The Law of Karma in Theravada Buddhism
The Law of Karma in Buddhism
According to Buddhism, karma in its cosmic aspect is the natural law (dhammatā), the law of conditionality (idappaccayatā) or of relativity (paccaya), which governs the whole universe. Buddhadāsa Bhikkhu considers it to be God who can bequeath both merit and demerit to living beings :
The Natural Law is comprised of six qualifications which all people regard as the qualifications of God : The Creator, the Controller, the Destroyer, Omnipotent, Omni-present, and Omniscient. We Buddhists have this natural Law as God. This is only God accepted by modern science. It creates both the positive and the negative. Because it is only the Natural Law. If he were a personal God, he would choose to create only the positive .
Therefore, the law of karma as the first cause of the universe and it denies the authority of a Creator God, and admits that everything which comes into existence must have a cause : “Because of this being, that arises, whenever this disappears, that also disappears.” The law of karma in its moral aspect is concerned with the theory of rebirth (punabbhava), which is its corollary and proof. Rebirth is a result of karma (karma-vipāka). Karma and vipāka (result) are inevitable concomitants. It implies that according to Buddhism, one’s present life cannot come out of nothing, but it must be the outcome of the previous existence or the past karma. The fundamental law of karma is retold by the Buddha in the Samyutta-Nikāya. He says : “A man is whatever he makes of himself ; he himself reaps the results of that which has been sown by him, whether good or bad.”
A question might be asked whether the Buddha himself believes in the karma-doctrine or not, for he preaches the doctrine of Anattā, which denies the real existence of the doer of karma. He might have utilized the karma-doctrine, which was prevailing in his time just to impart ethical teachings, without believing in it. We must not forget that the Buddha is known as bhūtavādi (the speaker of the truth), thus he will do what he says (yathā vādi tathā kārī). As has been seen, the Buddha himself paid respect for, and gave appreciation to, one who paid reverence for the Dharma and Sańgha. A more reliable fact is that the operation of karma had appeared in the Buddha’s second knowledge called Cutūpapātañāna at the time of his Enlightenment; it is said, with his pure, paranormal clairvoyant vision, he saw beings, noble or mean, happy or unhappy, dying and getting reborn in accordance with their karmas. Hence, it is obvious that the Buddha does really believe in the law of karma. This is further evidenced by his saying that “by means of karma the world goes on, by means of karma mankind goes on.”
As has been stated at the outset, the karma-doctrine helps to answer the inequalities of mankind. Thus in Buddhism we find the rational argument implicit in the Cūlakammavibhańga-Sutta and the Mahākammavibhańga-Sutta of the Majjhima-Nikāya, suggesting the rational belief in the karma-doctrine as illustrated in the Buddha’s teaching as a whole. In the Cūlakammavibhańga-Sutta, it is mentioned that a young Brahmin Subha who was a Todeyya’s son approached the Buddha and asked him for an explanation as to why among human beings some were short-lived (appāyuka) while others were long-lived (dīghāyuka), some were sickly (bavhābādhā) while others were healthy (appābādhā), some were ugly (dubvanna) while others were beautiful (vannavanto), some had little power (appabhāvo), others were influential (mahābhāvo), some were poor (nīcākulīnā) while others were rich (uccākulīnā), and some had little wisdom (duppaññā) while some possessed of insight (paññavanto). He further asked the Buddha of the reason and cause of the lowness and excellence which were seen among men despite their being human. The Buddha’s reply was thus : “Beings possessed of their own karmas, Manava, beings are heir to their karma, karmas are their congenital cause, karmas are their kin, karmas are their refuge, it is karma that divide beings in terms of lowness and excellence.” Then when the young Mānava asked the Buddha to explain at length the cause of such differences, the latter did so in accordance with the law of cause and effect (karma). It may be put in a simple manner as follows :
The killing of living beings leads to a short life, the non-killing of living beings leads to a long life, the persecution of living beings leads to a sickly life, the non-persecution of living beings leads to healthy life ; elasticity, anger and hatred lead to an ugly figure and bad complexion, the opposite ones lead to a beautiful figure, attractiveness and loveliness respectively; envy leads to powerlessness, selfishness leads to poverty, alms giving, generosity lead to wealthiness; ….
