The Reality of Karma: No Superstition Required

                To many, karma represents an ethereal bank account of sorts, a spiritual savings program, if you will.  One makes deposits in the account, expecting to withdraw exactly what is contributed, perhaps with a little interest tacked on.  If you put in good karma, you will get good karma back, with the same being said of putting in bad karma.  It is also seen by some as a balancing weight, bringing to each person a level of suffering that directly corresponds with the suffering they have caused others.  This idea seems to have a lot in common with phrases of conventional wisdom, such as, “What goes around comes around.”  There are a number of statements similar to this one, all expressing the common idea that “bad” people will eventually get what’s coming to them, even if it’s in the next life.  

According to a direct translation of karma from the Sanskrit (or the Pali version kamma), it means action, work, or deed.  It is also used to refer to the consequences of these actions or deeds.  The use of this word and its definitions are as dynamic and numerous as the various religious and philosophical groups that use it.  Be they Hindus, Jains, Theravada Buddhists, Zen priests, or otherwise, all have similar, but essentially different uses of the word.  Part of the confusion apparently stems from another Sanskrit word, kriya, whose meaning is closely linked to, and often confused with that of karma.  

                 Most of these groups associate karma directly with the afterlife, death, and rebirth (into samsara).  While there are many metaphysical ideas associated with the idea of karma, the current essay will deal, instead, with the dryer, more mundane aspects of karma that most of us are familiar with and dealing with in common, human experience.  More importantly, these are the aspects of karma that are observable, and therefore, feasibly testable, at least in the form of “Gedanken,” or thought experiment.  As such, we will almost exclusively be referring to karma as a succinct idea (i.e. cause and effect with regard to intent), instead of using less specific definitions, such as those referring to karma as a system of theoretical metaphysics and such.  No claims are made here regarding the merit of one definition over another, only that the simpler definition of the two is really the only one that meaningfully bears the type of logical analysis that is to follow.

                German Indiologist, Wilhelm Halbfass, attempts to clarify the issue through an exploration of the relationship between two ideas, kriya, and karma.  Kriya might be viewed as the habitual behavior that, step by step, leads to karma, being defined here as the actions being executed as a result of kriya.  It could also be said that this definition of karma would include the intent behind this executed action.   According to this view, we still have a polarized worldview, with good behavior leading to good karma, and bad actions leading to bad karma.  This definition, along with most other definitions of karma, necessarily involves a concept of ethics, consequences, and rebirth. 

                Apart from any perceived or actual consequences, karma is almost always associated with causation, or causality.  This implies karmic effects that are apart from the ethical implications associated with using the word “consequences.”  Here we could say that executed actions, and even intentions alone, affect the lives of the taker of these actions, as well as those around them.  There is an implication that like deeds lead to like effects.  This statement exists outside ethical claims.  Like deeds, and like effects, cannot, necessarily be equated directly with value judgments of good and bad.   To illustrate, say there is a person that, through their action and intention, causes another person to suffer.  Judgments of ethical value aside, if like deeds have like effects, one would reasonably assume that a similar amount of suffering will be experienced by the causer of suffering.  What doesn’t necessarily follow, however, is the idea that suffering can be neatly categorized into the two polar groups of good or bad.  According to the monist groups using this word, such as many schools of Buddhism, good and bad only imply dualism or duality, and are therefore a completely illusory aspect of human phenomenological experience.  This issue will be explored further, later in the article.

                There is a passage in the Upanishads that is often cited in association with karma and kriya.  Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5-6:

                “Now as a man is like this or like that, according as he acts and according as he behaves, so will he be; a man of good acts will become good, a man of bad acts, bad; he becomes pure by pure deeds.”

                Any translated work deserves in depth study of the language in which it was originally written.  It becomes pertinent to inquire about the words being translated into the English words "good," and "bad."  Let us assume that "good" and "bad," as they are used in this passage, don’t necessarily equate to righteousness and evil.  Without doing a linguistic study, we can still focus on the first part of the passage, as it is less ambiguous as well as being devoid of terminology that might imply any value judgments.

