concept of karma bridges the gap between the empirically falsified version of "retributive" karma, and the "processual" or "developmental" version of karma, which, I think, is insightful and why I eventually rejected my original sentiments and came to affirm Ian's.

neologism

I'm not even going to look that up, Laird. I shall die never knowing what it means.

[Laird]

neologism

I'm not even going to look that up, Laird. I shall die never knowing what it means.

Tim! But you must look it up! You can't be deprived of the fun of that word! Seriously!

[Ninshub]

@Typoz, I thank you so much for that post, because it echoes my original sentiments, and gives me a platform for deconstructing those original sentiments, because I ultimately think that Ian's post is very helpful. OK, so, what do I mean by my "original sentiments"? I mean that I figured that "processual" or "developmental" karma is just an unnecessary neologism for "the persistence of the (personality of the) self after death and into its new life", and, duh, why would we need to attach the term "karma" to that?

Those were at least my original sentiments. Then, I thought about Ian's post more carefully, and I saw that he was pointing to something deeper: that when, by our actions, we "develop mental grooves", those mental grooves persist across lives, and become in a meaningful sense our karma (that which forms the basis of our ongoing personality and its reactivity/emotionality). Moreover, Ian is saying that this "groovy" (haha) concept of karma bridges the gap between the empirically falsified version of "retributive" karma, and the "processual" or "developmental" version of karma, which, I think, is insightful and why I eventually rejected my original sentiments and came to affirm Ian's.

By jove, Laird, I think you've got it!

I was sort of fumbling through a thought process inspired by recent readings (and video watching) on those "vasanas and samskaras" in the Indian tradition (Yoga, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta) (grooves is a better word!), and reacting in the light of those to what Stevenson wrote, and your articulating those thoughts the way you did there kind of helps me validate them.

In my view, for what it's worth, one doesn't have to buy into every single concept in a philosophical/religious thought system to see value and truth in some of its concepts.

Re: vasanas and samskaras. In those Indian traditions, the key is that the goal is liberation from these, and means are provided in how to do so. You could say psychotherapy (or some variants of it), and other methods I'm sure, have parallel goals.

Here's someone talking about that in the Yoga tradition:

Tim! But you must look it up! You can't be deprived of the fun of that word! Seriously!

Doooh ! If I must !

[Ninshub]

This is a great little video explaining the concepts of vasana and samskara, and their differences:

@Typoz, I thank you so much for that post, because it echoes my original sentiments, and gives me a platform for deconstructing those original sentiments, because I ultimately think that Ian's post is very helpful. OK, so, what do I mean by my "original sentiments"? I mean that I figured that "processual" or "developmental" karma is just an unnecessary neologism for "the persistence of the (personality of the) self after death and into its new life", and, duh, why would we need to attach the term "karma" to that?

Those were at least my original sentiments. Then, I thought about Ian's post more carefully, and I saw that he was pointing to something deeper: that when, by our actions, we "develop mental grooves", those mental grooves persist across lives, and become in a meaningful sense our karma (that which forms the basis of our ongoing personality and its reactivity/emotionality). Moreover, Ian is saying that this "groovy" (haha) concept of karma bridges the gap between the empirically falsified version of "retributive" karma, and the "processual" or "developmental" version of karma, which, I think, is insightful and why I eventually rejected my original sentiments and came to affirm Ian's.

I'm agreeing with @Brian 's comment regarding karma not necessarily having anything to do with reincarnation. Likewise, I don't disagree with the idea of "developing mental grooves", and in the same way, I consider it a present-life issue too.

To an extent I find when I start to consider my own way of looking at and analysing ideas like this - including others which I may not have commented on, is that sometimes we are just describing psychology - not in a brain-related way - just the way people's minds work. The reason why it's important to me to think of things in that way is that I'm no longer thinking in terms of some (possibly hypothetical) past or future existence, but simply thinking of the immediate present. What can I do today, right now, to change things. The starting point is to be aware of when we are caught in one of those "mental grooves". Sometimes it may be beneficial if it reflects the way we want to be, other times it may be unhelpful to ourselves and others. Just being aware of the difference between automatically following a habitual pattern versus actively choosing to do or be a certain way, that awareness of the fact that we can choose, that is important to me. And it is important right now, in this moment.

[Ninshub]

A key, interesting question for me, Typoz, following what you've said, is: does doing that psycho-spiritual work, in whatever way, through whatever means, pertain to our spiritual evolution past this lifetime? (Admittedly this is an extremely large topic requiring its own thread !!!). Is it the "duty" or is it necessary, in whatever way one conceives necessity, for the incarnate soul/psyche to work on itself - to work or be mindful of the "grooves"? This is implicit (or explicit) in all the Indian traditions. We can argue that it's probably the case for the Western religious traditions as well (some sort of attitudinal or belief or behavioural transformation, like, for example, the Christian who progresses because he recognizes Christ as Lord and practices loving his neighbours as him or herself).

Now does the survival data, for example near-death experiences, indicate this is work that has to be done ultimately (or that life will arrange for us to eventually be motivated to get it done), or is just about experiencing with no ultimate lesson? (For example, the notion that a higher self would somehow be separate from those "groove"-laden reincarnating "selves", and that it's all somehow just a play in consciousness - real enough on one level, say human or immediate discarnate, but at higher level ultimately only apparently real.)