In India in pre-Buddhist times, karma was indeed interpreted as a theory of predestination, almost comparable to the Protestant notion of the same name. Both of these theories claim that we cannot change our karma
Buddha does not teach that there are linear causal relationships, where a single cause can bring about a single effect. Buddha teaches that there are many causes and many conditions and always refers to causes and conditions in the plural, never just as cause and effect.
He would not entertain the idea of eternal torment, no matter how evil or sinful someone may seem to be. He believed fully that whatever suffering we experience is due to our own doing, and not due to a divine hand. Therefore, the pacification of suffering is also in our own hands. This was his idea of karma.
One can happily ignore karma, and just do meditation. We have come to a point where we need to reevaluate whether or not karma is something that can be so easily dispensed with, especially if we are followers of Hinduism or Buddhism. In this book, I will argue that karma is a central and indispensable plank in Buddhist doctrine and remains highly significant, not just as a concept, but as a reality
in the end, as Buddhists, we are trying to explain why we suffer, why things happen, and why we should be moral.
There are two ways then, for a Buddhist to speak of karma in the current context: in religious terms and in a secularized, restrained fashion.
Perhaps as Buddhists we would like to think he was more than a child of his time, but whatever the case, he had genuine insight into a variety of things, great insights that seem to exceed cultural conditioning.
Basically, the Buddha defined karma as action, in the sense that we ourselves are responsible for our own condition in the world and that our thoughts and actions from here on determine our future. We are a product of causes and conditions—we are what we are due to past actions, simplistically stated.
Certainly Buddhism contains the idea of an accumulation of karmic imprints and dispositions, a gathering of propensities throughout our lives—habit patterns are formed, and so forth.
We are who we are because of our karmic inheritance. We would not be as we are without it, but this does not mean we have to remain this way.
Karmic theory, if appreciated properly, emphatically encourages us to go forward and develop so as not to get bogged down in guilt and all kinds of associated malaise.
Karmic theory allows for the capacity to burn the seeds of entrenched habituation and render them impotent.
Karma is a concept that focuses on what constitutes individuals—what is inherent to them, what is coproduced with others, and what is conditioned generally about this “self.”
One school of thought suggests the notion of karma came with the arrival of the Aryans in India, who established the Sanskrit-speaking Indus Valley civilization. Others contest this, believing that the idea predates the Aryans and goes back to the so-called tribal people of India, the pre-Vedic tribal societies. But as one scholar has cynically remarked, the terminology of “tribal peoples” merely points to how elusive any real identification has proven to be.
Some scholars have suggested that the notion of karma is not in fact traceable to the Buddha and claim that it is an afterthought added by later followers. There is no textual authority whatsoever for this claim, and the evidence points to the contrary.
We can have real confidence in the authenticity and veracity of the words contained in Buddhism’s “three baskets,” the three primary categories of the Buddhist canon, which are the Vinaya (monastic rules), the Sutras (Buddha’s discourses), and the Abhidharma (metaphysics, philosophy, logic, and his teachings on subjects like medicine
. To paraphrase a passage in the Anuttara Nikaya: “If one has done good work and lived well, then no one can stop the individual from living the blessed life, that would surely follow. One is protected even from natural disasters or other calamities
A Buddhist might reflect on appreciating the Buddha and his teachings and the precious few opportunities he or she had to practice meditation, or follow the spiritual path. Or we might reflect on a time we were kind to somebody, helped a neighbor, or vice versa. Thinking these types of thoughts, according to Buddhism, significantly mitigates the circumstances of one’s life. Of course, the opposite type of attitude, that of bitterness, is very unfortunate. To think, “Why am I dying? My friend is far worse than I ever was and is still alive and doing well!” This sort of response would not help at all
he strongly emphasized the idea of character as a crucial ingredient of our karma. While alive, we should think about what kind of person we are becoming. It is not just the action performed that is important but also the character formation that goes with it.
