Karma in Buddhism: Not Fate but an Act of Volition - Essay Example

?Karma in Buddhism: Not Fate but an Act of Volition The emergence of Buddhism, as founded by Buddha – the Indian local prince of Shakyas, d Siddhartha Gautama in about 563 BC (Samovar et al 2010, p. 139), was a result of a religious revolution against the Brahmanic philosophy (Marwaha 2006; Tola and Dragonetti 2009), on which the unjust and oppressive caste system in India was perpetuated, with the caste of the brahmans at the top of the hierarchy; the caste of the ksatriyas or rulers, warriors and administrators on the second highest ladder of the hierarchy; the caste of the vaisyas or merchants, businessmen, bankers, farmers, herdsmen and artisans on the third highest ladder of the hierarchy; and the caste of shudras or servants at the bottom of the hierarchy (Tola and Dragonetti 2009, p. 8). Although Buddhism was only one among the sixty-two (62) various schools of philosophy similarly opposed to Brahmanic philosophy, it was however the most outstanding and most revolutionary, not because it was violent – on the contrary it actually renounced violence – but because its teachings had hit Brahmanism to the core (Marwaha 2006). As the great German Indologist, Albrecht Weber best described: “Buddhism is, in its origin, one of the most magnificent and radical reactions in favour of the universal human rights of the individual against the oppressing tyranny of the pretended privileges of divine origin, of birth, and of class” (cited in Tola and Dragonetti 2009, p. 1). As such, Buddhism had also become both a social and political revolution (Marwaha 2006) – “The Buddha created a new social order based on the equality of men, fraternity and universal brotherhood… liberated man from the domination of priests, from the idea of institutionalised mediation between man and God, and from the caste system…” (Karuyankara 2002, p. 30). In terms of the number of its followers which today is estimated only at 400 million believers worldwide, Buddhism ranks fifth among the major religious traditions of the world (Samovar et al. 2011) – the other four are Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism (Yust et al. 2006, p. 6; Landaw et al. 2011, p.10). But in terms of reach, Samovar et al. (2011) continue, Buddhism has become more universal compared with other religious traditions, spreading not only in the southern and eastern parts of Asia, but even in Europe and America. This, they further, could be attributed to its adaptability that it resulted into the development of its various forms, reflective of different cultures. Among the major different forms of Buddhism are Theravada (‘Tradition of the Elders’) – which dominates Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia like, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Laos; Mahayana (‘Great Vehicle’ or ‘Great Path’) – which is predominant in North Asia like Tibet, Mongolia, China, Japan, and Korea; Zen (‘Meditation’) – which originated in China and later scattered to other countries in Asia, including Japan and Korea; and Vajrayana (‘Diamond Vehicle’) – which developed in India and later became popular in Mongolia, Nepal and Tibet (Landaw et al. 2011, p. 336). Despite their minor differences, these diverse forms of Buddhism remain essentially similar when it comes to the Buddha’s dhamma (Sanskrit: dharma) or core teachings (Samovar et al. 2010) – That there is only one path for a man’s liberation from suffering (nirvana; Pali: Nibbana) and that is ‘enlightenment’ or ‘awakening’ as to knowing one’s self and one’s rightful place under the sun, attainable only through practicing both philosophical rationality and meditation. Attainment of nirvana is the sole responsibility of the individual; not even the gods or the enlightened can help, except through giving advises (Siderits 2007, p. 7-8). Following Cantwell’s (Cantwell 2010, p. 4) analysis, the diverse forms of Buddhism must not be seen as a manifestation of conflict between them; instead, this should be understood as a consequence of different historical context and of independent origin. Though it is true that Buddhism is widely recognised both as among the major religious traditions and philosophies of the world, its dharma remain confusing to non-Buddhists, especially Westerners, whose religious traditions are basically grounded on theism (monotheism and polytheism), as Buddhism is originally an atheistic doctrine (Marwaha 2006) – It does not believe in immortal gods, neither the providential role of gods in man’s salvation. (Siderits 2007; Samovar et al. 2010); its sets of belief are grounded on materialism. Buddhism as a philosophy, according to Karuyankara (2002), is essentially a discovery. What makes it so is