Karma

[chownah]

We do not receive karma for our thoughts.

Just everything else we do...

The Buddha taught that karma is intention.....that karma is activated through action, speech, and thought.....that karma (intention) leads to fruits, some fruits being "good" and some being "bad".

Chownah

[Brucenkhamen]

The Buddha taught that karma is intention.....that karma is activated through action, speech, and thought.....that karma (intention) leads to fruits, some fruits being "good" and some being "bad".

Chownah

I have to admit this bothered me last time I read it and it still does. I agree that intention gives rise to action and that intentional acts carry more weight than unintentional ones, but I do think all acts have significance no matter how small, both intentional and unintentional ones.

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

[chownah]

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

Sure:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(excerpt)

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...6.063.than.html

In this Sutta the Buddha expounds on many topics one of which is Kamma.....this is the first sentence in his explanation of Kamma there and I believe that this sentence serves as a definition of Kamma as a lead in to the rest of the talk on Kamma.

Chownah

Edited January 17, 2008 by chownah

[lannarebirth]

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

Sure:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(excerpt)

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...6.063.than.html

In this Sutta the Buddha expounds on many topics one of which is Kamma.....this is the first sentence in his explanation of Kamma there and I believe that this sentence serves as a definition of Kamma as a lead in to the rest of the talk on Kamma.

Chownah

I would agree with that definition if the Buddha had said "Kamma is intention", rather than the other way around. It's like saying "a potato is food". Certainly true, but it's not a complete definition of food, I believe likewise, "intention is kamma" is not a complete definition of kamma.

[Brucenkhamen]

I would agree with that definition if the Buddha had said "Kamma is intention", rather than the other way around. It's like saying "a potato is food". Certainly true, but it's not a complete definition of food, I believe likewise, "intention is kamma" is not a complete definition of kamma.

Yes, this was the point I was trying to make.

Reading that passage I could go either way on this. It doesn't say kamma is intention and anything unintentional is therefore not kamma, nor does it deny it, but it does make it clear that intention is important.

[chownah]

Ok then. A more complete discussion.

In the Sutta the Buddha expounds on many things e.g. sensuality, feelings, perception, fermentations, kamma etc. There is a section for each of these discussions. Each discussion follows a similar pattern of development. The first paragraph of each discussion contains a list of the various aspects of the topic which are to be discussed and the following sections each illuminate one of the aspects from the introductory list....i.e. the first paragraph after the introductory list illuminates the first item on the list and the second paragraph after the introdutory list illumiates the second item on the list...etc.

The section of Kamma begins with this:

"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

So....the first item on the list is "Kamma should be known." I interpret this to mean that first you need to know what Kamma is so that you'll know what I am talking about when I am talking about Kamma.

The first paragraph after the list as quoted above is this:

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

The second paragraph after the list quoted above explains the cause by which Kamma comes in to play....which is the second item on the list above.......and so on.

So..."Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect." would be the definition of Kamma....at least for the purposes of the discussion the Buddha is developing.....

Chownah

P.S. A better discussion can be found her at Wings to Awakening:

http://www.buddhanet.net/wings1b.htm

An excerpt from that site:

"Essential to the Buddha's second insight was his realization of the mind's role in determining the moral quality of actions. His analysis of the process of developing a skill showed him that skillfulness depended not so much on the physical performance of an act as on the mental qualities of perception, attention, and intention that played a part in it. Of these three qualities, the intention formed the essence of the act [§10]-as it constituted the decision to act-while attention and perception informed it. Thus the skillfulness of these mental phenomena accounted for the act's kammic consequences. The less greed, aversion, and delusion motivating the act, the better its results. Unintentional acts would have kammic consequences only when they resulted from carelessness in areas where one would reasonably be held responsible...................."

Note the last sentence which clearly indicates that unintentional acts would only have kammic consequences in certain limited situations.

I recommend reading the entire section......actually Wings to Awakening is a very good site for easily understood explanations of alot of Buddhist concepts.

Chownah

Edited January 18, 2008 by chownah

[toptuan]

I teach a master's degree course at a university to Thai education students and one of my lessons is teaching them to use their English skills to compare/contrast Buddhism to Christianity. Since one three-hour class is much too short for such a broad subject, I've chosen to focus on the philosophical points of Karma, free-will, fate, and the sovereignty of God as taught in orthodox Christianity.

