Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why Karma?
Chrysalid
Veteran
Hi all,
I understand the principle behind karma i.e. cause and effect, but what I've read (which admittedly isn't comprehensive) suggests Buddhism contains the belief in karma as some inherent property of the universe. That, for some reason, the universe has this built in system of justice that dishes out reward and punishment (in this or future lives) based on our actions.
Is this actually what people believe? And if there are people who believe that, can I ask why you believe the universe would have such a property?
Thanks
I understand the principle behind karma i.e. cause and effect, but what I've read (which admittedly isn't comprehensive) suggests Buddhism contains the belief in karma as some inherent property of the universe. That, for some reason, the universe has this built in system of justice that dishes out reward and punishment (in this or future lives) based on our actions.
Is this actually what people believe? And if there are people who believe that, can I ask why you believe the universe would have such a property?
Thanks
0
Comments
Its not an inherent "property" that "dishes out reward and punishment".
Its much simpler than that. Everything in the conventional, functional world is subject to cause and effect, our minds are a part of conventional reality and are therefore subject to the same circumstances.
If you are consistently thinking about and carrying out a negative or positive act, you are building causes and conditions for negative or positive results, based solely upon conditioning and functional reality. Not some higher power or force that rewards or punishes.
If one's intention is full of greed or anger, the entire experience would be different from one filled with generosity and love.
If one experiences an injustice, one can choose to respond by intending revenge or forgive and forget. The vipaka resulting from one's choice would differ accordingly.
Kamma-vipaka acts largely on the mental level but can easily extend to the physical as the mind and matter are interrelated.
Just like the Psalmist, I notice that "the wicked" manage to flourish like the green bay tree, which is why some notion of an afterlife or rebirth into less pleasant conditions has to be imported to bring satisfy an illusion of fairness. Unfortunately, as our parents used to tell us, life isn't fair. So, if someone gets a raw deal (death, disaster, bereavement, indigence), it is easier to blame a previous life and accumulated karma than to acknowledge randomness.
http://www.youtube.com/user/BuddhistSocietyWA#p/u/1/zSQI1e8D3Qo
What you've said actually gels very well with how I personally interpreted the concept of Karma. I do find it very confusing though when people talk of building up good karma, or balancing their karma. It's always made sense to me that acting in without compassion hardens the heart (to borrow a Christian phrase) and vice versa.
So I take it that Buddhists, in general, don't believe that disabled people are disabled as a result of actions in their past lives. I always found that an abhorrent idea.
Oh, and thanks for the link Tom.
Wouldnt a "random" disability at birth be more confusing and terrible?
A "karmic" interpretation could be empowering and at least give some kind of answer, and motivation to practice virtue.
What you say here is more suggestive of some inherent property of the universe that conspires to physically punish a person for their actions in a past life. I find that idea more terrible than a universe that deals out lots at random.
How does that suggest an inherent property of the universe that "conspires" in any way?
So a single life of random misery is better than a life of hardship that is based on prior causes and conditions that are continuous and changeable?
You wont like Buddhism much.
Karma isnt necessarily about the mind "conditioning itself". In our lives we experience previously accumulated karma. How we react to our current conditions will determine what kind of future karma we accumulate. Based upon our thoughts, intentions, actions, and their effects on ourselves and others.
Its not a divine judgment. Its just causality, the same causality that we see in the physical world with object etc. only in this case it is applied to our minds and the most subtle aggregates or skanda's.
That's reassuring...
That's if I'm reading you correctly.
I guess it depends on your viewpoint. If you need to see fairness built into the very fabric of the universe, that's your prerogative.
I guess I see physical pain as inevitable, be it the result of a birth defect or acquired during life, but the way I read them the four noble truths teach that suffering/anguish need not be inevitable, regardless of your physical condition.
I'm a scientist by trade, I can accept the randomness of the natural world, I can accept a universe that is ambivalent to the welfare of human beings and I can accept that life is not always fair. That universe doesn't disturb me.
I find it much harder to accept a universe that in any way tallies up all your good deeds and bad and then dishes out physical ailments dependant on the results.
Karma made much more sense to me when people were talking about actions and thoughts conditioning the mind in a way that affects the form future thoughts and actions are likely to take.
Perhaps, or maybe just your interpretation in regard to this matter.
I would suggest that you spend some time studying Buddhism, its different traditions, scriptures and commentaries under the guidance of actual teachers who know the meaning of the material. Based upon that you can make up your own mind.
