Mass Karma

[Neeranam]

How does Buddhism explain mass karma?

For example when whole races are wiped out in war/genocide.

What were they in their previous incarnation? Would they have been from the same country? What would they have done?

[Gohonzon]

How does Buddhism explain mass karma?

For example when whole races are wiped out in war/genocide.

What were they in their previous incarnation? Would they have been from the same country? What would they have done?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hi Neeranam

thanks for the question.

Yes, there is a collective karma that we all share. If we live in a nation that is bent on war,for instance, we share the collective consequences of those actions. This can also apply to more tricky and emotive areas too. Like (as you site) the instances of war and genocide.

I don't think that going too deep into the teaching on mutable and fixed karma will be the best answer here. Firstly because on the subject of its relationship to collective karma and fixed karma would require more of an essay than an answer on a message board. And secondly because I feel it would be necessarily incomplete. But do research on fixed and mutable karma, as it's an enlightening subject in itself.

So no official line or anything. Just a few things that I've been able to make sense of through Buddhist practice.

The important thing to remember is not what causes that say, Holocaust victims, created in their past lives to suffer in such a collective way ,because that's probably impossible to answer.The important question isn't what people did in past lives,but what people do in this one.And how do we make sure that such don't happen again, and that similar are addressed in the present

I think that fundemtally it all comes down to what we call the world of Anger. Not just losing it,but more ego identity--how you define yourself as a seperate entity from other people, from the rest of the universe in fact.

One way in which we do this is in opposition to other people,or groups of people. putting 'them' down to make 'us'--our group-feel better about ourselves,or superior. Examples such as football supporters, nations,religions,political groups,races-it's everywhere.

Taken to extremes that attitude can be used to justify anything 'our group' decides is good for us and to ignore anything 'that' group' says or wants.They don't count ; our needs come first. So throughout history groups of people have wiped out other groups that are seen as being an enemy,or inferior in some way.

The Mongols did it across Asia. We Europeans did it to millions of 'darkies'.White people ethinically cleansed millions of indigenous people when they settled in America. And we're still doing it.

Every year millions of people in developing countries die from poverty .disease, hunger, malnutrition; more people every year than died in the six years of WW2...including the Holocaust.We now have a silent Holocaust. We turn a blind eye because it suits our lifestyles.How many deaths are the result of international debt and unfair trade policies skewed towards the rich nations?

The Nazi's weren't really so unique either. It was an extreme case of what humans have done for ever: denigrate,devalue,disregard other human beings when it suits them. Greed and envy have been the two most potent drives in the history of mans inhumanity to man.

The Nazi's blamed their problems on the Jews and consciously decided to get rid of them. The western world sacrifices other people indirectly, by building on their/our wealth on structures and systems that create incredible suffering in poorer parts of the world.

Ideas generally, don't understand the basis of karma--the law of cause and effect, or reflect upon life accurately. Or exclude whole groups of people like--savages, non-Aryans, Jews ,non-Christians, non-believers. the rich, the poor,ad infinitum.

Any form of belief system or society that bases its ideas on the incomplete is going to hit the buffers sooner or later.The important thing isn't what people practise or believe--but how we behave to each other.And which values we choose to attach ourselves .

As Daisaku Ikeda puts it in the preface of his book;The Human Revolution :

...a great revolution of character in just a single man will help achieve a change in the destiny of a nation and further, will cause a change in the destiny of all mankind.

Edit

...a great revolution of character in just a single man (or woman) will help achieve a change in the destiny of a nation and further, will cause a change in the destiny of all

mankind.

Edited July 30, 2005 by Gohonzon

[cdnvic]

I'd advise you not to take the scripture too literally. There is no evidence of "past lives" in the new age sense. People evolve and re-invent themselves throughout their physical lives, yet a debt, be it monetary, emotional, or social that is created in a person's wild teenage years (a criminal record or student loan for example) can easily hinder them in their thirties, regardless of the transformations made. Hence karma from a past "life" rears its head when the person who hardly resembles the hellion of his youth, tries to get a job requiring a security check (criminal record), or a mortgage (defaulted student loan).

cv

[Neeranam]

I'd advise you not to take the scripture too literally. There is no evidence of "past lives" in the new age sense. People evolve and re-invent themselves throughout their physical lives, yet a debt, be it monetary, emotional, or social that is created in a person's wild teenage years (a criminal record or student loan for example) can easily hinder them in their thirties, regardless of the transformations made. Hence karma from a past "life" rears its head when the person who hardly resembles the hellion of his youth, tries to get a job requiring a security check (criminal record), or a mortgage (defaulted student loan).

cv

CV, I know only too well about things done in the wild teenage years hindering me in my thirties and twenties.

