[chuecafressds]

Originally Posted by londonerabroad When a sense organ makes contact with an object something we call ego immediately reacts to this contact in some way

This statement pre-supposes the constant and continuous existence of some "thing" that "we call ego" that generates attraction and aversion to sensory data. It is a doctrine of "Attavada".

Nothing intrinsically wrong with such a hypothesis, but the Buddha taught something vastly different.

this plants a seed in the consciousness, which when watered by repeated ego responses will bear fruit or have an effect.

Now we have two Attas at work here -- a constant and continuous ego, and a constant and continuous consciousness. Neither comports with the Buddha's doctrine of Anatta. The Buddha taught vinnana, which we translate as "consciousness", as a process of awareness of a sense object through a sensory system, and nothing more. This awareness comes and goes as sense objects enter and leave the range of that sensory system's capabilities.

Vinnana for the Buddha was not some cosmic karma repository.

So, I am getting a clear idea of many ways karma does not work for you Stuka... I have to ask , what is the process through which karma cause & effect operates according to your understanding or tradition?

...further down the line in the stream of consciousness

The idea of a "stream of consciousness" is a much later invention. Again, for the Buddha, vinanna is not a constant and continuous "stream", but one of several perceptive processes that arise and disappear completely according to contact that arises between a particular sensory system and objects that fall within that particular system's sensory range.

Could you elaborate on this a little more on this definition of consciousness? I am not understanding why it is an issue to refer to a sequence of perceptive processes as a stream, this does not imply definitive reality.

If one believes that the mind does not depend on the body for existence it is easy to see how holding such a powerful belief (of harm coming from without) could lead to an existence in a hell realm.

A person who commits a premeditated murder believes that there will be no adverse consequences. And believes powerfully enough to carry through that intention of premeditated murder. Otherwise, that person would not commit a premeditated murder. Holding such a powerful belief, of no harm coming from without, how could a hell realm come to be after death, through the mechanism of that person's "strong belief", for that person in the speculative scenario you suggest?

Hmmm.... well I will say that this scenario needs work. I think the basic of what I am trying to communicate is that people tend to react to the world based upon preconceptions and that there is a strong connection between the motivating intent of an action and preconceptions. This can occur in 2 ways: preconceptions guiding actions and actions creating/influencing preconceptions.

Well if a murdered did not believe that there will be any karmic results of murder: I am thinking that we can agree that the beliefs referenced above are essentially delusions. So, when the murderer reinforces these erroneous beliefs he is actually strengthening the delusions, not necessarily making his thoughts come true. Reinforcing belief in no karmic results of murder = reinforcing the delusion that there is no karmic cause & effect.

As far as the hell realm piece... I am proposing that there is a connection between the way we perceive things and the way we act, although it may be subtle. I also think that more grossly negative actions (non-virtues) will mask this subtle connection by contaminating perception. In contrast refined positive actions will lead to clearer perception and a greater understanding of the effect of one's action on one's own experience. I am proposing that perception contaminated by negative actions is generally experienced as suffering and perception influenced by meritorious actions will be generally experienced as happiness. Over time a person engages in many actions, both positive and negative. This is where I am taking the leap to say that if a person engages in a great degree of negativity (through repeated moderate negative actions or one or more greatly negative actions such as murder) this results in perception of negativity (or suffering) that will be activated when the appropriate conditions present themselves. This can have an effect in this life, but the majority of an extremely negative perception may also play out as an entire form of existence in a hell realm.

I personally do not believe that the mind is dependent on the body for its existence, but if someone else does, this reasoning would not be helpful.

Nor would it be helpful or relevant for one who does not hold a belief that the mind can exist separately from the body, meaning, neither claims that "the mind is separate from the body", nor claims that "the mind is not separate from the body".

The Buddha did not hold that the mind exists separately from the body, by the way.

Thinking that I have to change this to read that the mind is not entirely dependent on the present body for existence but may move from body to body.

Also, I wonder sometimes that when we lash out and attack another are we not really attacking our unconscious projections.

in our mindstream

Again, a constant and continuous "mindstream" is an attavada notion the Buddha did not teach.

As I understand it the Buddha taught no-self, but had no issue with referential self. Meaning that even though "I" do not exist, this does not mean that we cannot use the word I or another's name as a working point of reference for communication. Why then not refer to a sequence of events of consciousness as a stream?