Nothing that I have said is my "interpretation".
So, may I ask, do you believe karma to be a law of the universe in the same way that the laws of gravity and electromagnatism are? Just the way the world is?
And if so, could you help me to understand the mechanism by which my actions can affect seemingly unrelated phenomena, such as the genetic make-up of a fetus that my consciousness-stream could be born into?
I'm not being facetious nor do I mean any disrespect, this is just how my mind works.
If your answer is that you don't know the mechanism or that it is unimportant, that's fine too.
The "Laws" and workings of Kamma are a subject beyond the speculation of an unenlightened mind, and should not be gone into, for fear they will drive you barmy.
This is not me saying this.
It's an actual instruction from the Buddha himself.
(See the third one).
Kamma is as complex, or as simple a matter as you care to make it.
but don't spend your time in specualtion, or wondering too much. it is too vexatious.
Some seem to have made their minds up about 'collective kamma', but I personally, am too concerned trying to make sure I don't mess up, rather than speculating wildly on what others' karma has brought them to....
I wouldnt feel comfortable saying that I "believe" karma is a law of the universe like gravity etc..
There are of course different interpretations of how karma and rebirth function in Buddhism. Many people, in my opinion, incorrectly attribute rebirth to some kind of "consciousness" that transmigrates. I dont think thats the case and I'm not sure what the mechanism or basis for it is. I get the impression that its much more natural than that. Some basic quality that is identityless, birthless, and deathless, that permeates and is free from conceptual reality.
The best word for the most basic element of natural awareness is discussed in the Tibetan Dzogchen tradition. The word is rigpa and it is often mistranslated as awareness.
The general idea is that it is the ultimate nature of being. It is empty of inherent existence, yet is marked by a quality of energetic luminosity.
I am giving a poor description right now but the actual teachings on this avoid extreme views of nothingness and eternalism that in a way is very meaningful and relevant to practice.
If anything functions in a way that transcends ordinary death, I think it is something like this.
It's not so much a matter of speculation for me as it is one of understanding. I can accept that karma is a law with regard to human nature, that we reap what we sow within the context of our own mental states and current lives. But I find it very difficult to accept a concept of karma that stretches beyond that into realms more spiritual and esoteric. I can't accept things unquestioningly (i.e. without understanding or experiencing them) anymore, I've done that a lot and it's hurt me psychologically.
If it's really so central to Buddhism that I believe in a metaphysical concept of karma, well I don't know what to do because the rest of the Buddha's teachings make so much sense to me.
Can I believe in karma in the form I can comfortably accept, as I've outlined above, and still successfully follow the Buddhist path? Or would I just be wasting my time as I'd constantly be misunderstanding?
Thank you very much for this shenpen, you've explained your POV quite clearly so I think I see where you're coming from with regard to karma now.
As you can see from what I've written above, I'm not in a place mentally where I can share your beliefs. Do you think that is a major barrier to my progress?
Cause and effect is not about reward or punishment, Just as 2+2 isnt about it being good or bad but it having the effect of the imputed outcome.
The man who works a life of charity will always receive the respect and admiration of others and plentiful resources through these acts of giving, This is an effect of certain actions. Reward or punishment exist in the mind, Like a lense of viewing things.
Does the universe have cause and effect as a property ? Buddha seemed to think that this was very much a part of samsara and accorded for much of our suffering today, or why some people experience good fortune or other Depravity and poverty.
If i push a glass of a table and it smashes this is a cause and effect, Is it good or bad ? That depends on your mind.
Karma doesn't explain anything. (Including "Why bad things happen to good people," etc.)
Some people do. There is some speculation about the historical basis for this belief in this essay.
Ok. But how, and why would it exist at all? That's what I'm struggling with.
Why would the universe include an aspect that allows a living being to accrue positivity and negativity on a level that exists beyond the physical or psychological? How would that karma pass from one body to another, what is the mechanism?
If the answer people have is that it is a mystery, that it is, as shenpen said, a "basic quality" that permeates living beings and is the "ultimate reality", then that's ok. I have no reason to debunk such a belief.
I cannot personally believe in that though, not without experience of it first hand.
I can accept karma in this form;
As a phenomena of the human psyche, a man who has hateful thoughts and carries out hateful actions becomes more attuned to that way of thinking and will be more likely to think and act in that way in the future.
As a phenomena of inter-personal relationships, a man who is mean to people will have people be mean to him and so will experience the fruits of his meanness via the reactions of others.