In previous years of teaching this course I have always dealt with the concepts of "good karma" and "bad karma." However, this year, some of my students insist that Karma (they pronounce it "gaam" or กรรม) refers to only the negative results of negative actions (with negative intentions). They're trying to tell me that what we call "good karma" is not part of Theravada Buddhist philosophy. They say it's "something else" but can't come up with an English or Thai term to describe it.

Can anyone shed light on this issue?

Edited January 18, 2008 by toptuan

[Brucenkhamen]

In previous years of teaching this course I have always dealt with the concepts of "good karma" and "bad karma." However, this year, some of my students insist that Karma (they pronounce it "gaam" or กรรม) refers to only the negative results of negative actions (with negative intentions). They're trying to tell me that what we call "good karma" is not part of Theravada Buddhist philosophy. They say it's "something else" but can't come up with an English or Thai term to describe it.

Can anyone shed light on this issue?

I've also noticed Thai people do this. I think it's just one of the many distortions of the Buddhas teaching prevalent in Thai culture. I think we are starting to do it in the West too, you hear throw away statements like "Oh it must be my Karma" and it's never about good things.

I think if you proved your point from Buddhist scripture they still wouldn't believe you, you just can't fight Thai culture.

Interesting though that they can't come up with an English or Thai word for good Kamma, I'd be tempted to use the word wassana.

[lannarebirth]

Ah, so it's intentional acts that have kamma. That makes much more sense.

[toptuan]

I think if you proved your point from Buddhist scripture they still wouldn't believe you, you just can't fight Thai culture.

I get your point. Same reaction I get from Thai professors (with Ph. D.'s ) when I tell them their English grammar is wrong!

[chownah]

Ah, so it's intentional acts that have kamma. That makes much more sense.

Yeah, I'd agree with that....with the proviso that it is understood that "intention" is in and of itself a mental action so to say that "intentional acts" have kamma is sort of redundant in that the intention itself is an act....a mental act....which is one of the three kinds of action through which intention (kamma) is activated (through thought, word, and deed).

I would also point out that for most of us there is almost always intention going on behind all of our actions so it is not surprising that people would be of a mind that ALL actions have kamma....since this is probably almost true for most of us....in my view of things anyway....I could be wrong.

Chownah

Edited January 18, 2008 by chownah

[camerata]

I would also point out that for most of us there is almost always intention going on behind all of our actions so it is not surprising that people would be of a mind that ALL actions have kamma....since this is probably almost true for most of us....in my view of things anyway....I could be wrong.

Chownah

What fascinates me is that a lot of intention is subconscious and we are not aware of it even after the fact. Suppose my mother has extremely painful (eventually) terminal cancer and begs me to kill her. On the surface, helping her to die might seem like an act of compassion with admirable intent. But what if I was in debt and happened to know she had left a chunk of money for me in her will? What if the last couple of years my mum had been a pest and my marriage was breaking down as a result? How much of my intent would be truly selfless and how could I know for sure? I believe this is why a large part of Dhamma practice involves contemplating our intent.

[chownah]

I teach a master's degree course at a university to Thai education students and one of my lessons is teaching them to use their English skills to compare/contrast Buddhism to Christianity. Since one three-hour class is much too short for such a broad subject, I've chosen to focus on the philosophical points of Karma, free-will, fate, and the sovereignty of God as taught in orthodox Christianity.

In previous years of teaching this course I have always dealt with the concepts of "good karma" and "bad karma." However, this year, some of my students insist that Karma (they pronounce it "gaam" or กรรม) refers to only the negative results of negative actions (with negative intentions). They're trying to tell me that what we call "good karma" is not part of Theravada Buddhist philosophy. They say it's "something else" but can't come up with an English or Thai term to describe it.

Can anyone shed light on this issue?

