Buddhist Karma Theory and the Question of Determinism by Siddharth Singh Buddhist Karma Theory and the Question of Determinism Dr. Siddharth Singh Associate Professor, Department of Pali & Buddhist Studies Banaras Hindu University Varanasi – 5 E mail:ssinghbhu@gmail A popularly known fact is that, according to Buddhism, good action gives us reward and evil action leads us to the bad results. This belief has been the central point of the Buddhist doctrine of Karma since beginning. But most of the time, common readers, who do not have good understanding of Buddha’s intention, and sometimes the students of the Buddhism also, take this theory in the deterministic sense and take it for granted that what ever we have done and will do certainly has, without any exception, to give us the result of it in mathematically exact proportion. If it is so, then the question arises in one’s mind, what are the benefits of doing good deeds now and in the future? An immoral person might think why should he try to become moral if he is bound to reap the fruits of what immoral deeds he had done in the past and, now after, there is no possibility of transformation of those fruits into pure and correcting the mistakes of the past ? What is the position of free-will in the Buddhist doctrine of Karma? Before we handle with the issue, we should keep in our mind a very simple definition of the Karma according to the Buddha. Buddha had personally verified Karma and its fructification as two aspects of life through his extra-sensory perception. He was one of the first to give a reasonable and moral definition of the Karma. Buddha throws the light on the importance of karma in the following way— Kammanā vattatī loko, kammanā vattatī pajā, Kammanibandhanā sattā, rathassāṇī’va yāyato. By Karma the world exist, by Karma mankind exists, beings are bound by work as the linchpin of the rolling cart (keeps the wheel on). In Buddhism, the word Karma is taken as an action motivated by volition. Karma is born from volition; Karma is done by volition that is why Buddha has said – “Cetanāhaṃ, bhikkhave, kammaṃ vadāmi ”. Our future depends on our present volition, and our present state depends on our past volition. “All [mental] states have mind as their forerunner, mind is there chief, and they are mind-made. If one speaks or acts, with a defiled mind, suffering follows one even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox.” Manopubbangamā dhammā manosetthā manomaya, ā ce padutthena bhāsati vā karoti vā,Manas dukkhamanveti cakkaṃ’va vahato padaṃ .̣ Tato naṃ By giving gold while intending to give a stone, a gift of gold is indeed made, but as it has not been willed, the act is as if it were not done. It is not appropriate and ‘stored up’(upacita); it will bear no fruit. In the same way, if a man kills his mother when striking at what is believed to be a pumpkin, there is no matricide, there is no murder, there is only destruction of a fruit. An action to be complete and really fruitful, apt to ripen must consist of three parts: (i) The preparation, which is the first volition and all the arrangements necessary to the principal action. For example, a butcher arises, takes some money, goes to the market, buys a goat, has the knife in his hand; (ii) The principal action: the killing of the goat; (iii) The back of the principal action: the cutting up and selling the meat. Buddhism divides the Karma into four categories with reference to its time of operation : (i) Ditthadhammavedanīya i.e. Immediately effective Karma which produce fruit in this life, (ii) Upapajjavedanīya i.e. Subsequently effective Karma which produce fruit in the next life, (iii)Aparāparivedanīya i.e. Indefinitely effective Karma which produce fruit in any of the future lives(iv)Ahosi i.e. Ineffective Karma. If Ditthadhammavedanīya Karma does not operate in this life, it becomes ineffective (Ahosi). It is the gravity and intensity of the Karma which decides if it will fructify in this birth, next or in the future birth. Buddhism has classified the Karma again in the four categories according to the priority of effect (Vipākadānavasena) namely: (i) Garuka Karma i.e. Weighty action, (ii) Āsanna Karma i.e. Death-proximate action, (iii)Āciṇṇa Karma i.e. Habitual action, (iv)Katattā Karma i.e. Cumulative action . But the consequence of any action depends to a large extent on the moral status of the sinner. This situation can be illustrated by an instance of the Anguttara Nikāya. If a man throws a lump of salt into small cup water, the water becomes salty and undrinkable. If a man were to throw a similar lump of salt the river Ganges, the water of the Ganges would not become salty and undrinkable. Similarly, if a man is deficient in merit, a slight evil deed will ripen into an infernal existence. But a similar slight evil deed committed by any good man may bring a slight punishment. Here we find two persons committing similar evil deeds but reaping the different results in different way because the past collection of merit of latter is richer than the former person. It depicts clearly that the Karma, according to the Buddha, does not possess the rigid nature of the fire which burns every thing irrespective of what it is. Buddha’s karmic-law is different from the fire-law. It should also be borne in the mind that it is not all suffering that has its root in the Karma. There are eight causes by which suffering arise, by which many beings suffer pain. Milindapaňho speaks of these as follows: (i) superabundance of wind, (ii) and of bile, (iii) and of phlegm, (iv) the union of these humours, (v) variations in temperature, (vi) the avoiding of dissimilarities, (vii) external agency and (viii) karma. From each of these there are some sufferings that arise, and these are the eight causes by which many beings suffer pain. And therein whosoever maintains that it is Karma that injures beings, and besides it there is no other reason for pain, his proposition is false. On the account of these factors, the justification of the physical pain of the Buddha, like injury by a piece of rock, dysentery etc. has been portrayed in the text. Yes, but it is not possible for these causes to deprive someone of life. Therefore, Karma is not the only but one of the contributory factors among eight factors which are responsible for the physical pain. It is evident from this fact that Buddhist