I think that the notion of karma, and the related notion of rebirth are bunk! So, if I don’t believe in karma, why would I do good? I believe that I do – but why? In this essay, I explore karma and the reason why people are good.
Karma Defined
Karma is defined as being about cause and effect. In Buddhism, karma is more correctly identified as ‘cause[1],’ it is the action that will eventually result in an effect.
Karma is likened to a seed that will ultimately bear a fruit (vipaka):
"According to the seed that’s sown,
So is the fruit you reap therefrom,
Doer of good will gather good,
Doer of evil, evil reaps,
Down is the seed and thou shalt taste the fruit thereof[2]."
This passage is strikingly similar to a section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians[3], the first verse being: “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”
Finally, it is important to note that while karma is referred to as an action, karma is more about the intention underlying the action. However, it is acknowledged that actions originating from a deluded mind, even if well-intended, can sow a negative karmic seed[4].
So (the fruit of) karma provides a strong motivation to exercise good intentions and actions. But how is karma distinguished from an alternative motivation such as the Abrahamic god?
Karma vs. Abrahamic God
Karma says that good actions will attract positive outcomes later in this life or another. However, the Abrahamic god provides a similar reward-structure. Abrahamic scriptures say that a person’s actions will be rewarded or punished as appropriate in the afterlife, e.g., “As for the righteous, they shall surely triumph. Theirs shall be gardens and vineyards, and high-bosomed maidens: a truly overflowing cup[5]”
Which reward structure is true? It seems impossible to know, at least here and now, although both Abrahamic apologists and Buddhists tell me that I will become aware of the truth of their position with the passage of time – although presumably only one can be correct. In this moment then, the choice appears to be a matter of personal preference.
I have a preference for karma as it encourages the individual to take responsibility for his/her actions. The Abrahamic view sometimes casts humans as helpless pawns at the mercy of God’s power (e.g., Job).
But what if one does not believe in karma or rebirth (or an afterlife)?
Belief and disbelief
While the Buddha exhorts his followers to believe in karma and rebirth, he acknowledges that there are few who can have direct knowledge or ‘experience’ of these two principles. Therefore, Buddhists must largely accept these ‘truths’ as acts of faith[6]. That is, they choose to believe; however, they do not know.
The skeptic is characterized as someone who falls short of believing. S/he is an ‘infidel,’ literally faithless, a non-believer[7]. There are however, a range of choices between believing and disbelieving. In the middle is doubt. The skeptic can range from doubt to strong disbelief. And strong disbelief, agnosticism as it was originally defined[8], is really an opposite belief. Agnostics believe (even ‘know’) that the knowledge is unobtainable.
The Buddha sees skepticism as “eel-wriggling”[9] However, the Buddha also encourages critical thinking about the claims of spiritual teachers[10]. So Buddha encourages skepticism of ‘authority’ on one hand, and encourages belief in principles without personal experience and on his authority on the other. Sounds like two eels intertwined to me!
Ultimately, the unknown is a matter of belief. It seems difficult to judge one belief as superior to another if the truth is unknown.
More pragmatically, the Buddha argues “that to believe in (the principles of karma and rebirth), and so live a moral life will lead to a good rebirth if rebirths exist. If rebirths do not exist, nothing will have been lost, and the person will in any case have been praised by wise people[11].”
Interestingly, this statement hints at why someone would be good – regardless of their belief or doubt in the concept of karma.
The problem of good
The problem of good can be stated as follows: if one does not believe in karma, what is the motivation to be good?
One obvious reason is the ‘rewards’ and ‘punishments’ in this life. A person may be complimented (“praised by wise people” as in the quote above), liked or receive other rewards for good deeds, and may be criticized, judged or punished for bad deeds. From this point of view, it is sensible for a person to be good – even without believing in karma.
Another reason is intrinsic motivation and that being good has its own rewards. Following the ‘right’ way feels good, deviating feels bad. The Epicurean philosophy of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain reflects a simple version of this notion[12]. More subtly, most ethical systems, religious or secular, encourage a person to strive for right conduct and a life worth living[13].
The notion of intrinsic rewards is well captured in the notion of “pay it forward” where the recipient of a good deed is invited to do a good deed for another. The original do-gooder does not get any direct reward; their only possible reward is the hope that someone else – and maybe many eventually – will benefit.