Running counter to this though, we often become completely engrossed in the notion of a fixed, underlying self. Taking this course, the whole notion of self-transformation proves to be untenable, unreal. It would be a superficial change, analogous to an actor’s changing costumes, which is exactly the image, as we know, used in the traditional eternalist stance
The Buddha, in rejecting the entire eternalist framework of his day, was saying that actor and costume are the same. One is what one is acting. However we act it out, however we project ourselves—that is what we are.
Possessed of my own deeds, I am the inheritor of deeds, kin to deeds, one who has deeds as a refuge. Whatever deed I shall do, whether good or evil, I shall become the heir of it
we suffer through not paying attention to the cause-andeffect relationship. We do not comprehend properly what brings us satisfaction in life and what might allow us to flourish
So to comprehend being reborn in another life form, it might help to think that the reborn “individual,” or whatever we want to call it, is not exactly the same being as the one who lived the previous life. And yet, the reborn being still carries certain dispositional properties, certain mental imprints, or karmic imprints, from the past life into the present—things are carried on.
The Buddhist theory of rebirth does not posit that exactly the same person subsequently takes on a different life after death. The fact that many Buddhists probably believe in something like reincarnation does not make it the case that this is what the Buddha taught.
It can be conceived of as a karmic network, or a web of karma, where each individual experiences suffering or good fortune through mutual karmic history.
Buddha continually emphasized our ability to attenuate the effects of our past karmic actions, through just that, through action—in the broader sense of what we think, say, and do
the Buddha did not see the issue of determinism and freedom as two diametrically opposed concepts, as it is often presented today.
Buddha believed in a soft form of determinism, acknowledging the very marked influence past deeds have on our current life experiences and situations, while pointing to the freedom at our disposal to change our course. Certain things about us may be predetermined, but that does not translate to having no freedom to choose our direction in life.
To exercise free will then, in any real sense, means to be capable of going against these determinants, of whatever variety, being able to surmount these obstacles. If we can do this, we exercise our free will
Buddha did, in fact, distinguish between old karma and new karma; the former karma has stronger determinism than the latter.
the Buddha stipulated that the real karmic effect, the full fruit of one’s karma, ripens in the next life.
Another key to the Buddha’s view of karma is intention. Karmic actions are intimately related to our intentionality. Even though “karma” literally means action, it is not just the action itself that has portent. The intention with which acts are carried out is actually more important than the action itself.
For example, if we did a good deed and felt some misgivings or regret about it, then the merit attached to the good deed would be diminished. Conversely, if we performed a terrible, or even evil, deed but felt regret after the fact, then the profoundly negative karmic consequences that might accrue would be diminished.
The object of generosity and the intention behind the generosity also come into play. To whom we are being generous, for example, is relevant. To be generous to a bad person, for instance, according to the Buddha, is not as good as being generous to a nice person. Here we can see the Buddha’s thinking on what is called the “spreading of merit.” If we are generous to a nice person, then that person will continue to spread the feeling, and so the merit will get shared around,
This principle of intention translates to all forms of action, as we have seen, but the Buddha was emphatic about the importance of practicing generosity, and practicing it properly. He even mentioned the size, or quality, of the gift—none of these things mattered to him. It could be a very impressive gift, but produce little merit or benefit, or it could be a small gift that produced large results and an extremely beneficial effect. Again, then, it is the manner in which we practice generosity that counts, not how much or how little we are giving away.
Buddha discussed four different kinds of spiritual aspirants: the stream enterer, once-returner, nonreturner, and arhant. The stream enterer is one who has embarked on the path, entered the stream of the river of spirituality; the once-returner refers to a practitioner who has exhausted his or her negative karma over a period of time, and therefore may be reborn once more; the nonreturner means one who will not be taking rebirth anymore; and then there is the arhant, which, literally translated, means foe-destroyer. Here the foe is the five poisons of ignorance, desire, anger, jealousy, and pride—
The meaning of the Yogacara “mind only” theory is not that everything is seen as mental. It points to the fact that everything is based on one’s own experience and that one is unable to have an extramental conception of reality. In other words, it states that the mind cannot be taken out of the equation when we speak of “reality.”
