Theravada Buddhism: The View of the Elders

Chapter 4 Karma and Its Results

ChapTEr 4 Karma and Its Results The concept of karma (Pali kamma) is a pan-Indian religious and philosophical belief. It is basically defined as “action.” What is generally intended by this is action that can be evaluated ethically. The early Indian beginnings of this concept can be seen in Vedic literature , where the sacrificial act, which is considered to be the precursor of karmic belief, is mentioned. The elementary forms of the concepts of good (Skt. punya/Pali punna) and bad (Skt. and Pali papa) are found in the early post-Vedic period. Among the Sramana groups, Jains believed in good and bad karma as forming a part of the individual soul and in the need to burn away such karmas through severe forms of asceticism. The annihilationists, on the other hand, rejected the whole concept of the moral efficacy of human action that was held in association with the belief in soul and afterlife. The Buddha, though he rejected the concepts of god and soul as the annihilationists did, nevertheless accepted the concept of karma and its efficacy as a dependently arisen phenomenon. Two Dimensions of Karma in Buddhism Karma is one of the central teachings in Buddhist thought. Usually discussed under karma in Buddhist studies is its moral dimension . There is, however, an equally important dimension of karma as human action that accounts for one’s identity in the absence, according to the teaching of the Buddha, of the soul held to be the essence in every human being. This second aspect may be described as the identity dimension of karma, which I shall examine first, as it has been somewhat neglected in Buddhist studies. 62 thERAvADA BuDDhI SM Karma as Constituting Dynamic Human Identity We know that Buddhism denies the existence of soul as constituting an unchangeable essence in a human being. In the absence of any such entity the Buddha was faced with the problem of explaining apparent differences and distinctions among human beings. In the Brahmanic tradition, for example, the society was classified into four groups, and it was claimed that these groups were set up as such by the Creator. In other words, this belief amounted to saying that, for example, brahmana-ness was hereditary and was constituted of an essence that made a Brahmin a Brahmin and nothing else. This form of essentialism founded on the concepts of atman (individual soul) and brahman (universal soul) was clearly rejected by the Buddha . The following well-known statement of the Buddha articulates this position: “One does not become a Brahmin on account of birth. Nor does one become an outcaste on account of birth. One becomes a Brahmin by one’s deeds. One becomes an outcaste by one’s deeds” (Suttanipata 136). This rejection of hereditary claims of high and low follows from the rejection of divine creation and belief in a soul. In the place of such a static view as soul the Buddha introduced human action as constituting the “essence,” if existent at all, of a human being. The Buddha’s argument against Brahmanic essentialism based on human action is quite simple. As he explained to the young Brahmin called Vasettha, one who makes his living by agriculture is called a farmer, not a Brahmin; one who makes his living by merchandise is called a merchant, not a Brahmin; one who makes his living by serving others is called a servant, not a Brahmin; and one who makes his living by stealing is called a robber, not a Brahmin. He concluded the argument by summing up: “I do not call anyone a Brahmin because of his origin and lineage” (The Middle Length Discourses 98). Although this argument is presented in the context of the caste distinctions that prevailed in the ancient Indian society, the “philosophy” behind the argument is a nonsubstantialist (anatma) way of defining a person. Defining a person with reference to what he does is surely not static. Because we do many things in our daily lives, in addition to what we do as our profession or in long-term activities, Karma and Its Results 63 the definition of a person by his actions can be quite volatile and even short-lived. On the other hand, this perception fits very well with the Buddhist idea of personality understood as dependently arisen and impermanent. Truly speaking, people do not have fixed or permanent identities, although some identities may last...