I also believe in what was taught to me as "sanskaras", the Hindu word for "scratches on the soul" from a previous life.

I believe very much in past lives, not as buddhism says. I believe that only a human must have been a human in a previuos life, and a buffalo a buffalo etc.

Gohonzon, thanks for that long explanation!

So, maybe the Nazis were reborn in Rwanda as Tutsis, for example?

But, as you say, it is not important really about past lives , but this one.

NN

[sabaijai]

As far as I know, there is no mention of "mass karma" in the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese of Tibetan versions of the Tripitaka. Has anyone else come across any? I think this is more likely a modern New Age concept, as cdnvic suggests.

[Gohonzon]

As far as I know, there is no mention of "mass karma" in the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese of Tibetan versions of the Tripitaka. Has anyone else come across any? I think this is more likely a modern New Age concept, as cdnvic suggests.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There is quite a level headed essay on collective karma in the Theravada tradition by Santikaro Bhikkhu

http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/skb911karma.html

To simply dismiss collective or mass karma as being new age becauce we cannot perhaps (?) find reference to it in the Tripitaka as being New Age is less than helpful in my opinion. Buddhism is not a static doctrine that is either culturally specific or unadaptive to the world in which we live; to be so would be to miss the very heart of Buddhism itself.

Buddhism addresses questions as they my arise. Why is it that 200 people all die in the same plane crash for example? And of course other pressing questions of the world in which we live.I'm pretty sure that if I were to research research the ninth level of consciouness (the store-house of karma) as passed down through the Chinese and Japanese traditions ,I think (?) Then I, or anyone,could well come up with a definitive answer as to the question of collective karma in a traditional Buddhist context. In fact I would be suprised if this hasn't already been done.

But watch this space anyway

Although, I still maintain that although these questions may be theoretically of some interest; the most pressing and relevant concern for Buddhists is the creation of value, conducting dialogue and working towards a more peaceful world: taking the Bodhhisattva vow in its most engaged context.

[sabaijai]

As far as I know, there is no mention of "mass karma" in the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese of Tibetan versions of the Tripitaka. Has anyone else come across any? I think this is more likely a modern New Age concept, as cdnvic suggests.

There is quite a level headed essay on collective karma in the Theravada tradition by Santikaro Bhikkhu

http://www.bpf.org/tsangha/skb911karma.html

To simply dismiss collective or mass karma as being new age becauce we cannot perhaps (?) find reference to it in the Tripitaka as being New Age is less than helpful in my opinion. Buddhism is not a static doctrine that is either culturally specific or unadaptive to the world in which we live; to be so would be to miss the very heart of Buddhism itself.

Buddhism addresses questions as they my arise. Why is it that 200 people all die in the same plane crash for example? And of course other pressing questions of the world in which we live.I'm pretty sure that if I were to research research the ninth level of consciouness (the store-house of karma) as passed down through the Chinese and Japanese traditions ,I think (?) Then I, or anyone,could well come up with a definitive answer as to the question of collective karma in a traditional Buddhist context. In fact I would be suprised if this hasn't already been done.

But watch this space anyway

Although, I still maintain that although these questions may be theoretically of some interest; the most pressing and relevant concern for Buddhists is the creation of value, conducting dialogue and working towards a more peaceful world: taking the Bodhhisattva vow in its most engaged context.

I read the Santikaro essay and to me he used the term 'collective karma' in a different way than you have or in the way the OP formed the question. It's clear to me that Santikaro is referring to the collected individual karma(s) of the people gathered together at the WTC on 9/11. Not that the people, as a society or a particular subset of society, have a single over-reaching karma. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of Buddhist philosopy. Karma by its very definition is action that follows the citta of an individual entity, as is the resulting vipaka relates to that entity.

Perhaps I should have used Santikaro's term 'pop-karma' rather than 'New Age', as he and I see eye to eye on the popular, spur-of-the-moment, individually improvised notions about karma rather than those we know to have been proposed by the Buddha.

Could be we're debating semantics. If you mean that people with similar karma may band together and thus experience similar vipaka, that's a reasonable proposition, I think. But that an entire group would create the same karma and suffer the same vipaka, I would have to ask, where's the evidence for such a theory? Santikaro does not offer any.