I don't know what course you are teaching so I don't know for sure the best angle to approach this but you might have them read:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.135.than.html

MN 135

Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta

The Shorter Analysis of Action

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

In this Sutta it gives several examples of people who behave one way getting bad results and people behaving the opposite way getting good results. Is this what you have in mind? If your students have good comprehension when reading English you might suggest that they read the link I posted above to the Wings to Awakening web site where it gives an exposition on Kamma.

One thing I want to add for everyone is that the authoer of the Wings to Awakening web site is Thanissaro Bhikku who is a very well known monk/author who is generally well respected but some of his explanations of some issues are considered by very orthodox Theravada Buddhists to be tainted with questionable concepts and views so while I do think he is a good source of information and has a very good way of explaining things. For those who want a well rounded view of Theravada beliefs it would be good to read other peoples views too. For example if you go to the link above you will see that it contains a link to another author's translation of the same Sutta. Usually I find that the differences between translations are mostly stylistic but some people have strong opinions about precise meanings of words and take issue how things are conveyed...and even for me there are times when I think a choice of words is misleading and another choice would be bettter..... Even within Thereavada Buddhism there are strongly opinionated people with conflicting views.

Chownah

Edited January 18, 2008 by chownah

[traveller5000]

So if intent generates karma, what generates intent ? Is it the old karma that generates intent, and the intent behind the action generates the new karma, therefore going in some kind of a circle or (hopefully) evolutionary spiral ?

Intent has to come from somewhere but I cant recall reading about this in Buddhism.

[chownah]

So if intent generates karma, what generates intent ? Is it the old karma that generates intent, and the intent behind the action generates the new karma, therefore going in some kind of a circle or (hopefully) evolutionary spiral ?

Intent has to come from somewhere but I cant recall reading about this in Buddhism.

(A note before beginning: The Buddha does not teach that intent "generates" karma, he taught that intent "is" karma...at least in the Sutta I have referred to...perhaps he says other things elsewhere.)

In the link I posted in post #63 the Buddha gives a talk about Kamma and in that talk he says that Kamma arises from Contact. He says:

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play."

Contact means the event which happens when a sense door, its object, and the consciousness associated with them all come together....this is called Contact.

Explanation:

There are six sense doors...eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect (mind). Each one has the object which stimulates it or which is presented to it....for eye it is form, for ear it is sound, for nose it is odor, for tongue it is taste, for body it is bodily sensation, and for intellect is is ideas. There are six kinds of consciousness with each corresponding to a sense door....for eye there is eye consciousness, for ear there is ear consciousness, for nose there is nose consciousness, for tongue there is tongue consciousness, for body there is body consciousness, and for intellect there is mind conscioiusness. When the eye, form, and eye consciousness come together this is called eye contact, when the ear, sound, and ear consciousness come together this is called ear contact, etc. This has all been from memory and I think its correct but someone might check the Scriptures or elsewhere and make sure I haven't left something out or made some other blunder.

I'm reasonably certain that the next question will be, "what generates contact?" I really think that to answer this a systematic study of some Theravada texts would be better than me trying to explain it....first, is that it gets complicated and the explanations get longer and second, Kamma is not really my thing...I usually don't think about Kamma much except when I want to further a mostly academic interest in it. I find that for me for now I can keep myself busy searching out my Path without dealing with Kamma....or rebirth either for that matter....although I do realize that at some time in the future these issues might become more central to my thinking so I don't dismiss them entirely.

Chownah

Edited January 18, 2008 by chownah

[sabaijai]

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

Sure:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(excerpt)

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...6.063.than.html

In this Sutta the Buddha expounds on many topics one of which is Kamma.....this is the first sentence in his explanation of Kamma there and I believe that this sentence serves as a definition of Kamma as a lead in to the rest of the talk on Kamma.

Chownah

I would agree with that definition if the Buddha had said "Kamma is intention", rather than the other way around. It's like saying "a potato is food". Certainly true, but it's not a complete definition of food, I believe likewise, "intention is kamma" is not a complete definition of kamma.

We've had this discussion elsewhere on this forum. The way I read these passages, and the way I was taught academically and in practice, is that intention is one kind of kamma, that is intending itself is an action.

