Introduction
‘K arma’ literally means action. For the Buddha, ‘karma’ did not refer to any and all action, but specifically to willed or intentional action (and thus karma is to be grouped with the aggregate of volitional or intentional activity). Intentional or willed actions include not just bodily behaviours, but also speech and, importantly, mental activity.
The act of desiring, fearing, or hoping, even if they do not manifest outwardly with bodily movement or verbal expression, still constitute karma in this Buddhist view.
The theory of karma also connects actions to reactions in a law-like manner. It is commonly held, in Buddhism and in the Indian tradition in general, that there are causal connections between past, present and future actions and happenings. That is, one’s past deeds are held to have a determining effect on one’s present state and one’s present and past deeds, through the operation of karma, to have a determining effect on one’s future state. This is not supposed to entail that one’s present state
is fully determined by one’s past acts (or that one’s future state will be fully determined by one’s present and past deeds), but it does accept the existence of causal connections. It is held that we can affect the future through changes in our present actions, and this presumes that the present is not fully determined by the past. In other words, karmic connections admit universal causation, but not causal determinism, and this is in line with the doctrine of Dependent Origination discussed in the previous chapter. Thus, while the theory of karma asserts that there are law-like causal connections between the past, present and future, these are not taken to be fully determining causal connections. For instance, making changes in order to follow the Noble Eightfold path, so that suffering may be overcome, is presumed to be a possibility open at any time. If we are truly able to decide, in the present, for one course of action rather than another, then the past cannot be fully determining the present.
Instead of being fatalistic, karma is seen as something that should lead people to accept responsibility for their present and future lot in life.
The idea is that, because of karma, people can come to see that their present lot and their present suffering is an outcome of their own previ-ous actions over which they had control. This ability, to be in control of whether we suffer or not, is clearer when suffering is conceived in terms of the third grouping in the First Noble Truth rather than in terms of the first two groupings. We may not always be able to prevent our-selves from experiencing pain or grief, or from becoming ill. We cannot prevent aging and death at all. We cannot always remain unmoved by unsatisfied desires. But these are not by themselves suffering under the Buddhist conception. Suffering results from craving and attachment to self. Whether we crave, and to what extent we are self-attached, is a result of our own doing, and our own minds, and overcoming this attachment can likewise be a result of our own mental efforts.
The law-like connections between cause and effect in the theory of karma connect the concept of karma to the doctrine of Dependent Origination, as well as to the Noble Truths, for these also emphasize the importance of causal connectivity. Understanding karma in close connec-tion to Dependent Originaconnec-tion is to understand karma consistently with
Buddhist doctrine. However, in other respects, it is difficult to understand karma in a manner consistent with basic Buddhist doctrine and principles.
This is particularly the case with the concept of rebirth which is often associated with karma. This will be discussed further below and will involve elaborating upon a distinction introduced at the end of the previ-ous chapter: continuity over time versus identity over time.
Karma and Morality
Karma should not be confused with moral justice, or reward and punishment. The theory of karma is a theory of cause and effect, of intentional action and reaction, which is not intrinsically bound up with justice. Still, good volitional actions are thought to produce good effects through the operation of karma (and bad volitional actions are thought to produce bad effects). Hateful thoughts, for instance, are thought to lead to suffering. Insofar as hateful thoughts involve cravings and further one’s attachment to self, then given the understanding of suffering in the Buddhist sense, we can see how suffering can result from hateful thoughts. Likewise with covetous thoughts, etc. If we keep to the under-standing of suffering as involving attachment to self, then hateful actions should not be thought to lead, by the workings of karma, to suffering in the form of public disapprobation, bodily injury, economic loss or some such travail (either in this life or another), as these are not intrinsically suffering in the Buddhist sense. That is, as long as suffering is conceived in terms of attachment and craving, then the nature of the causal mecha-nism is this: intentional actions that involve cravings and attachment to self will further entrench attachment to self; this is to cause suffering in the Buddhist sense.
Nevertheless, karma or karmic connections are commonly thought of as having a greater moral connotation than just this, and this warrants some discussion. Buddhism arose within a cultural and religious milieu with established ways of understanding things, and while Buddhism appropriated some of these ways in explaining itself, it also set itself apart
by criticizing others.1 As we have seen, Buddhism rejects aspects of tra-ditional Upanishadic or Brahmanical thought, but it also appropriates aspects of this tradition. The Buddha’s audience employed certain basic concepts in its understanding of the world, and the Buddha employed some of these same concepts in making himself understood to his audi-ence. Karma is among those concepts that were appropriated – with some amendment – to express Buddhist doctrines.2
The notion of karma (as well as rebirth, to be discussed below) was prominent in the Vedic and Brahmanical traditions of the Buddha’s time and was important for maintaining a moral order. Thomas appropriately describes karma and rebirth as among traditional Indian responses to the challenges to justice in light of the presence of suffering and evil. He states:
They are the Indian answers to the eternal problems of pain and evil. A man does wrong and suffers for it. But he may suffer when he has done no apparent wrong. Hence his wrong was done in a former life, and if he does wrong and apparently receives no ret-ribution, he will be punished for his sin in another birth. Like all
1 C.f. Gombrich: “the central teachings of the Buddha came as a response to the central teachings of the old Upanisads, notably the Brhadaranyaka. On some points, which he perhaps took for granted, he was in agreement with the Upanisadic doctrine; on others he criticised it.” Gombrich (1997), p.