As a phenomena of mental anguish, those who are hate filled experience suffering as a result of their anger, their depression and their obsession with the object of hate.
And of course vice versa with compassion replacing hate.
I can accept this because I have experienced of it first hand.
If I need to believe in a metaphysical karma to be a Buddhist though, then I don't think I can be a Buddhist. I've tried accepting concepts like this before, to me it's no different to magic, divination or supplicationary prayer. In attempting to accept those things as true without affirmation of their reality via personal experience, I created within my mind cognitive dissonance that led to great psychological suffering on my part.
Part of what drew me to Buddhism was that I read that the Buddha asked his followers to question his teachings and only accept what they find true by experience.
If that is not the case for karma and rebirth, if they are so central that they cannot be disbelieved in, then perhaps I am wasting my time studying the rest of the dharma, no matter how sensible it may seem.
I've read somewhere there are different 'levels' of karma...
I don't remember the details...
There is personal karma, karma created by our own acting/not-acting
But there is also 'worldly karma', karma that is not created by your own acting/not-acting, but by events bigger then you. For example a vulcano or an earthquake.
global warming would be both I guess..
it makes a lot of sense to me.
WW2 is also a result of karma (Germany loosing the first world war, shaping Hitler's vision on some things, economic cricis, the last remains of emperialism, technological developments, global political imbalance etc. etc.). The effects of these causes had a major impact on peoples their lives, altough they themselves had nothign to do with it.
The hatred against jews particular has earlier roots, (terrible by the way) way back throughout history. Maybe the genocide was an effect of al this build up 'cause' for so long.
However, i'm not a master on this topic, or buddhism in general, so don't take my words for truth!!! it's just a point of view.
I agree, there is no reason to believe that karma works as some kind of judicial bank account. This is a corruption of the original teaching.
Sounds good.
You don't need to believe anything. Buddhist practice leads to an end to establishing personal identity through attachment to beliefs.
You have been confused by authoritarian corruptions of the teaching.
Hello, Chrysalid, and welcome to the forum. Perhaps you'll find some of my past thoughts on kamma and rebirth helpful.
I was upset that I'd be unable to fully commit myself to a path that had supernatural beliefs as central doctrine. I think I'm just going to let it go, adopt an agnostic approach for the moment, study other areas of the teachings and come back to this later, when perhaps I'll have a greater understanding.
Thanks to everyone who has given their time to reply to this and tried to help me out.
Thank you Jason, I find your thinking very helpful, I've added your blog to my favourites.
With respect, EVERYTHING you said is your interpretation. It can be no other way.
100% agreed.
Reincarnation is in no way essential to Buddhism. Karma is. All causes have an effect. All effects have a cause. Unskillful causes have unskillful effects. Skillful causes have skillful effects. That is karma. The validity of extending this to past or future lives is not something that can be proven one way or another. It is my understanding that within Buddhism karma is not powerful enough to determine one's lot in this life. There are many factors which determine this and among them are heredity and nature vs. nurture. It is my understanding that Buddhism's view of 'rebirth' stands distinct from the Hindu view which the Buddha viewed as a corruption. The Hindu view, as I understand it, has been used to justify dividing humans into classes or castes. It was also used to keep the low class low class and protect the status of the high class. It seems to me that to believe a child born with horrific defects is born so because of awful deeds in a past life is 100% contrary to the teachings of the Buddha. It is much more in line with the Hindu belief in karma which is quite linear. Buddhism's view is much more complex.
I know of nothing in Buddhism that would offend an atheist other than those beliefs adopted by some on what amounts to blind faith or faith in a particular teacher, both of which the Buddha warned against. It is fine to believe in reincarnation if that makes sense to a person and it is fine to have no such belief if it doesn't make sense to a person.
I do not have any beliefs in reincarnation and nobody can prove I am wrong. Some do have beliefs in reincarnation and I cannot prove they are wrong. It's a futile thing to waste much mental energy on. Would we really be so filled with hate that we would divide ourselves on such a trivial matter? Would we really allow hate to arise over such a stupid, unimportant matter?
The Buddha himself said his teaching was nothing more than suffering, the cause of suffering and the end of suffering. This is a very simple teaching to understand and it may take a lifetime to master.
Anyone who tells you that you must believe this unprovable assertion or that unprovable assertion is clinging to a delusion. Challenge their delusion and they become defensive revealing their pride and ego or in more Buddhist terms, their greed.
