The "Excuse Karma" Problem

I don't really like talking about kamma (Sanskrit: karma) because it's a difficult subject. It's extremely complex and having a truly proper understanding of it also requires a solid understanding of other concepts such as anatta (non-self, having no soul or permanent self) and anicca (impermanence). Therefore it's very difficult explain it both accurately and in a way that doesn't cause people to walk away with a completely false understanding of it. I personally don't feel like I can do a proper job of explaining it to people claiming to be Buddhist, much less non-Buddhists, and as you can imagine there seems to be a good bit of disagreement even among Buddhists on how kamma is suppose to work.

Recently though, Ven. S. Dhammika mentioned something that has been bugging me for some time, namely the corrupt idea that kamma is an excuse for not doing anything to help people because if they fall on bad times then it's obviously due to their bad kamma and thus they deserve whatever happens to them. He says:

The four most common misunderstandings are these.
...
(2) We can never escape from the consequences of our past actions. If this were true then we would be completely determined by our past and be unable to change and attain enlightenment (A.I,249). The Buddha spoke of two types of determinism (niyativada); theistic determinism (issaranimmana hetu) which says that God knows and controls everything and thus has determined everything before it has happened and (2) kammic determinism (pubbekata hetu) which says that everything we experience, pleasant, painful or neutral, is due to our kamma, that is, how we have acted in the past. The Buddha said that both these ideas are not only false but also pernicious (A.I,173). Determinism means that the individual cannot choose one course of action over another, cannot make an effort to change anything and is not responsible for anything he or she does. Such a belief can only lead to irresponsibility and inactivity - ‘What can I do? It’s my past kamma.’ As the Buddha very correctly said, ‘If anyone were to say that we experience (the results of) a deed exactly as we have done it then it would be impossible to cultivate the spiritual life’ (A.I,248).

In much of Buddhist Asia the widely held belief that everything is due to kamma is used as an excuse for peoples’ lack of social concern.

This idea does seem to be disturbingly popular in Asia. I'm not sure if it's to be blamed on the influence of Taoism or maybe Hinduism (in East Asia I'd tend to assume Taoism, while Hinduism has had a good bit of influence in Southeast Asia) but it doesn't come from Buddhism. Unfortunately Buddhism suffers from reuse of the words kamma (Pali) and karma (Sanskrit) from other philosophies like Hinduism, but it's a difficult word to avoid because it's very fundamental to the language since it literally means action. Misunderstandings then arise because people who don't speak Pali or Sanskrit then think it's some magic opaque word that only refers to this philosophical idea and thus the idea must be the same across the board, but kamma and karma are in fact extremely generic words.

This "excuse karma" problem especially disturbs me because it's constantly cited to me by non-Buddhists in the west as an example of why Buddhism is a bad influence and why Buddhist countries are in such bad shape. Unfortunately I don't know that there's much that westerners can do to change this sort of attitude in Asia. So what I want to know is, what are people in Asia, especially Buddhists, going to do about this attitude and improve the state of their countries?

As long as this degenerate phenomena of "excuse karma" persists it's going to continue to cause social problems and make Buddhism look bad. People are going to keep attributing it to Buddhism whether it truly comes from Buddhism or not. (Similarly, people in the west are probably going to keep attributing things that actually come from American Transcendentalism to Buddhism whether they come from Buddhism or not. Though thats less serious, it still demonstrates how easily people confuse Buddhism with other ideas.)

So karma/kamma is clearly not an excuse for inaction for anyone who is the least bit educated in Dhamma (Buddhist doctrine). The Buddha's refutations of doctrines of inaction are repeated constantly throughout the Pali Canon and are very consistent.

The Honorable Purposes of Debate

An article mentioned by Dhamma81 on Dhamma Reflections got me to thinking about the purpose of debate.

Unfortunately for most people, the purpose of debate is "to win." In my opinion this is foolish. For me, the greatest value in debate come from losing, at least to some degree. Why? Because when you lose you stand some chance of learning something. Really you don't have to lose completely, but if you only "lose" in the sense that the other person brings up a valid point that you hadn't considered then you've gained something.

Recently I've been doing research for my Footsteps of the Buddha geo-biography project and for that reading The Buddha and His Disciples by Ven. Dhammika. One of the things mentioned pertains to debates.

At first the Buddha avoided debates due to tactics like that of one trickster who would show up early for a debate, tell the crowd that his opponent had failed to show, then proceed to trash his opponent for being too afraid to appear.

But gradually as his Dharma became more popular and began to be challenged or misrepresented by ascetics of other sects, [the Buddha] began to frequent debates. In fact, he was soon recognised as the most persuasive debater of his time. Certain rules governed the conduct of debates and the Buddha always abided by these rules and expected others to follow them also. When a young man named Canki kept interjecting while the Buddha was debating with some learned Brahmins, he turned to him and said firmly: "Quiet, Canki! Do not interrupt while we are speaking."[ N11 ] If on being asked a question for the third time a person could still not answer, the Buddha would insist that they admit defeat as was the rule.[ N12 ] Once he asked an ascetic if he readily believed in the view he held, the ascetic said, "I believe it and so do all these people," as he pointed at the large audience. The Buddha said, "What they believe is not the point. Is that your view?"[ N13 ] But of course the Buddha's purpose was not to defeat his opponents but to lead them to a clearer understanding. To this end he would often use what is called the Socratic method, so called because in the West it was first used by the Greek philosopher Socrates, asking clearer questions as a means of leading people to an insight or to prove a point. For example, once during a discussion, a Brahmin named Sonadanda proclaimed: "A true Brahmin has pure ancestry, he is well-versed in the sacred scriptures, he is fair in colour, he is virtuous, he is wise and he is an expert in the rituals." The Buddha asked: "Could a person lack one of these qualities and still be considered a Brahmin?" Sonadanda thought for a moment and then admitted that one could have a dark complexion and still be a Brahmin. Continuing to ask the same question, Sonadanda was led to the same view as the Buddha's, that it is not ancestry, knowledge, colour or social status that makes one superior but virtue and wisdom.[ N14 ]

So I'm afraid that I can't agree that debates are always totally pointless. Much of the time they are because you have nothing to teach, the other people have nothing for you to learn, and everyone involved is too childish to benefit anyway.