the fact that its teachings are basically developed from Buddha’s query and examination as to how human beings live on earth and as to how human instinct that is inherent in every human being operates. Karuyankara furthers that Gautama Buddha’s thoughts were undeniably founded on the existing thoughts of Dalit traditions. In fact, all the best in earliest Dalit materialist philosophies were inherited by Buddha. Despite this though, Buddhism is not just a mere continuation of Dalit philosophy, because Gautama Buddha did not actually accept Dalit materialist philosophies in toto; instead Buddha’s thoughts enriched it. Hence in this sense, Karuyankara argues, Buddhism is a new discovery, a new philosophy that has profoundly impacted on modern thought and religious and philosophical discourses. Perhaps due to its unique teachings which oftentimes are misconstrued and mixed with earlier Indian religious traditions, understanding Buddhism has never been easy. Its dhammas are in fact a source of philosophical debates. One of which is its Doctrine of Karma. The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma One of the basic principles of Buddhism that has become popularly used today but greatly misunderstood is its Doctrine of Karma (Karuyankara 2002; Marwaha 2006). Etymologically the word karma (Pali: kamma) as derived from the root k? means ‘to do’ or ‘to act’ (Klostermaier 2007, p. 176). “In the religious and philosophical sense, karma means an ‘action potential’ which manifests itself as the moral result or consequence in lives hereafter” (Krishan 1997, p. 4). Other than Buddhism, karma is a term common to various religious traditions in India (i.e. Brahmanism, Jainism, Hinduism) basically referring to the law of universal causation. “Simply formulated, it states that all actions have consequences which will affect the doer of the action at some future time” (Reichenbach 1988, p. 399). However, each tradition understands the term differently from that of Bhuddism. For example, karma in earlier Brahmanic teaching as expressed in Upanisads (Harvey 2000, p. 15) was understood to be perfunctory and ritualized – One has to properly perform a sacrifice ritualistically in exchange of a desired consequence. In case the desired consequence has not yet come, it could have been delayed or it could have been due to the improper conduct of the ritual sacrifice (Loy 2007). On the other hand in Jainism, karma is perceived as something imperceptible that burdens the soul (jiva), trapping the soul on earth; it is only in getting rid of karma that the soul can reach heaven and remain there as an entity devoid of any identity in everlasting happiness (McClelland 2010, p. 124). In Hinduism, karma is perceived “as a divinely sustained and revealed universal law” (Pandit 2005, p. 77). Karma in Hindu law predetermines everything. It is transmissible through the soul which is fully marked with past karma. These marks then become one’s birthmark in the future life. (Karunyakara 2002, p. 88) Simply stated, if you live your life ethically that will give you a good life in your next life; but if you live otherwise, then you will surely suffer in your next life. These diverse perceptions on karma have in any way contributed to the confusions in understanding the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma (Marwaha 2006). What makes the Doctrine of Karma in Buddhism different can be attributed to its perception of the soul, as explicated in its Doctrine of No-Soul or Nonself (anatta); its belief in the supernatural, which is an upshot of its Doctrine of Impermanence (anicca); and its outlook towards the concept of rebirth, as embodied in its Doctrine of Rebirth (punnabbhava). These fundamental doctrines of Buddhism are interconnected with its Doctrine of Karma. Buddhism perceives the existence of the soul in total negation of other Indian religious traditions. Unlike Jainism and Hinduism which both believe in the existence of the soul, Spiro (1992, p. 74) explains that Buddhism does not believe in the idea of the soul, neither of the self nor the ‘I’ that dwells in the body – such is Buddhism’s Doctrine of No-Soul or Nonself (anatta) – one of Buddhism’s three basic doctrines. The Buddhist Doctrine of No-Soul or Nonself (anatta) teaches that what constitute all living beings, human beings included, are five khandha – in a literal sense means ‘heaps’ or pertaining specifically to material aggregates of matter or the body, feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. These are totally dissolved at death. Consequently so, Buddhism similarly rejects the doctrine of transmigration of past deeds (Karunyakara 2002, p. 89). The doctrine also implies the non-belief of Buddhism in the immortality of the soul. As