Chrysalid, You identified yourself as a scientist by training/trade. I think you will find Buddhism to be fully compatible with your training. I think you will also find that Buddhism provides you with something science cannot. Ethics. Science is not unethical, but neither is it ethical. Science can answer many questions our ancestors found mysterious and built superstitions around. What science cannot do is answer the question of 'how then should I live?'
The path the Buddha walked and the path you can walk can answer that fundamental question.
Be well.
A very important point, and one which is rarely examined in depth. Buddhism provides us with tools to confront even the most complex ethical questions, without laying down absolute 'laws'. The BBC are running an excellent series on Radio 4 about the Ethical Committees in our hospitals. The problems include:
* What do you do about a person who was born with HIV, developed AIDS in her youth, was bad at taking meds, is now desperately ill but is also now an adult and in hospital?
* What should an NHS trust and a surgeon do about a patient who had a gastric band fitted abroad, privately, and is now having problems and cannot afford further private treatment?
Of course, these problems apply to the UK, not the US, with our "free at the point of need" health service but similar medical ethical problems arise everywhere, mutatis mutandis (I used that phrase before and use it again because it says just what I want but more economically. It means something like: change the statement in accordance with the changed context).
All judicial systems supply us with ethical problems and it is worth considering that Christmas Humphreys, an early 20th century British Buddhist translator and writer, was also a prosecutor in capital murder cases (e.g. Timothy Evans) but only accepted a seat on the bench after the abolition of capital punishment. He was eventually asked by the Lord Chancellor to resign because some of his lenient sentences caused a public outcry. There is a very good article from the Korean Journal of Comparative on Mr Justice Humphreys at http://www.katinkahesselink.net/his/Christmas-Humphreys.htm. The writer makes the point that Humphreys wrote extensively on karma.
He concludes: </pre>
Seconded with gusto!
Good post.
Hi Chrysalid,
of course, notions of karma and rebirth deserve lengthy discussions, but I know there is at least one sutta where the Buddha advises us not to explain our current situation based on previous karma, to the extent that we ignore common sense. It's the Moliyasivaka Sutta found in the Samyutta Nikaya (SN 36.21).
Here is an excerpt:
When those ascetics and brahmins hold such a doctrine and view as this, 'Whatever a person experiences, whether it be pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant, all that is caused by what was done in the past,' they overshoot what one knows by oneself and they overshoot what is considered to be true in the world. Therefore I say that this is wrong on the part of those ascetics and brahmins. (see Exploring Karma & Rebirth by Nagapriya p. 36)
Personally, I think that your refusal to force yourself to believe something that you don't is a remarkable thing. It shows that you're true to your inner wisdom, which is a priceless thing to have. Of course, there's a lot of things that seem unusual in Buddhism, so we need an open mind too. If you have the combination of discriminative wisdom and an open mind, then wow, you will make great progress!
The Hindu version of karma, which is often the dictionary definition, is fatalistic and smacks of destiny pouring mud all over you, denying you any washing facilities. The Buddhist version is more like the cause-and-effect of the here-and-now; like driving a cart on a dirt path; if you follow a favourite (or habitual) route, you will wear grooves into the road, until you don't have to steer anymore - the ruts will steer your cart for you. You can steer out of the ruts towards a 'more skillful' route, but deep ruts can be difficult to wear/jump out of.
Also, I heard somewhere a basic interpretation of karma that actually splits karma into different categories: The karma everyone thinks about in the sense of mind and action is the karma of mind and action (though there is a fancy buddhist word for it). Then there is the karma of the physical world - the cause-and-effect of natural processes like gravity and 'spark + hydrogen gas = kaboom'. Then there's the karma of biological cause-and-effect - inherent biological processes that occur simply due to the conditioning factors previous. There's more, I think, but it helps break down the umbrella concept of "cause-and-effect karma".
hmmm... In your example I would agree that crime did pay in a material sense, but did it pay in a spiritual sense?
The crime was an unskillful act that came from unskillfull thoughts/feelings.
To the extent that the unskillful act is perceived by the criminal as having resulted in good things it will lead right back to more unskillful thoughts and feelings which then lead to more unskillful actions.
In other words the criminal finds himself caught in the karma wheel, making no spiritual progress until he finds a way off it. He may 'die happy' as you say, but is that happiness the happiness we as Buddhists are seeking or is that kind of happiness really dukkha in disguise?