Just as when practicing satipatthana vipassana, while one does walking meditation, for example, one notes 'intending to lift the foot', 'lifting the foot', 'swinging the foot', 'placing the foot' and so on. Buddhist scholars I know do not interpret 'intention is kamma' to mean it's the sum total of kamma. And yes the main point to remember is that the literal meaning of kamma is 'action'.

[AYJAYDEE]

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

Sure:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(excerpt)

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...6.063.than.html

In this Sutta the Buddha expounds on many topics one of which is Kamma.....this is the first sentence in his explanation of Kamma there and I believe that this sentence serves as a definition of Kamma as a lead in to the rest of the talk on Kamma.

Chownah

I would agree with that definition if the Buddha had said "Kamma is intention", rather than the other way around. It's like saying "a potato is food". Certainly true, but it's not a complete definition of food, I believe likewise, "intention is kamma" is not a complete definition of kamma.

We've had this discussion elsewhere on this forum. The way I read these passages, and the way I was taught academically and in practice, is that intention is one kind of kamma, that is intending itself is an action.

Just as when practicing satipatthana vipassana, while one does walking meditation, for example, one notes 'intending to lift the foot', 'lifting the foot', 'swinging the foot', 'placing the foot' and so on. Buddhist scholars I know do not interpret 'intention is kamma' to mean it's the sum total of kamma. And yes the main point to remember is that the literal meaning of kamma is 'action'.

I was always under the impression that an action is kamma only if it was performed intentionally.

[AYJAYDEE]

The Buddha taught that karma is intention.....that karma is activated through action, speech, and thought.....that karma (intention) leads to fruits, some fruits being "good" and some being "bad".

Chownah

I have to admit this bothered me last time I read it and it still does. I agree that intention gives rise to action and that intentional acts carry more weight than unintentional ones, but I do think all acts have significance no matter how small, both intentional and unintentional ones.

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

does this help??

WHAT IS KAMMA?

"Volition is Kamma."

-- ANGUTTARA NIKĀYA

Introduction: Kamma is defined by Buddha as: - "I declare, O Bhikkhus, that volition (cetanā) is Kamma. Having willed one acts by body, speech and thought." It is important to note that volitional action known as kamma must be willed and acted by body, speech or thought. When we say, will by one – it means there must arise intention to act for one to be accountable for such action (kamma). There is no kamma formation without the intent/ Buddhist should be cleared on this concept.

[Donleavy]

If there is no self then it would be impossible to steal from you, insult you, hurt you or even make you suffer!

I think that's called enlightenment

[jamesc2000]

If there is no self then it would be impossible to steal from you, insult you, hurt you or even make you suffer!

I think that's called enlightenment

Hehe! A lot of suffering is unnecessary and most of it is caused by ourselves.

I just wish more people knew this so that no one has to suffer at all.

If we cause our own suffering then maybe we shouldn’t work so hard!

[Pepe']

Do you have a reference to a teaching that explains kamma is only the result of intentional acts and nothing else?

Sure:

AN 6.63

Nibbedhika Sutta

Penetrative

Translated from the Pali by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

(excerpt)

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an...6.063.than.html

In this Sutta the Buddha expounds on many topics one of which is Kamma.....this is the first sentence in his explanation of Kamma there and I believe that this sentence serves as a definition of Kamma as a lead in to the rest of the talk on Kamma.

Chownah

I would agree with that definition if the Buddha had said "Kamma is intention", rather than the other way around. It's like saying "a potato is food". Certainly true, but it's not a complete definition of food, I believe likewise, "intention is kamma" is not a complete definition of kamma.

We've had this discussion elsewhere on this forum. The way I read these passages, and the way I was taught academically and in practice, is that intention is one kind of kamma, that is intending itself is an action.

Just as when practicing satipatthana vipassana, while one does walking meditation, for example, one notes 'intending to lift the foot', 'lifting the foot', 'swinging the foot', 'placing the foot' and so on. Buddhist scholars I know do not interpret 'intention is kamma' to mean it's the sum total of kamma. And yes the main point to remember is that the literal meaning of kamma is 'action'.

-----------------------

That is what I have been taught as well...

[Nudee]

Kamma was not what Lord Buddha discovered.

Kamma was in several religions/belief in India long before buddha era.