to its belief in the supernatural, Spiro continues that Buddhism rejects the existence of an immortal supernatural being, or a supreme creator and redeemer. Instead, gods to Buddhist’s belief are formerly mortals, who in following Buddha’s Path have been ‘awakened’ or ‘enlightened’. Unlike omnipresent and omniscient gods, Buddha’s gods have no power over man’s redemption, because they themselves needed redemption. The only thing they can do to help is to give advises. Whether the advice works depends totally on the hands of the man who is advised. Furthermore, Spiro (1992, p. 76) furthers that unlike the Christ of Christianity, the use of Buddha in Buddhism does not denote to be an individual’s name; rather it is more of a title, which literally means “Supremely Enlightened,” that can be endowed on different persons in each world cycle. Presently Gautama is the Buddha; in the next world cycle there could be another Buddha. So there can be numerous Buddha, but all teach the same doctrines in any different periods of the world cycle. The rejection of Buddhism on any immortal supernatural being, Spiro continues, comes from its ‘Doctrine of Impermanence (anicca)’ – “the third pillar of Buddhist philosophy” (Yamamoto , p. 43) – which teaches that everything in this world, from the smallest particle to the largest kingdoms, is in an unending state of conception and termination; nothing or nobody, neither is there a supreme reality or immutable god that can stop this universal reality of unceasing mutability because nothing is permanent in this world (Spiro 1992), as the word anicca literally means (Yamamoto , p. 43). As to its outlook towards the concept of rebirth, Buddhism does not see rebirth as a state of salvation as how other religious traditions see it. On the contrary, the Buddhist Doctrine of Rebirth (punnabbhav’) teaches that the man should work towards liberation from rebirth. (Siderits 2007) This is so because in Buddhism, rebirth represents the wheel of life (samsara), which illustrates the cyclical process of going through life’s sufferings. Therefore, rebirth means going through the wheel of life over and over again. (Sach 2003, p. 85) In short, rebirth is a repeated life of suffering. Thus salvation means liberation from rebirth or being not to be reborn again. And the Wheel of Rebirth can only be stopped by being emotionally detached from worldly things achievable only following the three successive stages of Buddhist Path: morality (sila), meditation (bhavana), and wisdom (panna). As explained: “Action performed in a state of emotional detachment yields no karmic consequences, neither merit nor demerit, and hence no need for retribution; in the absence of unfulfilled retribution, there is no cause for rebirth.” (Spiro 1992, p. 84) In short, rebirth is caused by karma. Given the novelty and essentiality of the concept of rebirth to the belief system of Buddhism, understanding the Doctrine of Karma becomes crucial to truly grasping the philosophy Buddhism. Although the law of karma in Buddhism is seen to cause the present life a man has; it does not however attribute everything in this world to karma, rather Buddhist sees it to be only one but primary among the many various causes. This was clearly told by the Buddha to the wanderer named Sivaka Moliya when he said that there are particular life experiences that are caused by biological (i.e. illness, temper) and environmental (i.e. changing climate, unfortunate incidents (visamapariharajani), sudden outside threats or attacks (opakkamikani), or wind) causes and also from the maturity of one’s karma which the world regarded to be true. (Nimanong 1999, p. 236) Actually, the Buddhist doctrine of karma simply teaches that what you do is what you get. Hence there is no implying of dependence on fate or destiny. As the Venerable Tripitaka Master Hsuan Hua compassionately teaches: The term karma in Buddhism simply refers to what we do every day, but referring only to those intentional acts that are driven by our desire and are within the sphere of the law of cause and effect, which simply states that there is a positive correlation between moral acts and their results. In plain words, good acts produce good results; bad acts produce bad results. For example, if you care for the environment, then natural calamities due to deforestation would have been avoided. Meaning, the cause (primarily karma) will inevitably bring about a result which varies in extent and time depending on its context. Thus karma is not permanent and unchangeable; the only thing permanent and unchangeable in karma is the law governing it, which is “You reap what you sow” (Buddhist Text Translation Society [BTTS] 1996, p. 14). Furthermore the orthodox Buddhist Doctrine of