Karma theory is in contrast to the deterministic theory of Karma according to which whatsoever is experienced in this life is due to one’s past Karma. Despite all the stress on the importance of Karma and all the different kinds of classification of it, considering volition as a nucleus of the Karma theory, this fact remains unchanged that one has all possibility of not only changing his present and future action but also has the chance to make the fruits of his past actions neutralize or ineffective. One is not bound to reap all that in the exact proportion what he has sown. If he is not the master of his Karma then he is not the servant also of it. It is the Buddhist law that we are changing every moment and becoming a completely new being. That new being depends on our own deeds. We are free to change any moment for the better or for the worse. Even the most wicked, most poor or most pitiable person should not be discouraged or despised on the account of his evil nature or bad destiny. He should understand the fact that whatever he is, if that is the fruits or effects of his past Karma, even then also those fruits or effects are not eternal and unchangeable. As much as he will dilute his ill-fate by collecting more and more good deeds, as soon as those effects of his past bad actions will come to an end. Those who are rich, successful and high positioned in the society should neither be proud of their status nor should be indulged in the evil activities having understood the same law. Some scholars like Poussin have raised the question of free-will in the Buddhist doctrine of Karma and objects in the following way: ‘The problem of free-will is a difficult one’, ‘Buddhism flatly denies freedom’, and ‘A man is not cruel or covetous because he chooses to be so but because he has just been a tiger or a lustful animal’. According to this opinion, a man is not free to do anything whatever he wants but his past Karma compels to act as he does. This objection of Karmic determinism on Buddhism is not justified at all because Buddha himself has refuted to all kinds of determinism whether it is Karmic determinism (Pubba-kamma-vāda) or Theistic determinism (Issara-karaṇa-vāda) or Natural determinism (Svabhāva-vāda). Having refuted Karmic determinism (Pubba-kamma-vāda) Buddha spoke thus to the monks in the Anguttara Nikāya: “So then if owing to a previous action, men will become murderers, thieves, abusive, liars, thus for those who fall back on the former deed as the essential reason there is neither desire to do, nor effect to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed. So then, the necessity for action or inaction not being found to exist in truth and verity the term ‘ Samaṇa’ can not reasonably applied to yourselves (to those who hold this view), since you live in a state of bewilderment with faculties unwarned.” Buddha further says thus at another place in the same text: “O monks, if one should say: ‘Exactly according a man does a deed, in such a manner will he experience the result of it’— that being so there is no holy living , there is no opportunity afforded for the perfect ending of ill. But, monks, if one should say: ‘Exactly according as a man does a deed, that can be experienced hereafter’— that being so there is living of the holy life, there is opportunity afforded for the utter ending of the ill.” Therefore, Buddhism states that the man is conditioned by many factors and among them Karma plays a major role; one is not determined by any or all of them. One has an element of free-will or personal endeavour by practicing which he can change his own nature as well as his environment. Actually, it is the spirit we should have within us whenever we think of changing the world in a better world. If this freedom had not been in the Buddhism, the elimination and neutralization of evil actions and salvation of Buddha’s disciples would not have been possible. In this very sense Buddhism considers to man as master of his fate. Attā hi attano nātho, ko hi nātho paro siyā, Attanā’va sudantena nāthaṃ labhati dullabhaṃ. Self is the refuge of self, for who else could be? By a fully controlled self one obtains a refuge which is hard to gain. Conclusively, the Buddhist Doctrine of Karma can be summarized in the following few points: 1. Karma is the major factor responsible for what we are and what we will be, but it is not the only factor. It is one of the many factors responsible for the differences among the human beings. 2. There is every possibility of moulding one’s Karma here. Buddhism provides ample scope to a person to apply his free-will for the transformation of the fruits of his past deeds. One is free to diminish, increase or change the effects of his past good or bad deeds. 3. Had Buddhist Karma theory been deterministic, there must have been arisen the problem of self-contradiction in the Karma theory because of it’s believe in the impermanence (Anicca) of everything (How the fruits of action can be unchangeable?) but, actually, it is not the case here. Buddhist Karma theory is in the accordance with its own theory that every thing can be changed. Reference: 1. Anderson, Dines & Smith, Helmer (Ed.). The Suttanipāta. London: Pali Text Society, 1965, p.123 2. Hardy, E (Edit.).Anguttara Nikāya , Vol. III. London: Pali Text Society, 1976, p. 415 3. Maha Thera, Narada (Tr. and Ed.): Dhammapada, Mahabodhi Society of India, Calcutta, India, 1992, p. 2 4. Poussin, L.De La Vallee: The Way to Nirvāna, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, India, 1982, p. 72 5. Thera, Narada: The Buddha and His Teachings, Buddhist Missionary Society, Malaysia, 1988, p. 367 6. Woodward, F.L. (Trans.): The book of the Gradual Sayings (Anguttara Nikāya), Vol. I, Pali Text Society, London, p.228 7. Davids, T.W.Rhys (Trans.): The questions of King Milinda, S.B.E.,Vol. 35, Motilal Banarasidass, Delhi, India, 1997, pp. 191 - 192 8. Poussin, L.De La Vallee: The Way to Nirvāna, Sri Satguru Publications, Delhi, India, 1982, p. 96 9. Woodward, F.L. (Trans.): The book of the Gradual Sayings (Anguttara Nikāya), Vol. I, Pali Text Society, London, p. 157 10. Ibid, p. 230 11. Maha Thera, Narada (Trans. and Edit.): Dhammapada, Mahabodhi Society of India, Calcutta, India, 1992, p. 116
Posted on: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 12:44:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015