Perhaps the key is to use discernment to judge when a debate is worthwhile and when it isn't.

Another thing is to not behave as though you're just preaching and doing nothing else. Another important point from the previously quoted book:

When he met people strongly attached to their views and whom he knew he could not change, he would suggest discussing points of agreement so as to avoid fruitless arguments. At such times he would say: "About these things there is no agreement, therefore, let us put them aside. About the things on which we agree let us take up and talk about."[ N6 ] Sometimes rather than talk about his own Dharma he would invite his opponents to explain their teachings first. At a time when there was great competition and jealousy among different religions, the Buddha's fairness often caused surprise. Once a group of ascetics met the Buddha and their leader asked him to explain his Dharma. The Buddha said: "Better still, tell me about your teachings." The ascetics were astonished and said to each other: "It is wonderful, truly marvellous, how great is the ascetic Gotama in that he will hold back his own views and invite others to explain theirs."[ N7 ] When people asked a particularly appropriate or relevant question he would praise them, thereby encouraging discussion, questioning and inquiry. When Bhadda asked such a question, the Buddha replied, "Well said! Well said, friend Bhadda! Your understanding is welcome. Your wisdom is welcome."[ N8 ]

Perhaps we are not the Buddha, but we can still learn something from him when it comes to debate.

Madness & Vexation

AN 4.77: The Acintita Sutta states:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

I quoted the whole thing, but really what I'm concerned with here is fact that kamma (karma) is in the list.

I think I finally understand the importance of this. Originally I thought that some degree of "academic" speculation would be pretty harmless assuming that I personally didn't take it seriously, but I didn't really consider the "madness and vexation" which it might cause to other people and thus to me, even if I tried to make it clear that I was stating a scenario then trying to evaluate whether it was true, possible, or false.

The law of kamma is actually a seriously touchy political issue in Buddhism. A lot of the time it gets intentionally misrepresented at worst and misunderstood at best, and this happens even in Buddhist countries.

And related to developing the skillfulness to avoid problems, this from MN 61 is extremely important:

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

Cyclones in The Manual of Cosmic Order

On this question of whether a natural disaster can be caused by karma, we have a what looks like an answer from one famous Burmese monk, Venerable Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw:

Bhikkhu Nyana who was later known as Ledi Sayadaw was born on Tuesday, the 13th Waxing of Nattaw, 1208 Burmese Era (1846 C.E.) at Saing-pyin Village, Dipeyin Township, Shwebo District. His parents were U Tun Tha and Daw Kyone. Early in life he was ordained a samanera and at the age of 20 a Bhikkhu, under the patronage of Salin Sayadaw U Pandicca. he received his monastic education under various teachers and later was trained in Buddhist literature by the Venerable San-kyaung Sayadaw, Sudassana Dhaja Atuladhipati Siripavara Mahadhamma Rajadhi- raja-guru of Mandalay.

He wrote a number of manuals on different subjects including one called Niyama Dipani, The Manual of Cosmic Order.

Now I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is based on material in the Abhidhamma Pitaka which is largely a systematization of material in the Sutta Pitaka. (The Burmese have a long tradition of studying the Abhidhamma whereas other Theravada cultures usually focus more on the Suttas.) Note that the English in this translation is somewhat archaic because of the fact that it isn't a modern translation.

The manual categorizes the niyama, or cosmic order, into several areas only one of which is kamma (karma) the moral order:

The Fivefold Niyama is as follows

1. utu-niyama: the caloric order
2. bija-niyama: the germinal order
3. kamma-niyama: the moral order
4. citta-niyama: the psychical order
5. dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence.[4]

It appears to be the utu-niyama that applies to things like the weather:

The caloric order is the fixed process that determines the four-fold succession of evolution, continuance, revolution (i.e. dissolution), and void of the universe. It is the process that determines the ordered succession of the three seasons-winter, summer and rains.... It is again the same process that determines the specific season in which trees, creepers, shrubs and grasses bring forth flowers and bear fruit. And all this order has been made and created by no 'maker' whatever, whether human, celestial, or divine. Inasmuch as it is accomplished entirely by the fixed (or natural) order that we know as 'utu', it is called utu-niyama, or caloric order.[6]

So as we can see, gross natural events like cyclones, if I understand this properly, should fall under utu-niyama and not under kamma-niyama. Though I'm not entirely sure how this is derived from Abhidhamma, and how that Abhidhamma is derived from the Suttas. So it's not entirely clear to me how "canonical" this view of utu-niyama is.

It's also possible that utu-niyama is refering to general patterns and not specific events. Cause-and-effect continues to be a complex subject, but still a worthy one as we can't hope to understand anything about the universe without it whether it be in the sense of empirical physical science or philosophy.