Karma is actually a doctrine of free will and not a theory of absolute determinism as usually misconstrued. To understand karma in a deterministic fashion will be a negation of Buddhism, which teaches that one’s salvation rests primarily on one’s karma. And this will be totally impossible if karma is predestined. How can you change your future life if you are predestined to suffer? Thus determinism to Buddhism would actually be a heresy. (Keyes 1977, p. 88) As Yandell and Netland (2009, p. 132) explain, the karmic connections from the point of view of Buddhism essentially mean that there is a fitting consequence for every action; or to state it another way, good actions begets positive consequences, bad actions begets negative consequences. However contrary to deterministic view, Buddhist understands karmic connections not as a result of a hidden powerful hand that controls and manipulates the effect of the action; rather it simply understands that karmic connection is simply a natural law. Bhikkhu (2011, p. 2) further explains that for Buddhists karma operates in a non-linear and complex way – “that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present.” Another point fundamental to Buddhist understanding of karma that clearly rejects the theory of determinism is the role of free will. In Buddhism, every individual is free to make a choice as to what action to take every moment; but since action has its corresponding consequence, it is this that an individual cannot avoid no matter what. In short, what determines one’s life experiences is no other than one’s actions. (BTTS 1996) But Bhikkhu (2011) clarifies that this free will is to some extent influenced by past actions, which is also the individual’s own choice. The understanding of free will in Buddhism is vividly illustrated in the image of flowing water. Just like the flowing water which may or may not be changed depending on how strong its current is, sometimes the influence of past actions to the present is so strong that changing it seems impossible and that the remaining choice is simply to be steadfast; but there are also times that the influence of past actions is moderate enough to be changed or modified. In lieu of this, Buddhism discourages resigned powerlessness, because for Buddhist, though the past may have caused the many inequalities in present life at present, this is not unalterable. Human beings are free and conscious enough to decide what measures are available to them to alter their situations. For example, it doesn’t mean that if you are borne of a poor family; you can never get out of poverty. Instead, if you can muster whatever qualities you have and take advantage of every good opportunity to come your way, then most likely, you can be freed from poverty. As Bhikkhu further notes, to Buddha: The superiority of a brahman is not determined by his origin of birth – that he is borne of a brahman’s womb – but by the greatness of what he does. In short, Karunyakara (2002) adds, for the Buddha, the becoming and the future of man are completely dependent on man’s actions. Simply stated, your karma is your future; your destiny is your own making. It follows therefore that what distinguishes man in the society is the karma of man. “What a society is depends largely upon Kammas without which the image of man cannot be conserved and conceived” (Karunyakara 2002, p. 89). Therefore the social order is man-made and not a providential one. Meaning, there is poverty because of man’s selfish and greedy actions; there is injustice because of man’s unjust actions; there is lawlessness because of man’s unlawful deeds. The Buddhist Doctrine of Karma simply aims to convey that the effect (vipaka) or consequence of man’s action would correspond inevitably the deed. Men’s good karmas would eventually benefit society, but men’s bad karmas would eventually make society suffer. Therefore, it is by what men do in a given context that societies are formed and structured. By saying so, it follows then that societies can be changed by men’s karma. It may be argued that not all good deeds reap positive results. For example, a person wrongly accused of murder after trying to save the murdered person from the murder who escaped from the scene is sentenced to lifetime imprisonment instead of being rewarded. Or more typical example that shows the incongruence of the effect of karma is the continuous dominance of corrupt politicians and dishonest businessmen. To this, as Nimanong (1999) explains, Buddha cautions that this should not be misconstrued that good action does not necessarily result to good but rather evil effect and that bad action does not necessarily result to bad rather good effect, thus one can reap something one does not sow. This will