“ . . .as a man is like this . . . according as he acts . . . behaves, so will he be . . . “

                The first notable feature of this passage is an apparent progression. There is a chronological, sequential, cause-and-effect relationship between the statements being made.  What a man “will be” first depends upon prior conditions, namely how he acts and behaves.  As such, the passage, in this regard, seems to illustrate the habitual nature of human behavior, with what a man “will be,” or just “being,” described as an inevitable outcome of action and behavior.  This would seem to go along soundly with Halbfass’s claims above.  One might look at the initial, habit-forming, actions and behaviors as kriya.  Just as karma, here, is referred to as the result of kriya, the word, “being,” as the result of action, would follow logically as corresponding to karma, assuming the premise to be correct.  If we can equate a state of “being," to Halbfass’s idea of karma, we would be including not just the resultant state of habitual behavior, but the intention behind it as well. 

               The importance of this intention cannot be overstated.  It becomes clear when one considers the simple scenario of being shoved aside in a crowd.  Most would agree that, though initial responses to being shoved are likely similar, responses will vary drastically depending on any knowledge of the intention behind the shove.  One is far less likely to become angry or emotionally upset if shoved by accident.  Even if, instead of accident, the shove was the result of a hurried, if careless, rush to somewhere important, like the toilet, it isn’t likely to cause much more than irritation.  On the other hand, shoving someone in this manner with conscious, directed intention, is almost certainly going to result in a verbal altercation, if not an outright fist fight.  While the likely hood of the occurrence of an altercation probably varies from place to place, based on a number of factors,  it should be safe to surmise that being shoved on purpose like this is universally unappealing to every member of the human race.  Intention, as we can see, is vastly important when considering karma. 

If kriya leads to karma, as in the manner described above, the idea picks up another layer without adding too much complexity.  Kriya, being a person’s conscious action, inevitably leads to karma.  Before most behaviors become exceedingly habitual, a certain amount of conscious effort is required to make them habitual.  It follows, albeit conditionally, that this conscious effort becomes inextricably linked to the habitual behavior it eventually leads to.  Indeed, one might consider such practiced intention as being habitual behavior by itself.  It can, at the least, be referred to as habitual thinking.  Actions and behaviors with intention (i.e. kriya), lead to a state of “being,” or habitual behavior, habitual thought, and intention behind these habits (i.e. karma).   In light of this, it would still be accurate to say that we suffer the karma of our actions.  It would only require a subtle shift in framework of thought to see this karma, this habitual thinking and doing, as the inevitable consequence of our actions, our kriya.  This is a powerful example of the human experience of cause and effect. 

         In this sense, karma seems to be practically inevitable.  We cannot escape our karma without escaping our inherently habitual thinking and acting.  That leaves us with the only option of working with our karma in its current state, whatever it happens to looks like. The most important implications of this subtle shift pertain to what we have been referring to as good and bad karma.  Here we would say that accumulating “good” karma is nearly the same as developing “good” habits of thought and conduct.  The payout, or the inevitable consequence of intentionally developing what one perceives as good habits, comes when the karma, the habitual action and driving intent from which that action stems, is working effortlessly behind the scenes.  Dental care provides an excellent instantiation.  After having to force oneself to the bathroom sink for brushing as a youngster (kriya), the practice of regular brushing will eventually become a habit, with the intention of maintaining oral health.  The karma comes in when you realize that you’ve been brushing twice a day, automatically, even unconsciously, for years, while the intent driving the action remains the same.  This “good” karma of effortlessly maintaining one’s dental health, and all the benefits that come with it, are the direct and inevitable result of intentionally developing “good” karma through the guided efforts of kriya.  It is difficult to criticize such a position, as it is likely, at the very least, a useful stepping stone towards awakening. 

Ultimately, however, the true goal of awakening transcends all habitual thinking and behavior, favoring instead a state of immediate, present clarity.  This ideal state of present clarity is, by definition, unfettered by any conditioning imposed upon it by ourselves or society.  The masters, rather than working to accumulate “good” karma, work to accumulate as little karma as possible.  A Zen priest once said that his endeavor was to be truly invisible, to pass through this existence with as little impact on it as possible.  This only works if it goes both ways.  One cannot expect to minimize one’s impact on this existence if the impact of existence on one’s mind cannot also be minimized.  The mirror pond and the polished mirror, both like the perfectly clear mind, have the ability to accurately reflect any image set before them without being permanently changed in any way.