15. The Causal Law of Kamma

We know about the "IF (condition) THEN (effect)" causal theory which may have come from a large number of observations in either direction. In the forward direction, we observe when (condition) y arises then (effect) x follows. From the backward direction, we see repeatedly (effect) x always follows after (condition) y. We note that (condition) y must come before (effect) x. Because we know that the Past comes before the Present (and thus comes before the Future). What if we observe "IF c THEN e" whenever we see "IF y THEN x"? We could say that the two theories are strongly correlated or we have evidence to say that "IF theory 1 THEN theory 2". We may generalize the situations as "IF {system of conditions} THEN {system of effects}" which collapse to a simple case when {system of conditions} is a simple condition y and {system of effects} is a simple effect x. We can say for examples:

1) multiple-simple:   IF {a, b, c, d,...}               THEN {x, y,...}
2) multiple-complex: IF { IF {a,b,c,...} THEN {e,f,...} } THEN { IF {y,z,...} THEN {x,e,...} }

We may draw analogy from our experiential/sensory learning. IF, we see a, hear b, feel c,... THEN we know x and understand y,....

We accept that learning from senses is directly binding (thus internalizing) and much more long-lasting than 'rote learning'. But we ask if sense learning can be applied to complex logical or non-emotional context-free areas?
Learning aids: audio-visual, simulators, and drills are often designed on "IF {experience y} THEN {learn x}".

Next we should ask "IF ('have learned x') THEN {what are effective expressions of x}"?.

We can see that when experiential/sensory learning is conducted, the learners should simply "perform" what they have learned. For example (experiential) learning to speak English should result in learners "speaking" English [in varying levels of competency].

Let's think of learning as cooking. At the end of our learning/cooking course, we have a "tangible product" [as well as "experience"] that we can again "taste" [test]. Graduates of a cooking school can cook a {set of dishes} and know how to "create" different dishes from given ingredients. Should graduates of an English class speak a {set of topics} and know how to "answer" odd questions in different context? We would expect graduate doctors to be able to treat a {set of diseases} and know how to design treatment courses for different emergencies. In the same way, we would expect teachers...
 
What about the speed of change? Given "IF (c) THEN (e)" we also want to know if this is "instantaneous" ("immediate") or some time t (eventually) later. We assume of course that 'cause c' and 'effect e' are in one (connected and observable or more mathematically 'continuous' and 'measurable') space and exist within a period of time. [Thinking (or internalizing) can be a struggle, where remembering (or copying) is much easier ;) .]

We have been bashing our heads against the wall. We have been troubled by our children's education. We have been blaming children, teachers, (lack of) school equipment, ... When we ask parents "what do they expect their children to learn in school?" Most parents would answer: "so the children can get good jobs". Very few parents would say "such and such skills ... so the children can be doctors or engineers or teachers,...". The real problem here is that we don't define "what the tangible effect/product of learning is" and most people don't know what to expect. Examination writers may know. But education as a whole has failed to educate the public (parents and children) about the "tangible" effect of each curriculum subject. And education may have even failed in training graduates on "how to learn more" (or how to develop oneself). [Please see ดร. แสวง รวยสูงเนิน การศึกษาต้นแบบที่น่าสนใจ (ในกลุ่มนักศึกษาแพทย์).]

The challenge in education right now is to "deliver" tangible skills [and "1001 ways to use the skills"] to learners [and the public -- yes, people also need to learn more ;)]. Do the [Ministry of Education] curricula for schools contain "objectives" and "deliverable skills"? Are these deliverables being assembled in classes? Are these deliverables received by school children? Understood by their parents -- the public?

<NB> The Ripple Effect: Through the children, many parents and adults can also receive these deliverable skills (products) and learn to use the skills (products). This ripple effect can be used to further adult education in the public at large. This effect can be seen 'now' in computer and multi-media areas. There are many more areas that (even educated) parents are lagging behind their own children, where ripple effects can help. There is, however, a general perception among adults that most children don't have "real life experience" or cannot "do things without supervision". This is a ripple-effect barrier that must be overcome. One way is probably to ensure -- without failing -- delivery to children (educational) skills/products "useful" and "practical" in "daily life". Such deliverables may include clean food, clean energy, health and environmental skills/products (such as sugar-free drink, solar hot water, ultraviolet shades, parks wildlife reserves and fish sanctuaries). [An example is in 'โครงงาน จากบันทึกของ อาจารย์กลิ่น สระทองเนียม' <http://www.vcharkarn.com/vcafe/144138/1>.]

<NB> In Thai, we say ตามบุญตามกรรม (according to past [good and bad] deeds] or 'whatever will be will be') when we do not put enough efforts into delivering something. Then the "causal law of Kamma" [IF (no effort) THEN (no effect)] applies. And we stay where we are. The same law works for us -- if we "start" the necessary conditions then deliverable effects can flow.

It may be prudent here to select deliverables carefully and to ensure prompt delivery rather than tall-poppy promises. In a workshop lingo: "we ensure delivery of achievables -- on time and on cost".

<NB> The Industrial Evolution: The classical objective in education has been to deliver graduates (as products) to meet the society's public-infrastructural and industrial needs. People learned skills and earned their living from their skills. Until 60 years ago, there were great needs  for skilled workers in arts and crafts to produce products for mass  markets. Potters, carpenters, ship builders and so on thrived. 30 years later mechanization had replaced many skills but created many machine operators, assemblers and fitters. International trading made strong demand for local marketing and localization skills. In the last 20 years, (computer-assisted) automation in manufacturing has further reduced demand for skilled labor or relocated to lower labor cost areas. Globalization also got on global branding and the needs for localization diminished.

It should be clear that in manufacturing, skilled workers have been progressively replaced wheresoever possible by either machines or  cheaper less-skilled workers. Products designers are still needed. But they too are being pushed to into higher and multiple skills or out of work. Similar trends are evident in (broad acre, monoculture) farming, (open-cut) mining, (do-it-yourself) banking. Currently, rapid conversions are taking place in surveillance and law enforcement (anti-terrorism) areas.   

Products can and may soon be evolved by (human-assisted) computers to respond to local and individual needs (again) or the availability of local materials (to offset the cost of transport). Products may be customized and produced for individuals "on demand" (rather than for "stock-and-sale" as they are today). With the Internet, English language and air transport, many skills and services can be offered and obtained globally for many specific needs.

In the near future, we will need to reskill many times in our lifetime as competition for clean food, clean water, energy and safe shelter gets tougher (due to increase in world population). A top skill may be 'to learn and adjust' locally and quickly.

I recommend ดร. ดิศกุล เกษมสวัสดิ์: คิดยุทธการที่บ้านพิษณุโลก...ปฏิรูปประเทศไทยในส่วนการปฏิรูปการศึกษาประชากรวัยแรงงาน