be a negation of the karmic law. However, to Buddha, understanding this seeming incongruence between karma and vipaka this way is a sign of ignorance of the law of karma, specifically as to the details of how the karma operates. According to Buddhism, “the result of karma ripens not only in accord with the karma, but also with the character of the doer of the karma.” (Nimanong 1999, p. 236) The explanation of this, Nimanong clarifies, is likened to salted water, wherein the result of the salt on the water varies as determined by the amount of salt and the amount of water. For instance, a small pinch of water in a small glass of water is enough to make the glass of water undrinkable; but to pour that same amount of salt into a big body of water will not in any way change the taste of the water. In concrete terms, a small misdeed done by a person used to doing bad actions even in his past life is enough to pull him down to a dreadful world; but the same misdeed done by a person used to doing good acts even in his past will not suffer the same dreadful world. Nimanong further clarifies, citing the Mahakammavib-hanga-Sutta – this discusses Buddhism’s analysis of greater deeds – that a person that does a heinous act has instead experience positive effect instead of a negative one, may in past life have done good actions or at the time of his death has seen the light and has viewed and live life in an ethical way. The maturity of karma is affected by four pairs of failure (vipatti), such as (1) “failure due to the place of birth (gati-vipatti),” (2) “failure due to the defectiveness of the body (upadhi-vipatti)”, (3) failure due to the deficiency of time (kala-vipatti),” and (4) “failure due to lack of effort (payoga-vipatti),” and accomplishments (sampatti) or factors that help foster the maturity of good karma (Nimanong 1999, p. 238). This explains the influence that past life may have on the present life. Yet at the bottom of every action is the person’s own free will to decide which action is to take. Even if this past action may have influenced one’s present life, the free will and conscious choice of the individual remains the deciding factor of the action. This then leads us to another feature of Buddhism’s karmic law. It is clear then that karma can be good or bad and what makes it good or bad is the intention that underlies the action. “Once there is action, the results inexorably follow. One cannot escape this immutable law, but one can understand and master its workings and thereby escape the cycle of existence with its endless births and deaths.” (BTTS 1996, p. 15) For Buddha, what determines the intention is the mind. It is Buddha’s recognition of the centrality of the ‘mind’ that actually distinguishes his teachings from other Indian religious traditions. Buddha believes that “the mind precedes things, dominates them, and creates them. If mind is comprehended, all things are comprehended… second… the mind is the fount of all good and evil that arises within and befalls us from without...” (Marwaha 2006, p. 81) Therefore, “karma is not a divine retribution for one’s sins” (Siderits 2009, p. 9). Meaning, what one experiences is neither God’s punishment for one’s bad deed or a reward for one’s good deed, but rather a natural result of one’s action. So if you chose to kill a man out of vengeance even if you knew killing is bad will give you a negative effect in various ways. First, there is the guilt feeling which may nag you and make your life miserable; second, there is the justice system that will haunt you; third, there is the possibility of social isolation. These negative consequences of your action did not happen because you are being punished by God for the sin you committed but logically because the consequence of your bad deed is naturally bad. To Buddha, what makes karma to be either good or bad is no other than the mind; in consequence thereof, what determines the effect of karma is also the mind. As such, Buddhist practice primarily aims to achieve “the pure conscience and resulting clarity of mind that enables one to make wise choices and avoid errors in cause and effect” (BTTS 1996, p. 15). It is within this context that the practice of meditation (samadhi) in Buddhism should be understood. This also explains why meditation (samadhi) is central to Buddhist practice. As Keown (2009, p. 127) explains, it was through meditation (samadhi) that the Buddha achieved enlightenment; hence Buddhist perceives and highly regards meditation (samadhi) as the high path towards enlightenment. However Keown (2009, p. 127) furthers that bhavana the Buddhist’s general term for meditation, which means ‘cultivation’ or ‘making become’ is more appropriate as it corresponds to the ultimate goal of