31. And from Collins: “The intellectual stratum of Buddhism worked with the basic paradigm provided by Brahmanical thought, accepting the overall form, while rejecting certain features.” Collins (1982), pp. 39-40.
2 Collins, for instance, states: “… the appearance in the Brahmanical great tradition of the ideas of samsara, karma, and moksa, was complete before the time of the Buddha. This was the cultural world into which he was born, and it was with these conceptual tools that he articulated his message of salvation.” Collins (1982), p. 64. See also Harvey: “While teachings on karma and rebirth are an important part of Buddhist belief, they are not the most crucial, nor the most specifically Buddhist. They act, though, as the lead-up to, and motivator for the most important teachings, those on the Four Holy Truths.” Harvey (1990), p. 46. It is interesting to note that when Buddhism reaches into China, and then Korea and Japan, where the cultural and moral traditions did not involve or require beliefs in karma and rebirth, the presentations of Buddhism makes less use of these concepts.
theories that accept sin and evil as positive realities, the doctrine of rebirth rests upon faith, and ultimately on the faith that sin must find its punishment.1
Karma and rebirth were notions that had wide currency. They pro-vided a moral framework in which justice could be conceptualized as being meted out on a grand scale (by allowing for unpunished injustice in this life to be punished in a future life, and good acts unrewarded in this life to be rewarded in another). As Thomas explains, the com-mon acceptance of karma and rebirth served to maintain a moral order by helping people believe that wrongful acts, while perhaps of immediate advantage, would by the effects of karma meet with nega-tive consequences, perhaps later in this lifetime or perhaps in the next.
A detrimental effect of this is that it can lead people to be accepting of their present circumstances – be it good, bad, rich or poor – by leading them to think of these circumstances as a fair inheritance of their deeds, or misdeeds, in a previous life. Historically, these ideas have undermined social mobility, and rigidified conceptions of caste and desert which have been problematic in India. Still, these concepts were valued for maintaining order in society. Rebirth also allows for the belief that if enlightenment is not achieved in this life, headway can still be made towards the achievement of enlightenment in a future life. To deny rebirth in its literal sense, and uproot the belief in karma with its moral implications, risks undermining this moral sensibility and rupturing the order which rests on it.
As Thomas goes on to say, “We do not need to question the fact that the Buddha adopted the best of the moral teaching that he found.
Every system arises out of its predecessor.”2 Buddhism did not initiate this moral system, based on the notions of karma and rebirth, but it did adopt and work with them. At the same time, these notions presume that the same self who commits good or bad deeds will at some future time,
1 Thomas (1949), p. 175.
2 Thomas (1949), p. 175.
either in this life or a future life, benefit or suffer from the consequences of these deeds. This appears to conflict with Buddhist views on the self.
This will be discussed in the next section.
Karma and Rebirth
The effects of karmic causal connections are held to occur not just between actions and events in this life, but to extend over successive lives. The karmic effects that extend over lives may include being reborn into better or worse conditions, or having good or bad events befall one in a future life, or even being reborn as a different creature. This view of karma as effective over successive lives necessitates an acceptance of rebirth or transmigration of self from one life to another. There is a looming difficulty with this view from a Buddhist perspective: how can there be rebirth, and how can karma affect one’s rebirth, if there is no enduring self or soul to be reborn? The self is only a composite of the ever-changing aggregates. There is no permanence of self over time and so no permanence of self to continue on to another life. Buddhism is clear that there is no enduring self, and in fact asserts that attachment to this self is the root cause of suffering. Accordingly, the Buddha, while not denying rebirth outright, is also clear that rebirth does not involve a continuance of the same self. In the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutra, a monk is described as misunderstanding the Buddha on this point:
… there was a bhikkhu [monk] named Sati, a fisherman’s son, in whom had arisen a pernicious view like this: “Thus it is that I understand the dhamma taught by the Exalted One: it is this same consciousness, and not another, which transmigrates, which goes through the round of death and rebirth.”
Sati is then brought before the Buddha who criticizes and rebukes him:
Do you know anyone, you misguided person, to whom I have taught the dhamma in that way? Misguided person, have I not spo-ken in many ways of consciousness as dependently arisen, since without a condition there would be no arising of consciousness?
