The doctrine of Kamma is an important doctrine in Buddhism. For decades, I have been trying to understand it. It was only after attending the dhamma class conducted by Ven. Dhammika that I realized I really got it wrong all these while.
Kamma is often used to explain all sorts of the things that happened to us. The good things that happens to us are due to good kamma and bad things that happen to us are due to bad kamma. We were taught we reap what we sow.
However, the "fruits" of kamma are often explained in physical and material terms. For example, if you are generous, you will be rich in your future life (and poor if you are stingy). If you look down on people, you will be born short. If you kill other people, you will in turn be killed by other people, and etc.
Let's take the last example, for this is one that has perplexed me for many years. When I was young, this was one of the examples of working Kamma that is frequently used. The epitome of this example is best represented by the story of King Ajatashatru, the king of Magadha during Buddha's time. The story goes that because Ajatashatru killed his father (King Bimbisara) to gain the throne, later he was killed by his own son Udayi-Bhadda. This retribution, as most Buddhist would explain, is kamma at work.
I could never understand why nobody objected to this story. Everyone seems to accept this as a perfectly reasonable example of kamma at work. But I had a big problem with this story.
If Ajatashatru being killed by his son was the kammic retribution for killing his own father, then it must mean that Udayi-Bhadda is the agent of kamma. He must then be doing the work of kamma to punish his father. If that is the case, does Udayi-Bhadda suffers kamma for the act of killing his father? If he does, then it is unfair isn't it? Why he is but an agent of the forces of kamma -- he did not have free will. But if he doesn't, then it doesn't make sense either -- how can he not suffer any kammic consequence for killing his father? That would be that kamma operate under some circumstances and not in others.
This was a problem that perplexed me for decades.
Finally, it was Ven Dhammika's interpretation of Kamma that help me resolved this problem.
Ven Dhammika explained that the effects of Kamma mostly are not physical and material, rather, its effects are on the person's mind. Kamma conditions rebirth and the consciousness. Our kamma conditions what realms were are born into. Our kamma conditions our habits and character, which in terms conditions our happiness and spiritual attainment.
To me, that idea was revolutionary, but it explained many things. I was finally able to solve the problem that bother me for so long.
In the example of King Ajatashatru, it was simply wrong to say that it was kammic retribution that resulted him being killed by his son. To say so would imply a lack of free will on his son's part and would imply that Kamma is deterministic.
That does not mean Ajatashatru did not suffer any kammic effect. He would. But those effects would be things like sufferings as a result of negative mental states like regret, and moving away from the spiritual attainment. In the Samannaphala Sutta (Digha Nikaya, I, 86), the Buddha did explain the kamma results Ajatashatru suffered for killing his father. The Buddha said that had Ajatashatru not killed his father, "the pure and spotless Dhamma-eye would have arisen in him". Hence the act of killing generated a strong negative mental energy that prevented Ajatashatru from attaining enlightenment. To me, that is the kammic effect.
Udayi-Bhadda did not kill his father in order to carry work kammic retribution. He did it out of his own volition, perhaps out of greed and covetousness, wanting to gain the throne for himself. And hence, he should suffer his own kammic retributions.
In the same way, many things that happens to us are not a result of kamma. Many phenomena are neutral, neither good or bad. It is our own perceptions that interpret them as good or bad -- from there, we began to interpret "good" things as a result of previous good kamma, and "bad" things as a result of previous bad kamma.
Take the example of striking lottery. Many Buddhists would interpret it as good kamma -- it is perhaps the fruits practicing generosity (whether in this life or previous life). I used to accept this way of thinking too, although there is something that disturbs me.
First, I always wondered, when the lottery machine is tossing up the winning numbers, were kammic forces out there working furiously, trying to determine who among all those who bought lottery tickets should be rewarded with the prize.
Second, it seemed to be that the interpretation tends to be post-hoc, i.e. after the fact. If striking lottery leads to happiness, then people would interpret it as result of good kamma. However, if a few days later, the winner was robbed after collecting his prize money and got killed in the process, people would quickly change their mind and decide that striking lottery was bad kamma after all.
Finally I realized that lottery is simply a matter of chance. There is nothing kammic about it. If you buy a ticket, you have a chance. If you don't you have no chance. If you strike, it's yet again chance.
What's really kammic, is your attitude towards it. The desire for the lottery money could be the kammic forces that continues to bind you to the cycle of rebirths. The generosity of sharing the prize money, on the other hand, could be the virtues that brings your closer to Nirvana. It is the attitudes towards these events that generate kammic effects that conditions the mental stream (or consciousness).
The significance of this realization is two-fold.
First, I realized that we may have falsely attributed many things to Kamma were there is perhaps none or little. Many things happens due to other natural laws (the Niyamas), Kamma is but one of the 5 laws of nature. We may have falsely perceived Kamma as being deterministic of our material and physical well-being, and the Buddha had specifically declared Kammic determinism is a wrong view. (See Tittha Sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, Vol 1, pg 173)
Secondly, I realized that Kammic effects are mostly on the consciousness, rather than in the physical sense. By focusing on the possible physical and materialistic results, we end up missing what's important. What we should really pay attention to is how our actions affected our mental states and consciousness, and not so much the physical and material outcomes.
No comments:
Post a Comment