Different
theories of karma and rebirth have circulated for generations now in the West,
and for many centuries before in India and the East of course, so it can be
difficult to arrive at a clear understanding of these ideas, even for Buddhist
practitioners. Uncertainty around the subject has been exacerbated by the
plainly mistaken views of some Western Buddhist teachers and writers, who see
it as part of their role to question and review the whole concept of karma.
Quite often these critics are the very people who used to actually ‘get off’ on
the whole idea while travelling through the East, in Nepal, and in India,
through the 60s and 70s going: ‘this is karma man’. Now they are in their 60s
and 70s themselves, and suddenly karma has become a dirty word for them. When
young karma was never far from their lips, but closer to death nobody wants to
know about it; it freaks people out it seems! Unfortunately, just because we
don’t wish to think of something does not necessarily make it go away. So this
type of evasive reaction needs to be addressed.
Another problem
is the hasty dismissal of karma on rather flimsy logical or philosophical
grounds. Karma does not make sense it is said; it is an archaic kind of
superstition with no relevance to the modern mode of thinking. Basically, the
modern view and karmic theory are regarded as incompatible – one cannot be a
modern person while subscribing to the idea of karma. It is another
superstition, along with many others, that the modern individual needs to pare
away from whatever truth the ancient wisdom traditions have to offer. This
somewhat absurd conclusion is reflected in the type of book often written these
days, where the topic is entirely omitted, except perhaps to mention that karma
doesn’t really matter, one doesn’t have to believe in it, it is optional - just
do meditation - this kind of thing. We are at a point now where we have to
re-evaluate whether karma is something we can dispense with quite so easily,
especially if we are followers of Hinduism or Buddhism. In this book it will be
argued that karma is a central and indispensable plank in Buddhist doctrine,
and that it is highly significant, not just as a concept, but as a reality.
The idea of
Karma being an outmoded superstitious belief is probably based on simplified
versions of the idea that emerged from old world Asia basically. In poor
conditions, and where people were not very educated, the Buddha’s teachings
were usually delivered very simply. People under such circumstances think about
creating good karma in terms of making offerings to the ordained members of the
sangha, worshipping Buddha images, or circumambulating Buddhist shrines and
reliquaries, or feeding the poor, and so on. Many modern people tend to think
of karma with these types of association. It is seen as a primitive
superstitious idea that actually has detrimental effects on the motivation of
the populace, teaching an acceptance of their lot. The idea is not that simple;
it is not at all simple in fact. In this book we shall work towards presenting
karma in a philosophically sound manner, devoid of some of its prominent
misconceptions, so that at least readers can decide for themselves whether they
find it credible or not based on a solid background. It is hoped we can accord
karmic theory some credibility as a concept of intellectual value. This is an
important venture, because in the end, as Buddhists we are trying to explain
why we suffer, why things happen, and why we should we be moral. If in fact we
do not recognise or attach importance to any of these things, if we do not
believe in karma, then why should we even strive to be moral and treat each
other well?
We have stopped
talking about these things generally in the modern world, not just about karma,
but people have stopped talking about ethical issues altogether. There is an
increasing level of discussion around rights and justice, and who is entitled
to what, and who deserves a share of such-and-such, but very little about how
we should behave and treat each other, and how we should live together, and
why. There may be legitimacy to the claims being made in the name of justice,
however the amount of time devoted to this particular field of ethics is
presently overwhelming all other considerations. Secularists are of course typically
averse to start talking ethics in case the religious fanatics barge in and
hijack the whole discussion, which might well happen, so their fears can be
understood! On the other hand, we may be paying a price for not talking about
ethics. In relation to karmic theory, which looks to explain why we should be
moral, we don’t have to actually bring in any explicitly religious ideas, and
we don’t have to talk about God. We don’t actually have to refer specifically
to rebirth as such either. It is sufficient to just discuss the development of
the individual, the community and societies generally, that’s the key issue.
There are two
ways then, as a Buddhist, to speak to people about karma in the current context–
in religious terms and in secularised, restrained fashion. A lot of people are
sensitive to any hint of what they perceive to be religious fanaticism, or
appearing to be the object of an attempted conversion to a particular world
view. So the language used is critical. Not that there are any qualms from some
contemporary quarters about trying to convert everybody to modern democratic
ways of thinking, or touting the virtues of social justice and so on – there
seems to be little restraint there. But this is all by way of considering the
context into which this subject of karma is seated in today’s world, and it is
not a condemnation of modernity in favour of Buddhist traditions for instance.
There are many Buddhists who feel very lucky to be living in a democratic
country, as does the author.
The fact is
there is actually a lot of compatibility between the Buddhist view and the
modern view, but unfortunately Buddha’s original contribution to karmic theory
gets lost nowadays, somewhat ironically, due to the ongoing development of the
way people think today in the West. In many ways contemporary attitudes are
aligned with what the Buddha taught. People tend to react to the teachings
along the lines of: ‘oh, yes, we already sort of think like that anyway’. But
if we were to look back to how people thought in the West 100 years ago for
instance, then we would have a more accurate perspective on the Buddha’s
teachings – we would see just how modern the Buddha was. This is not to
propound the Buddha as the most modern religious founder to have come into this
world, or anything of that sort. Much of what the Buddha said has a modern ring
to it, but he was a person of his time, of his milieu. Perhaps as Buddhists we
would like to think he was more than a child of his time, but in any case, he
did have genuine insight into a variety of things, great insights that exceeded
cultural conditioning.
Karma is about
what constitutes the individual – it looks at ideas of what is inherent, what
is co-produced and what is conditioned. We already have a great interest in these
ideas in the West, in many disciplines, but none more so than psychology
perhaps. Given our great appetite for such matters, it is unfortunate karma has
drawn such faint interest, for it is a concept that looks squarely at the
health of the conditioned individual. It places individual person-hood and
self-understanding at its very foundation. The concept of Karma moves from
analysis of the subjective situation toward methods of individual development;
it incorporates ways in which individuals can work toward an idea of being a
person of depth, of value, or of some significance. And yet, unfortunately, it
continues to be interpreted as an abstract and non-personal entity, a natural
law of sorts. This is a misreading of the concept. To some extent common aversions
and misunderstandings around the idea stem from its variegated origins in early
Indian mythology and Brahmanic thought. So it is to this period of karmic
theory that we turn to first to better understand the general historical
dimensions of the idea, and hopefully, by way of comparison, we can then
proceed to identify what it is that makes the Buddhist concept of karma and
rebirth unique. In laying the foundations for this book, we will begin with a
survey of the early material found in classic Indian scriptures like the Vedas,
Mahabharata and Dharmashatra. We will continue in this fashion, contrasting
karmic thinking in Hinduism, early Buddhism, and later Mahayana Buddhism. We
can only deal with this comparative history in very broad brushstrokes of
course, as this is not principally a work of history, but we will employ
generalizations to get to an understanding of the various permutations of the
idea as it has come down to us. There is no implication whatsoever in the
comparisons to follow that one version of karma is assumed to be superior to
another. They are simply different.