To address these issues, the Yogacarins came up with a theory of a state of consciousness, or unconsciousness, depending on how you look at it, called the alayavijnana, which is often translated as “storehouse consciousness.” What this means, when applied to the situations described above of death and coma, is that we may become unconscious for a while, or die and be reborn, but latently present, at an unconscious level of consciousness, so to speak, is a repository of all our karmic traces and dispositions. Hence the alayavijnana is called “storehouse consciousness” (sometimes translated as “substratum of awareness”). It is a more permanent state than our conscious states.
The storehouse consciousness is not a permanent entity but does nevertheless persist over a period of time, and because of this, it is able to retain karmic impressions. These impressions, or psychic energy deposits, that carry over are termed vasanas.
ANOTHER CATEGORY OF TEACHINGS from Tibetan Buddhism that relates strongly to karma and rebirth is the bardo teachings, which are essentially based on the Yogacarin way of thinking, as well as Madhyamaka. These teachings can be found most readily in the famous Tibetan Book of the Dead, as it is known in the West. Bardo teachings emphasize the experience of “clear light mind” and the need for sustained awareness when we die. They are teachings on how to die and on how to prepare for death, in order to appreciate the unfolding of mind’s true nature, clear light, in the midst of the death process.
According to Tibetan Buddhism, if we have thoroughly engaged in meditation and developed a sense of awareness and attentiveness, and developed concentration, it will be relatively easy to recognize this light at the time of death. However, with most people, because of their delusions, ignorance, and obscurations, instead of embracing the light, instead of turning to it, they seek to escape from it.
In Tibetan Buddhism, the bardo teachings are very much linked to the deity yoga practices, the tantric practices of visualizing peaceful and wrathful deities and things of that kind. The more we familiarize ourselves with them, the more likely we will remember this type of experience when we are dead and passing through the bardo state
Prior to taking birth, in the prenatal state, we begin to have premonitions, or something like visions of our future life, and we begin to look for a suitable parent, according to the teachings. Contained by our own ignorance, however, we may choose the wrong womb. Choosing the right womb becomes a priority for the bardo being, and so the onus at this point is to actually resist the temptation of taking birth too quickly, which is difficult, as the bardo is a very unpleasant experience for most.
More generally speaking, the Tibetan literature is quite detailed about the process of birth, containing elaborate descriptions of embryo development and so on.
bardo teachings as a whole, then, are meant to instruct the practitioner in two fundamental things: death is not something to be feared and after-death experiences can be utilized for our own benefit
The message to the individual, or the bardo being, is: “Don’t be afraid; there is nothing to be afraid of in what you see, hear, smell. Remain calm, remain strong.” In this way, bardo theory and bardo teachings emphasize death as a period of opportunity rather than something to be dreaded.
KARMA IS CENTRAL TO BUDDHISM, as far as this discourse has contended till now, and yet, on another level, the ultimate reality of karma is not recognized. At this point, the two levels of truth in Buddhism become relevant: empirical and ultimate reality. Karma possesses only relative reality by nature, and because of that, it is something we can transcend. Karma is something we need to overcome in fact. What this amounts to is aiming not only to overcome negative karma but also positive karma. Both kinds of karma lead to rebirth, and it is the exhaustion of our karmic propensities and tendencies that is the ultimate aim.
Nagarjuna used what was later to become known as the “Prasangika razor,” which essentially refers to a chopping down of every philosophical position, a cutting at the root of all that we think. It is a ruthless examination of all claims to a real or true existence. He had followers that took his theories even further, such as Chandrakirti, and the Prasangika Madhyamikas, who employed a reductio ad absurdum system, reducing or demolishing every philosophical position to its fundamental inconsistencies,
it is completely incorrect to interpret Nagarjuna as denying the existence of karma. In fact, he states that it is far better to revert to conventional ways of thinking, to believing things actually exist as commonsense people do, than to entertain nihilistic ideas that nothing really exists.