Buddhist in “making oneself what one wishes to be” through the practice of meditation. It is worthy to note here that even gurus, Buddhas and Bodhisattvas all alike, are included in the law of cause and effect; however what differentiates them from ordinary people is that they do not go wrong in cause and effect since they are enlightened (BTTS 1996). Conclusion The discussion above clearly illustrates that the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma is not fate but rather an act of volition. It is so because first, karma is understood as a conscious act, which clearly implies discernment, free will and act of choice. Second, karma is understood to be either good or bad, which further implies man’s freedom to choose between good and evil act. Consequently so, this rejects the idea of divine intervention which essentially is more prone to the theory of determinism. Third, karma causes man’s rebirth, which actually emphasises rather than blurs man’s responsibility of his actions. As Buddhists believe, man’s salvation can only be achieved by man alone by changing his karma to a point that he dissolves his rebirth. Again this rejects the theory of determinism by asserting that everything in this world is impermanent. Man through his good karma can change this world. Reference List Bhikkhu, T. 2011. Karma. Access to Insight [online] 8 March. Available at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html [Accessed April 16, 2013] Buddhist Text translation Society. 1996. Buddhism: a brief introduction. Burlingame, CA: The Author. Cantwell, C. 2010. Buddhism: the basics. Oxon, OX: Routledge. Harvey, P. 2000. An introduction to Buddhist ethics: foundations, values, and issues. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Karunyakara, L. 2002. Modernisation of Buddhism: Contributions of Ambedkar and Dalai Lama-XIV. India: Gyan Publishing House. Keown, D. 2009. Buddhism: a brief insight. Canada: Sterling Publishing Company. Keyes, C. F. 1977. The golden peninsula: culture and adaptation in mainland Southeast Asia. US: Macmillan Publishing Co. Klostermaier, K.K. 2007. A survey of Hinduism. 3rd ed. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. Krishan, Y. 1997. The doctrine of karma: its origin and development in Brahmanical, Buddhist, Hindu, and Jainism tradition. New Delhi, India: Jainendra Prakash Jain at Shri Jainendra Press. Landaw, J., Bodian, S. & Buhnemann, G. 2011. Buddhism for dummies. Indiana: Wiley Publishing. Loy, D. R. (2007) The problem with karma [online] Available at: http://www.thezensite.com/ZenTeachings/Teishos/Loy-Karma.pdf [Accessed April 17, 2013] Marwaha, S. B. 2006. Colors of truth: religion, self and emotions: perspectives of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, Islam, Sikhism and contemporary psychology. New Delhi: Ashok Kumar Mittal Concept Publishing Company Nimanong, V. 1999. Renewing Thai Buddhist belief in kamma and rebirth. In Bunchua, K., Fangtong, L. Xuanmeng, Y. and Wujin, Y. eds. The bases of values in a time of change: Chinese philosophical studies, XVI. Washington, DC: The Council of Research in Values and Philosophy, pp. 227-258. Pandit, B. 2005. Explore Hinduism. England: Explore Books, an imprint of Heart of Albon Press. Reichenbach, B. R. 1988. The Law of Karma and the Principle of Causation. Philosophy East and West, 38 (4) October, 399-410. Sach, J. 2003. The everything Buddhism book: Learn the ancient traditions and apply them to modern life. USA: Adams Media. Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E. & McDaniel, E. R. 2010. Communication between cultures. 7th ed. MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Siderits, M. 2007. Buddhism as philosophy: An introduction. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Spiro, M. E. 1992. Anthropological other or Burmese brother?: studies in cultural analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Tola, F. and Dragonetti, C. 2009. Brahmanism and Buddhism: two antithetic conceptions of society in ancient India. [online] Available at: http://www.elb-studycenter.org/images/kokoro_5_tola_dragonetti.pdf [Accessed April 17, 2013] Yamamoto, J. I. 1998. Buddhism, Taoism and other Far Eastern religions. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House. Yandell, K. and Netalnd, H. 2009. Buddhism: a Christian exploration and appraisal. Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press. Yust, K. M., Johnson, A. N., Sasso, S. E., & Roehlkepartain, E. C. eds. 2006. Traditional wisdom: creating space for religious reflection on child and adolescent spirituality. In: Nurturing child and adolescent spirituality: perspectives from the world’s religious traditions. UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, pp. 1-14. Read More