BuddhaSasana Home Page
English Section
The Tsunami - A Buddhist View
Bhikkhu S. Dhammika
Buddhism teaches causation, that the whole universe is a web of interrelated causes and effects. There are two types of causation -- natural causation and moral causation. Natural causation has nothing to do with people being good or bad, it is simply a matter of the various forces in the universe acting on each other. A rainstorm or crops ripening would be examples of natural causation. Natural causes can of course have an effect on us -- being caught in a rainstorm can give us a bad cold. But suffering from a cold has nothing to do with moral or immoral past actions -- it would be a natural effect of a natural cause.
Moral causation is about how people think, speak and act and how they feel as a result. The Buddha's teaching of Kamma is only concerned with moral causation. Being helpful to someone, having them thank you and feeling happiness because of that; stealing something, getting caught and then experiencing embarrassment or shame, would be examples of moral causation. The person's happiness or discomfort are a direct result of how they have acted. The person is not being 'rewarded' or 'punished' for their actions, their happiness or discomfort is simply a result of their actions. Now let us have a look at the recent tsunami in the light of the doctrine of Kamma.
A tsunami is an example of an event caused by natural causation. The tectonic plates on the earth's surface move causing an earthquake, the energy released creates huge waves which, if they hit the coast, cause devastation. The people in the area where the recent tsunami hit are experiencing two types of suffering -- suffering caused by natural causation and suffering caused by moral causation, i.e., Kamma. During the deluge a person might have been hit by a falling tree, cut by a piece of metal or smashed against a wall. These would be examples of the painful effects of natural causes and would have nothing to do with past moral or immoral actions.
Kamma concerns peoples' intentional thoughts, speech and actions (kamma) and the effects of those reactions (vipaka). I will give examples of different ways people could react to the tsunami and the effects they could have. Lets say there are two people -- a man and women -- both are injured in the tsunami and loose their home and means of livelihood. The man falls into despair, 'Why me?' he cries. 'If only I had been out of town today', he said in anger and regret. By thinking like this he compounds his suffering. But soon his thoughts change. He notices that his neighbor's home is little damaged and he thinks, 'That dog, I never liked him, it's a pity his house wasn't destroyed.' He is further compounding his suffering and as well as reinforcing ugly and negative states of mind. Later he thinks, 'Well, it's every man for himself,' and he starts walking around seeing if he can steal anything from abandoned houses.' Now the man's negative thoughts and feelings are leading to negative actions.
Now let us have a look at the woman's reactions. After she recovers from the initial trauma her first thought is, 'How fortunate I am to have survived.' She has suffered but she has not added to her suffering by being regretful, despairing or angry. Then she thinks, 'There must be others much worse off than me. I must see what I can do to help,' and she starts looking around for injured people. Thinking of others gives her a degree of detachment from her own circumstances and thus, once again, this does not add to her suffering. The next day she manages to get some food which is being distributed by the government and as she walks away she notices a child who did not get any. She comforts the child and shares her food with him. Seeing that the child is all by himself she decides to look after him. After a few days the child's father sees him and is tremendously grateful to the women for having looked after him. The father is now living with his sister in a nearby town unaffected by the tsunami and invites the woman to come and stay with him where she gets food and shelter. The woman's positive thoughts and actions have now had a concrete positive effect on her life.
Now why did the man react in one way and the women in another? Because of how they have reacted to their various experiences in the past, i.e. because of their past Kamma. The man's negative mental habits in the past (kamma) have meant that he has negative mental habits now and these in turn make it more likely that he will have negative mental habits in the future. These mental habits make him suffer more than he would have otherwise ( vipaka). The woman (she might be a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Christian or of no religion) has been taught and has always believed that it is important to have a good thoughts and actions and has always tried to cultivate them. Her positive mental habits in the past (kamma) have meant that she has positive mental habits now and these in turn make it more likely that she will have positive mental habits in the future. These mental habits minimized her suffering and led to her being looked after by the father of the child. In other words, her positive past actions (kamma) have had a positive effect (vipaka) now.
So according to Buddhism the physical pain that the victims of the tsunami experienced is the outcome of various natural causes. How they are reacting to these natural causes is their Kamma, the results of their negative or positive reactions in the future (tomorrow, next month, next year, perhaps next life), will be their vipaka. As human beings of finite knowledge and power we have only limited influence over natural causes. We do, however, have the ability to mold and influence our reactions to situations. If we make no effort to develop our minds in positive ways we might, in the future, find ourselves overwhelmed by unexpected circumstances. If we do make the effort to develop our minds, particularly through meditation, we may be better prepared to endure and even triumph over future adversity.
4
Comments
For example, I look at the swirl of negative events in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Or how about the Civil War?
Namaste to all and may all good health and peace.
The subject of collective kamma bothers me for a number of reasons, though. It's not that I think it's impossible for there to be a concentration of individual kammic results in one place, due to the combined actions of a cohesive whole, such as from the citizens of a country. I think it's a valid frame of reference. But even so, I still tend to view them as individual actions with individual results that are, or least appear to be, similar (i.e., nations don't have intentions, the citizens of those nation do).
Furthermore, the idea of collective kamma bothers me when people use it unskillfully, e.g., when people harbour intense guilt for actions that they themselves didn't commit, and then end up creating more suffering for themselves by cultivating unwholesome mental states in the belief that they're somehow responsible, perhaps out of a desire to be punished or something.
I think that if people use the idea of collective kamma in a skillful way, such as being more active in their country's politics to help steer public policy, giving humanitarian aide, etc., it can be a good thing that helps to lessen suffering all around. But given the tendency of people to harbour guilt in numerous and often unwholesome ways, I feel that the idea of collective kamma can do more harm than good, such as leading to taking on the 'weight of the world' when what we really want to do is cast our burdens aside.
I think if we view the teachings on kamma as teachings about personal responsibility, that our actions not only affect ourselves but those around us, then we're on the right track. When it comes to carrying the guilt of other's misdeeds, however, I think that's a self-imposed burden that we needn't bear. We can't change the past, we can only control how we act right here, right now; and I believe using the past as a lesson in how not to make the same mistakes is sufficient.
What I mean is, wouldn't all these laws be natural and or kammic laws? How could we have biological, psychological and seasonal laws as being distinct from the other two?
Wouldn't they all have to take each other into consideration?
These may sound like stupid questions but I honestly don't see it...
Does this mean there is five different chains of causation which have no effect on each other?
In the here and now, we all have to deal with the effects of each others actions so it's a bit tricky. I hope not. I think a lack of wonder would lead to stagnation.
That and the old saying that the only thing that stays the same is that everything changes.
My understanding of these five laws are as follows: utu-niyama relates to physical, inorganic processes (e.g., seasonal phenomena, weather); bija-niyama relates to physical, organic processes (e.g., the growth of germs or seeds); citta-niyama relates to psychological processes and the workings of the mind (e.g., mental activities such as consciousness, thoughts, perceptions, etc.); kamma-niyama relates to intentional actions and their results; and dhamma-niyama relates to universal, dhammic laws (e.g., the three characteristics).
In the above example, S. Dhammika illustrates the distinction between natural causation (tectonic plates shift causing an earthquake and subsequent tsunami) and moral causation (two people's actions and habits influencing their reaction to surviving a tsunami).
It's kind of like differentiating between different kinds of pizzas (e.g., veggie, meat lovers, thin crust, etc.) when the need arises, even though they can all be grouped under the category 'pizza.'