This idea does not invoke karma or any rewards after this life. While popularized by a 2000 film called Pay it forward, the practice is traced back to 1784[14] when Benjamin Franklin extended a loan to Benjamin Webb.
Therefore, karma motivates good actions, but good actions may have other motivations. There are many who are good even if they do not believe in the Buddhist form of karma.
So, karma is not needed to explain why people are good. How does it go in explaining bad actions and bad events?
The problem of evil
Buddhists argue that karma is a satisfactory explanation for the suffering (dukkha) of people “who have done nothing to deserve it in this life[16].” That is, their past actions in this or another birth account for what they are experiencing today. Buddhists further argue that the karmic balance sheet is inaccessible (“unthinkable”) to anyone but a Buddha[17].
The argument is similar to the Abrahamic argument asking believers to accept that god is omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent. God’s actions cannot be understood by mortals, followers must trust that God treats people as they deserve and has (good) reasons for his actions[18].
Interestingly, Buddhism uses what is typically known as the ‘problem of evil’ to dismiss the notion of an Abrahamic God (identified as Brahma). Epicurus is often credited with being the first to describe this rebuttal for the existence of God:
"Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot;
or he can, but does not want to.
If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent.
If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked.
If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?"[19]
However, the argument from dukkha (suffering) is laid out by Buddha (who predated Epicurus) in the Bhûridatta Jataka which is in turn a story about one of the Buddha’s previous lives (therefore long predating Epicurus!):
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness? [20]
Dukkha appears to serve a more fundamental role in Buddhism – it is the first Holy Truth. So, is dukkha inevitable, or is it a consequence of karma?
The Four Truths & karma
The first Truth states that there is dukkha. The second that dukkha comes from cravings. However, karma states that dukkha comes from past actions. The second Truth and karma are not inconsistent – the second Truth focuses on proximal causes, karma on distal causes – but they do give cause to pause on the issue of cause.
I accept the first Truth, but I do not believe karma. I have experienced dukkha but not karma. My lack of belief about karma does nothing to discredit the validity of the Four Truths. I acknowledge that I create dukkha through my cravings (second Truth). Of course, I seek to end dukkha (third Truth), and I believe that the Eightfold Path is an appropriate approach (fourth Truth).
Interestingly, given that I do not believe in rebirth, I have at least relinquished my craving for existence beyond this life, and presumably, I have made at least some tentative steps towards the Buddhist ideal of ‘not-self.’
Conclusions
Overall, I find Buddhist (and Abrahamic) cosmological views challenging as they are supported with little to no evidence. They are therefore, a matter for personal belief.
Moreover, I see such beliefs as irrelevant. It is as in the Buddha’s Parable of the Arrow where a man wounded by an arrow asks the name of the archer[21]. Such knowledge is irrelevant. So it is with karma. I am concerned about finding the right path in this life. To know the truth of karma is for me, irrelevant.
[1]
[2] Samyutta Nikaya, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samyutta_Nikaya, accessed 9oct08
[3] Galatians, 6.7-10
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma, accessed9oct08
[5] The Koran, 78th surah entitled “The Tidings” (or Al-Naba’), Dawood, N.A. (trans.), p. 417. It is interesting to note that Islam like Buddhism appears to favour
[6]
[7] http://www.answers.com/topic/infidel, accessed 10oct08
[8] Thomas Huxley created the term ‘agnostic’ and defined the ‘strong’ position : “They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.” Huxley, Thomas. Collected Essays, 237-239
[9]
[10] Anguttara Nitaya, I.189, cited by
[11]
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurus, accessed 10oct08
[13] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics, accessed 11oct08
[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_it_forward, accessed 9oct08
[15] http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Franklin_to_Benjamin_Webb, accessed 9oct08
[16]
[17] Anguttara Nikaya, IV.77, cited by
[18] e.g., see Job, 34.10-13
[19] Haught, James A., 2000 Years of Disbelief: Famous People With the Courage to Doubt, 1996
[20] Bhuridatta Jataka, VIII, http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_03.htm, accessed 8oct08
[21] Majjhima Nikaya 1.426, cited by Nelson, Peter, “The Buddha: Our Spiritual ‘Contemporary’”, originally published Westender Vol. 5(3), April, 2002, http://www.buddhanet.net/spiritual-contemporary.htm, accessed 26sep08