I agree with this.
I heard that Karma from former lives manifests in this life, but, as has been said, it is difficult to know where it originates from in our innumerable former lives.
I also heard - with regards to disability that was mentioned earlier- that the Karma of being human brings with it the problems of being human. This may manifest as accidents, and foetal interference from accidents or disease, that may cause disability. I think the idea that a simple an action and effect view is an oversimplification, and probably a symptom of our human experience of time. the reference to a field of karma ripening at different times holds the possibility of different human cicumstance combining at different times. Logically, if we have innumerable lives, then there are innumerable circumstances in which we may be born.
Our task now, then, is to try to cultivate the ripening of good karma.
It depends. Very often, a person some consider a criminal will consider themselves an honest person, and not simply because they are refusing to see the truth, but because what they did might be morally ambiguous. A person kills someone and is then considered a murderer, even though they felt the act was justified. Another person kills someone with their society's permission (e.g., in war) and they are considered a hero. Particularly in the latter case, the "hero" might well live and die with a clear conscience, and without suffering associated with the killing they committed.
Are these cases of delusion?
A person kills someone and is then considered a murderer, even though they felt the act was justified.
Killing has a clear Karmic effect whether or not the person thinks it justified or not. This is mitigated if the murderer did so out of compassion for someone who would be worse off perhaps - maybe a mass murderer?
Another person kills someone with their society's permission (e.g., in war) and they are considered a hero.
This may be a delusion, but you could argue that WW2 for example was a just war that halted the Nazis. I think it comes down to individual motivation though. Clearly you could have homicidal maniacs and compassionate people on the same side killing the enemy, both considered to be heroes, but there being something different in their motivation.
Being born into a war is rather unfortunate, though acts of great courage and kindness are also committed.
I hope you don't mind me joining in.:)
Indeed - I've been taught that, as far as rebirth theories go, that being human is the best 'place' to be to achieve Enlightenment - it has the perfect mix of pleasure and pain, circumstances and the like that provide a great learning environment. Other realms of existences - symbolic or not - are not so easy to weight the two sides of life up, and realise there's a third option.
Thus, killing a fellow human, irregardless of the motivation for doing so, is essentially one of the most unskillful and horrible thing to do: The killer is denying their victim the chance to develop, possibly even setting them "back" in terms of access to the human realm.
Of course, I totally agree with the ethical quandary of when to take the life of another human is the lesser of two evils (or unskillful acts) - my take on it is, I'd rather face the music after taking out a serial killer trying to kill me or my loved ones, than risk the killer further harming others. Though, that argument could easily turn into a 'turn the other cheek... only to drive the momentum into a spinning kick into their head' excuse. :hrm:
I will have to give this some thought. My first reaction is that it is impossible to kill a human being without both causing and experiencing suffering.
Many soldiers who have seen combat have serious psychological issues they end up having to deal with. Many police officers who have found themselves in a situation where they had to shoot a someone in order to prevent someone else from being harmed undergo counseling to deal with the mental/emotional effects of the action.
However, I think we can expand the 'field of karma' out further. Person A kills person B. Person A was 'justified' in this action according to however one determines what would justify killing. Person A has a clean conscience and appears to not suffer at all from the act of killing. Person C suffers upon learning person B has been killed. Person B was person C's father.
Person C has just lost a father, possibly the sole means of material support etc. Clearly person C suffers greatly.
Of course, there is always the possibility that person C will come seeking revenge upon person A, too.
I can see where this topic can be fun to discuss and toss around, but I think the important part about karma is that we focus on creating the good kind with our thoughts and actions to the best of our ability. The rest will work itself out.
Sigh.
Hell, no.
It is interesting since what kind of kamma is generated is considered to depend on intention. So, if one has society's permission to kill and fully considers that killing justified, one's intention may be good and so may generate good kamma, assuming for the sake of argument that kamma exists. Isn't that an oddity?
As a Westerner who has inherited the Western intellectual tradition, I see the peril of believing stuff without good evidence. Kamma comes under that heading. As a Buddhist, I don't use the concept of kamma at all in my efforts to achieve freedom from suffering, as it doesn't seem relevant to those efforts. I don't know of any Buddhist practice that involves meditating on kamma, dwelling on it, thinking about it a lot, or anything like that, so it doesn't seem relevant anyway, particularly as the results of kamma, and therefore effectively kamma itself, constitute one of the Four Imponderables.