As for Buddhist doctrine being something we can modify according to our personal needs or whims, that's another topic altogether.

[Gohonzon]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I read the Santikaro essay and to me he used the term 'collective karma' in a different way than you have or in the way the OP formed the question. It's clear to me that Santikaro is referring to the collected individual karma(s) of the people gathered together at the WTC on 9/11. Not that the people, as a society or a particular subset of society, have a single over-reaching karma. It doesn't make sense from the standpoint of Buddhist philosopy. Karma by its very definition is action that follows the citta of an individual entity, as is the resulting vipaka relates to that entity.

Perhaps I should have used Santikaro's term 'pop-karma' rather than 'New Age', as he and I see eye to eye on the popular, spur-of-the-moment, individually improvised notions about karma rather than those we know to have been proposed by the Buddha.

Could be we're debating semantics. If you mean that people with similar karma may band together and thus experience similar vipaka, that's a reasonable proposition, I think. But that an entire group would create the same karma and suffer the same vipaka, I would have to ask, where's the evidence for such a theory? Santikaro does not offer any.

As for Buddhist doctrine being something we can modify according to our personal needs or whims, that's another topic altogether.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The coming together of individual karmas in one specific place and time--with highly significant outcomes-- is mere coincidence I suppose? However, I am at present researching this very topic.

As for the 'personal needs and individual whims' quip. Really necessary? Not the kind of discompassionate and intolerant remarks that I'd usually associate with most Buddhists--of any tradition--and I know a good few. But there you go..........sabajai

Edited August 1, 2005 by Gohonzon

[cdnvic]

Where you lose me is when you require faith in order for the past lives scenerio to work. Everything I believe about buddhism, I believe because I can see it in action around me. Karma basicly boils down to the basic law of the universe, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Engineers, psychologists, laymen, and pretty much anyone understand this and can apply it to their daily tasks.

Past (and future) lives on the other hand, have only wishes, and fables, not the laws of the universe on their side. In order to believe in them one must have faith, which is nothing more than hope, a desire, the ridding of which is central to all buddhist thought. That is why I cannot fathom anything requiring faith rather than direct knowlage having a place in buddhism.

cv

[sabaijai]

The coming together of individual karmas in one specific place and time--with highly significant outcomes-- is mere coincidence I suppose? However, I am at present researching this very topic.

Good, let us know when you get to the truth of the matter. No need to look at scriptures, just adapt as necessary (joke).

No doubt it is our collective karma that brings us together to contrast ideas.

There was war, famine, genocide, etc, in the Buddha's time. You might expect the Tathagata would have taught something about collective karma if it existed (or, assuming he knew it to exist, were it relevant). As far as I know the Buddha developed one prescription for all instances of co-dependent origination, at any level. Not varying solutions that depend on associations between or within groups of individuals. The Four Noble Truths are the same for everyone. If you're born, you suffer, age and die. There is one known way out of this cycle, the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Or so it has been said.

I should have phrased 'personal needs and individual whims' differently. Perhaps 'collective whims'? 'Social whims'? 'Adapted according to the perogatives of social engagement?'

Joking aside, I'm sorry you feel offended that I challenged your line of thought and I apologise for being too abrupt or cheeky. I confess I reacted to your definitive statement, which to me should have been contextualised as an opinion:

Yes, there is a collective karma that we all share."

Not having the wisdom to know one way or another myself, I don't hold a hard-and-fast view on the proposed idea of collective karma. I just wanted to point out what is taught from a traditional Theravada Buddhist perspective.

Good luck with your research, I look forward to reading the results.

[Gohonzon]

The coming together of individual karmas in one specific place and time--with highly significant outcomes-- is mere coincidence I suppose? However, I am at present researching this very topic.

Good, let us know when you get to the truth of the matter. No need to look at scriptures, just adapt as necessary (joke).

No doubt it is our collective karma that brings us together to contrast ideas.

There was war, famine, genocide, etc, in the Buddha's time. You might expect the Tathagata would have taught something about collective karma if it existed (or, assuming he knew it to exist, were it relevant). As far as I know the Buddha developed one prescription for all instances of co-dependent origination, at any level. Not varying solutions that depend on associations between or within groups of individuals. The Four Noble Truths are the same for everyone. If you're born, you suffer, age and die. There is one known way out of this cycle, the Noble Eight-Fold Path. Or so it has been said.