Nagarjuna’s logic also explains why samsara and nirvana are dependent concepts. Without samsara there can be no nirvana, and without nirvana there can be no samsara.
it is often said that prajna destroys karma, destroys all karmic traces and dispositions. With the sword of prajna, everything is demolished. On one level, this is true, but this is on the ultimate level. On the relative level, prajna is also dependent on preexisting karmic causes and conditions
To this end, Buddha himself taught the meditation on loving-kindness (metta-bhavana). He said metta-bhavana was crucial for the development of prajna or insight.
In Buddhism, there is no strict separation of the cognitive aspect of our mind and its emotional and affective aspect.
liberation cannot be secured if it were not for karma. That is the view. So through cultivation of ourselves, we attain the form body of the Buddha in relation to our mental faculties, emotional faculties, and physical factors. In addition, through cultivation of insight, we attain the formless aspect of the Buddha’s being. These are said to result from two types of accumulation: the accumulation of merit and the accumulation of wisdom
karmic theory is not really designed simply to encourage people to create good karma and avoid the negative—to lead a moral life in other words. Liberation comes from shedding both kinds of shackles. Traditionally, negative karma is likened to being chained in iron shackles and positive karma in gold shackles. Even in gold shackles, we are not free; so to be free from all shackles is genuine freedom.
According to Buddhism, we die because we are a product of causes and conditions (pratityasamutpada in Sanskrit). Whatever is caused is impermanent, is subject to decay, to death
From a Buddhist point of view, we do not aim at a direct encounter with death in our contemplations—head on, as it were. Fundamentally, we think of everything as being transient and impermanent and work from there, beginning with observations of a quite impersonal nature, and gradually turning to more intimate aspects of our lives.
According to the Buddha, both body and mind are subject to continual change, and so even at death what is transferred from one life to the next is not an unchanging psychic principle, but different psychic elements all hanging together, samskaras—memories, various impressions, and so on, none of which is unchanging in itself
In Buddhism, that which “reincarnates,” to use that term, is not an unchanging self but a collection of psychic materials. It is not the same soul reincarnating. It is a rebirth. It is the same individual that has come back or taken a new life, but that individual is totally different because everything about him or her has changed. There is only continuity but not identity, in the strict sense
In terms of prioritizing our actions, should we decide to work with our karma, we first focus on reducing negative karma. We refrain from certain actions, the actions we have identified as most harmful. We pay no attention to trying to do positive things; we forget about trying to “save lives”; we just try not to do our worst. The avoidance of negative actions is enough initially, before moving on to more positive initiatives.
Letting go of the things we cannot immediately attain itself creates very positive karma. Immediately there is a cumulative response, as we are no longer simply thinking about avoiding acts that result in negative karma but are generating good karma, which has the power to further diminish the negative karma, almost automatically
We are still going to get “stuck” doing good karma, and how are we to free ourselves from that? The fundamental reason why this can be done is because good karma, done properly, created properly, is not habit forming. It is not habit forming because it is spontaneous, arising from a mentality where ego is not central
Buddhist ethics and morality are based on our human nature. Our nature is one of tremendous potentiality, but a potentiality seldom explored. Due to our habits, we have done almost every conceivable thing except take full advantage of our potentiality.
It is lack of will, according to the Buddha, that leaves us vulnerable to all manner of things, both inner conflicts and outer negative influences
Mahayana Buddhism stipulates that there are two accumulations: the accumulation of merit and the accumulation of wisdom. When we are accumulating, we are not spending. When we are not cultivating ourselves, we are over-spending, going into deficit
We cannot say, “I don’t want to be such and such a person,” if we are already acting like that person. Conversely we cannot say, “I want to be such and such a person,” if we are doing nothing to become that kind of person
Generated at: 2023-09-19-09-26-43