People in those days believe there are:

1) good Kamma

2) bad kamma

(I believe ) the concept before Buddha era is that you should accumulate good kamma and reduce bad Kamma (something like depoist and withdraw your banking account). The more you accumulate, the closer you are to the nippan (i.e. not rebirth). Some buddhists (also in Thailand) still believe like this.

(I believe that) Lord Buddha introduced a third kamma, "not either good or bad kamma" which is used to "end" kamma.

It may be not easy for some people to start with the third kamma. So Lord Buddha introduced evolutionally way to the path:

1) reduce bad kamma

2) increase good kamma

and final evolution

3) stay above good and bad kamma

I remember when I was a kid, buddhist teachers in school always teach something like this:

"practice goodness, avoid badness, purify your mind" and they don't explain more (problably they don't know either).

I was silly then to think that it's a simple teaching (of course I was a kid then). I thought the 3 phrases are the same thing. I thought that when you avoid doing bad, doing only good thing, your mind will be purify, simple like that! That's very silly thought.

I know now that it's the steps to dissolve "Atta". The hi-light is the 3rd phrase, purify your mind. That's what one have to do, to purify your mind, to stay above good or bad kamma (intentionally or not, I don't know)

[camerata]

Here's an interesting take on kamma from Thaissaro:

Karma is one of those words we don't translate. Its basic meaning is simple enough — action — but because of the weight the Buddha's teachings give to the role of action, the Sanskrit word karma packs in so many implications that the English word action can't carry all its luggage. This is why we've simply airlifted the original word into our vocabulary.

But when we try unpacking the connotations the word carries now that it has arrived in everyday usage, we find that most of its luggage has gotten mixed up in transit. In the eyes of most Americans, karma functions like fate — bad fate, at that: an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. "I guess it's just my karma," I've heard people sigh when bad fortune strikes with such force that they see no alternative to resigned acceptance. The fatalism implicit in this statement is one reason why so many of us are repelled by the concept of karma, for it sounds like the kind of callous myth-making that can justify almost any kind of suffering or injustice in the status quo: "If he's poor, it's because of his karma." "If she's been raped, it's because of her karma." From this it seems a short step to saying that he or she deserves to suffer, and so doesn't deserve our help.

This misperception comes from the fact that the Buddhist concept of karma came to the West at the same time as non-Buddhist concepts, and so ended up with some of their luggage. Although many Asian concepts of karma are fatalistic, the early Buddhist concept was not fatalistic at all. In fact, if we look closely at early Buddhist ideas of karma, we'll find that they give even less importance to myths about the past than most modern Americans do.

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw 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. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.

This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful intentions.

We read the early Buddhist attacks on the caste system, and aside from their anti-racist implications, they often strike us as quaint. What we fail to realize is that they strike right at the heart of our myths about our own past: our obsession with defining who we are in terms of where we come from — our race, ethnic heritage, gender, socio-economic background, sexual preference — our modern tribes. We put inordinate amounts of energy into creating and maintaining the mythology of our tribe so that we can take vicarious pride in our tribe's good name. Even when we become Buddhists, the tribe comes first. We demand a Buddhism that honors our myths.

From the standpoint of karma, though, where we come from is old karma, over which we have no control. What we "are" is a nebulous concept at best — and pernicious at worst, when we use it to find excuses for acting on unskillful motives. The worth of a tribe lies only in the skillful actions of its individual members. Even when those good people belong to our tribe, their good karma is theirs, not ours. And, of course, every tribe has its bad members, which means that the mythology of the tribe is a fragile thing. To hang onto anything fragile requires a large investment of passion, aversion, and delusion, leading inevitably to more unskillful actions on into the future.

So the Buddhist teachings on karma, far from being a quaint relic from the past, are a direct challenge to a basic thrust — and basic flaw — in our culture. Only when we abandon our obsession with finding vicarious pride in our tribal past, and can take actual pride in the motives that underlie our present actions, can we say that the word karma, in its Buddhist sense, has recovered its luggage. And when we open the luggage, we'll find that it's brought us a gift: the gift we give ourselves and one another when we drop our myths about who we are, and can instead be honest about what we're doing with each moment — at the same time making the effort to do it right.