I should have phrased 'personal needs and individual whims' differently. Perhaps 'collective whims'? 'Social whims'? 'Adapted according to the perogatives of social engagement?'

Joking aside, I'm sorry you feel offended that I challenged your line of thought and I apologise for being too abrupt or cheeky. I confess I reacted to your definitive statement, which to me should have been contextualised as an opinion:

Yes, there is a collective karma that we all share."

Not having the wisdom to know one way or another myself, I don't hold a hard-and-fast view on the proposed idea of collective karma. I just wanted to point out what is taught from a traditional Theravada Buddhist perspective.

Good luck with your research, I look forward to reading the results.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well ,I'm glad that's sorted out then. Of course certain comments were bound to cause offense.But that's water under the bridge now.

I really don't see that there can be a definitive answer concerning collective karma--or perhaps there can be (?) I've managed to trace a reference to it in a Mahayana text ,and will give a reference as soon as I can be more specific.

Although it still seems to me that if more than one persons karma comes to fruition resulting in death, or other collective consequences, at the same time then it has got to be more than a set of coincidental circumstances. Something along the lines of Jung's synchronicity perhaps?

[Gohonzon]

Where you lose me is when you require faith in order for the past lives scenerio to work. Everything I believe about buddhism, I believe because I can see it in action around me. Karma basicly boils down to the basic law of the universe, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Engineers, psychologists, laymen, and pretty much anyone understand this  and can apply it to their daily tasks.

Past (and future) lives on the other hand, have only wishes, and fables, not the laws of the universe on their side. In order to believe in them one must have faith, which is nothing more than hope, a desire, the ridding of which is central to all buddhist thought. That is why I cannot fathom anything requiring faith rather than direct knowlage having a place in buddhism.

cv

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello cv

of course you're right to cite the Buddhist philosophy of dependent origination as evidence of the cause and effect principle.And as you know science and physics both have largely come around to accepting the Buddhist view of the world...the interrelationship and interdependence of all phenomena.

But is your problem with faith perhaps one of definition?

Faith ,in the Buddhist sense, is not the same thing as blind acceptance.There's a Japanese saying that 'even the head of a sardine seems blessed if you have faith in it.' That's not the same thing as we mean by faith. We can maintain a belief that is inspired by the experience of our ordinary capacities...the supramundane as opposed to supernatural.

We have the means to to evaluate with our intellects and reason and, thereby, form our mental attitudes. Understanding by faith in Buddhism refers to the process whereby we formulate our psychological attitudes...which can be right or wrong attitudes. Faith formed through wrong mental attitudes is mere superstition.

Nagarjuna uses an interesting allegory regarding faith. Faith, he says, is like soft leather, but lack of faith is like stiff leather. Soft leather can be put to many uses, but stiff leather cannot. In other words, those with faith follow the Buddha's teachings and hear them just as they are, while those without faith cannot.

But this doesn't answer the question of how belief reinforces knowledge regarding rebirth. Firstly I thinkk that instead of dwelling on the vagaries of rebirth, it's better to realise the the truth of eternity within oneself--inherent in life is death, so why not the opposite? Buddhism places the life of the individual in the context of the univers as a whole.The Buddhist concept of 'emptiness' is precisely this realisation that there is nothing that exists as an individual entity that isn't connected to all other phenomena.

We as Buddhist aren't creationists so,therefore, nothing has a beginning and nothing an end. If the universe has always existed in some form or another, and we share in that life, then it follows that we must also be eternal. 'What appears to be creation and destruction is ,in reality, simply the power of renewal inherent in the limitless life-force of a universe at work in an ever changing variety of forms ' (1) A bit like a huge kaleidoscope; not a random process , but follows 'an unending cycle of birth, maturition, decline and death' (ibid)

Although I suppose we could take a nihilistic Zen approach. A certain Zen master when asked what happened after death replied; 'I don't know,I'm not dead yet.'

Buddhism then, is a philosophy that can often be scientifically verifiable, but also needs faith to prove its efficacy and power in transforming lives.

Both practice and study arise from faith--Nichiren Daishonin

(1) The Buddha In Daily Life; Richard Causton (1995), p.138.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Gohonzon

[Gohonzon]

Two 'new age' sources so far, that state that there is a collective karma:

Shurangamasamadhi-sutra

Vasubandhu in his Abhidharmakosa

Although I'm unable to give links or quotes referring to the actual passages as yet.

[Gohonzon]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

[sabaijai]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf

Thanks for posting that link, I now understand the Mahayana view on this a little better.