But you, misguided person, have misrepresented us by your wrong grasp and have injured yourself and have accumulated much demerit. And this, misguided person, will lead to your harm and suffering for a long time.1
The strong tones in which the sutra portrays the Buddha’s response, which are uncharacteristic of the way the Buddha is generally repre-sented, conveys the gravity of Sati’s error. The Buddha explains that consciousness is generated by causal conditions (the causally conjoined and ever-changing aggregates), and that it is not the same self or con-sciousness that continues on. Note that the Buddha does not deny continuity after death, or the idea of rebirth, but does deny a personal continuity. There is no personal rebirth or sameness of consciousness that continues on after death. And there could not be if there is no perma-nent self to be reborn. In Chapter Nine it was described that the Buddha clearly rejected both the positions of Annihilationism and Eternalism.
Eternalism is the view that there is a permanent self that continues on after death. This view is presumed in the idea of a personal rebirth (for it is the same self that is reborn to another life). Annihilationism is the view that there is a permanent self that lives for a lifetime and then perishes. The Buddha’s rejection of both these views is due to his posi-tion that there is no permanent self, and therefore no permanent self that can die or continue on after death. There is no permanent self who will receive the future karmic effects of good and bad deeds, either in this life, or in another life. The Buddha’s rejection of a personal rebirth, as seen in his response to the monk Sati in the passage above, accords with the basic doctrines of No Self and Impermanence.
1 See Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya I 256-71. From Early Buddhist Discourses, pp. 61-72. See also Collins (1982), p. 103.
What, then, are we to make of the common view that rebirth does involve a continuation of the same self? Collins addresses this by not-ing that the notions of karma and rebirth, as commonly understood to involve future effects to the same self, are held primarily by lay followers and non-specialists (i.e., those who are not adepts in Buddhist scholar-ship or practice). For them, the doctrine of No Self is not taken literally as repudiating the belief in a permanent self (particularly as the notion of no self is difficult to appreciate as being true of oneself ). Rather the doctrine serves as a religious identification which differentiates them from the religious followers of the Vedas and Upanishads with their emphasis on Atman or True Self. Anatman is a means of emphasizing a religious difference for lay followers. For monks and specialists, however, No Self is supposed to be taken more literally and seriously (and this may explain why, in the example above, the Buddha is represented as strongly rebuking the monk Sati for thinking in terms of a permanent self ).1 In addition, we may note that causal relations are described as law-like in Buddhism, and this does not favour the re-accumulation, after death, of psychological and physical parts so as to lead to a continuation of self in some other form. This would be to view the causal workings of karma as geared towards self-preservation or personal continuation, rather than being impersonal causal workings. The notion of causal continuity, and the difference between this and sameness of self over time, will be elabo-rated further in the next section on continuity and identity.
Recall that suffering, in the Buddhist conception, cannot simply be physical injury, pain, sickness, aging or death (these are examples from the first grouping in the First Noble Truth and they are not eliminable from the human condition). Also, suffering cannot simply be a matter of having unsatisfied desires (this is suffering as described in the second grouping in the First Noble Truth, and this is also not eliminable from the human condition). Thus, being sickly cannot be a just desert for misdeeds in one’s past, whether in this life or in a previous life, for being sickly is not, strictly speaking, suffering in the Buddhist conception.
1 See Collins (1982), p. 77.
Likewise, rebirth in a worse state, such as being reborn poor because one was greedy, ugly because one was angry, deformed because one was vio-lent, all of which were commonly believed in the Buddha’s time, are also not in themselves suffering under the Buddhist conception.1 Being poor, ugly, or deformed are not suffering if they do not involve attachment to self; examples such as these are not the suffering that Buddhism aims to eliminate from the human condition. These depictions of the condi-tions of rebirth fit with the understandings of suffering described in the first and second groupings of the First Noble Truth. Also, these depic-tions presume the lay-person’s understanding of rebirth described above because they all presume that it is the same self who will be reborn (for otherwise, being reborn sickly, poor, or deformed, cannot be thought of as punishment for one’s past misdeeds).
Suffering, in the Buddhist sense, involves craving and attachment to self and not physical affliction. Being physically afflicted may involve suffering insofar as there is a craving not to be physically afflicted. But then, in the Buddhist view, it is not the physical affliction itself that is suffered. Rather, it is the attachment to self that is present in the craving not to be afflicted that is suffered. This is the suffering that is held to be eliminable and not the physical affliction. Given this understanding of suffering, if stealing is to cause suffering, then one who steals must, as a consequence, suffer from further attachment to self. Likewise with someone who lies, cheats, or kills. Further attachment to self does not seem to be much of a punishment (at least not as we would ordinarily think of punishment). But it does make sense to say that hateful, hurtful or greedy acts, which are usually committed out of selfish concern or
1 C.f. Harvey: “The movement of beings between rebirths is not a haphazard process but is ordered and governed by the law of karma, the principle that beings are reborn according to the nature and quality of their past actions;
1 C.f. Harvey: “The movement of beings between rebirths is not a haphazard process but is ordered and governed by the law of karma, the principle that beings are reborn according to the nature and quality of their past actions;