[sabaijai]

Here's an interesting take on kamma from Thaissaro:

Karma is one of those words we don't translate. Its basic meaning is simple enough — action — but because of the weight the Buddha's teachings give to the role of action, the Sanskrit word karma packs in so many implications that the English word action can't carry all its luggage. This is why we've simply airlifted the original word into our vocabulary.

But when we try unpacking the connotations the word carries now that it has arrived in everyday usage, we find that most of its luggage has gotten mixed up in transit. In the eyes of most Americans, karma functions like fate — bad fate, at that: an inexplicable, unchangeable force coming out of our past, for which we are somehow vaguely responsible and powerless to fight. "I guess it's just my karma," I've heard people sigh when bad fortune strikes with such force that they see no alternative to resigned acceptance. The fatalism implicit in this statement is one reason why so many of us are repelled by the concept of karma, for it sounds like the kind of callous myth-making that can justify almost any kind of suffering or injustice in the status quo: "If he's poor, it's because of his karma." "If she's been raped, it's because of her karma." From this it seems a short step to saying that he or she deserves to suffer, and so doesn't deserve our help.

This misperception comes from the fact that the Buddhist concept of karma came to the West at the same time as non-Buddhist concepts, and so ended up with some of their luggage. Although many Asian concepts of karma are fatalistic, the early Buddhist concept was not fatalistic at all. In fact, if we look closely at early Buddhist ideas of karma, we'll find that they give even less importance to myths about the past than most modern Americans do.

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw 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. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. Even though the past may account for many of the inequalities we see in life, our measure as human beings is not the hand we've been dealt, for that hand can change at any moment. We take our own measure by how well we play the hand we've got. If you're suffering, you try not to continue the unskillful mental habits that would keep that particular karmic feedback going. If you see that other people are suffering, and you're in a position to help, you focus not on their karmic past but your karmic opportunity in the present: Someday you may find yourself in the same predicament that they're in now, so here's your opportunity to act in the way you'd like them to act toward you when that day comes.

This belief that one's dignity is measured, not by one's past, but by one's present actions, flew right in the face of the Indian traditions of caste-based hierarchies, and explains why early Buddhists had such a field day poking fun at the pretensions and mythology of the brahmans. As the Buddha pointed out, a brahman could be a superior person not because he came out of a brahman womb, but only if he acted with truly skillful intentions.

We read the early Buddhist attacks on the caste system, and aside from their anti-racist implications, they often strike us as quaint. What we fail to realize is that they strike right at the heart of our myths about our own past: our obsession with defining who we are in terms of where we come from — our race, ethnic heritage, gender, socio-economic background, sexual preference — our modern tribes. We put inordinate amounts of energy into creating and maintaining the mythology of our tribe so that we can take vicarious pride in our tribe's good name. Even when we become Buddhists, the tribe comes first. We demand a Buddhism that honors our myths.

From the standpoint of karma, though, where we come from is old karma, over which we have no control. What we "are" is a nebulous concept at best — and pernicious at worst, when we use it to find excuses for acting on unskillful motives. The worth of a tribe lies only in the skillful actions of its individual members. Even when those good people belong to our tribe, their good karma is theirs, not ours. And, of course, every tribe has its bad members, which means that the mythology of the tribe is a fragile thing. To hang onto anything fragile requires a large investment of passion, aversion, and delusion, leading inevitably to more unskillful actions on into the future.

So the Buddhist teachings on karma, far from being a quaint relic from the past, are a direct challenge to a basic thrust — and basic flaw — in our culture. Only when we abandon our obsession with finding vicarious pride in our tribal past, and can take actual pride in the motives that underlie our present actions, can we say that the word karma, in its Buddhist sense, has recovered its luggage. And when we open the luggage, we'll find that it's brought us a gift: the gift we give ourselves and one another when we drop our myths about who we are, and can instead be honest about what we're doing with each moment — at the same time making the effort to do it right.

Elegantly put.

There is a free English-language book on karma available in Chiang Mai and written by the abbot of Wat Fai Hin that goes into great detail on the 'feedback loops' concept Ven Thanissaro touches on above. There are some posts on the book somewhere in this forum branch, I'll see if I can find a link and post here.