For the sake of understanding the karmic force, the similar questions of Queen Mallikā regarding the previous karma deserve mention here. Once the Buddha was asked by Queen Mallikā, a very devout and wise lady, and well-versed in the Dharma, as to why in this world some women are not beautiful and are poor; why some women are not beautiful but rich; why some women are only beautiful but are poor; and why some women are both beautiful and rich. The Buddha’s reply was :
Firstly, a certain women becomes both deformed and poor because in the past, she was ill-tempered and stubborn, and she was no giver of charity to monks and others, she was jealous-minded and revengeful. Secondly, a certain woman just becomes deformed but she is wealthy, because in the past, she was only ill-tempered, but she was a giver of charity to all. Thirdly, a certain woman becomes beautiful or well-formed, but she was poor or needy, because in the past, though she was not ill-tempered, she was no giver of charity to monks and others. Fourthly, a certain woman becomes both beautiful and rich, because in the past, she was not ill-tempered, was not stubborn, and she did give monks and others food, drink, clothing, vehicle, flowers, scent, ointment, bed, lodging and night, she was not jealous-minded either.
The above passage clearly shows that the doctrine of karma and the theory of rebirth which are interrelated can explain rationally the causes of inequalities in human life. The Buddha’s statements in the two above-mentioned Suttas are based not only on clairvoyant observation but also on reasoning. In a sense, we find that those of unequal status ought to be such only by virtue of their own karmas. As has been, karmas were believed to bear their corresponding fruits. The Buddha stated that the fruit of karma is one of the four unthinkables (acinteyya), that which transcends the limits of thinking and over which one should not ponder. In the Sutta-Nipāta, it is declared that a man’s karma is never lost, it comes back to harass him. Many passages in the Ańguttara-Nikāya mention that the intentional karmas cannot be eradicated once accumulated, unless their results are first experienced either in this very life or in another life. In the Dhammapāda, it is said that there is no escape for the person who did bad deed either in the sky or in the mid-ocean or in the clefts of the rocks. Neither even Brahmā nor Māra are able to delay the inexorable fruition of karmas in their time. The same views are mentioned in the Milindapañhā in which Nāgasena was reported to have said that it was through a difference in karma that men are not all alike.
According to the Buddha, karma was so prominent that he advised people to take refuge to their karma only. The Buddha who vehemently criticized the attitude of the people of shifting all their responsibility to the shoulders of God took all pains to shift the centre from the worship of God to the real working of karma. Although Buddhism attributes the law of karma as the chief among a variety of causes, it does not nonetheless assert that everything comes out from previous karma. The Buddhist doctrine of karma merely teaches that there is a correlation between moral acts and their consequences, without implying any sort of fatalism. The Buddha once warned his disciples not to throw away their own efforts and responsibilities by assuming that whatever good or bad experienced was all due to some previous karma, due to the creation of god or due to no cause. The Buddha argued :
So, then, owing to a previous action …, to the creation of a Supreme Deity …, to no cause or condition men will become murderers, thieves, unchaste, liars, slanderers, babblers, covetous, malicious, and perverse in view. Thus for those who fall back on the former deeds … the creation of a Supreme Deity … uncaused theory as the essential reason, there is neither the desire to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do, nor effort to do, nor necessity to do this deed or abstain from that deed.
It is clear that the implications of karma were the very opposite to kiriyavāda, fatalism and materialism.
The Buddhists believe that the volition or feeling or consciousness is the doer of karma and the receiver of the karma-result, but not all feelings are karma-born. As the Buddha told the wanderer Sivaka Moliya, there are certain experiences originating from bile, from phlegm, from wind, from the humours of the body, from changes of the seasons, from stress of untoward happenings (visama-parihārajāni), from sudden attacks from without (opakkamikāni), and also from ripeness of one’s karmas which are considered as facts by the world, and if anybody were holding merely the karma-born theory, he would be regarded as going beyond what is personally known, and what is considered truth in the world. Such a person would be considered by the Buddha as holding wrong view. It is stated in the Ańguttara-Nikāya that best among Bhikkhus will be not much annoyed by sufferings originating from bile, phlegm and the remaining causes.
It has been stated in the Samyutta-Nikāya that the Buddha referred to the Upanisad's words pertaining to the fundamental law of karma which holds that “what a man reaps accords with what he has sown, sown is the seed, and planted well, you shall enjoy the fruit thereof.” This passage should not be considered alone but in the light of the following passage from the Ańguttara-Nikāya. The Buddha clearly points out :
Just as ‘this man does a deed, so does he experience it’, this being so, there is no living of religious life, and there is no opportunity for the destruction of suffering. But, if anyone says, ‘just as this man does a deed that is to be experienced hereafter, so does he experience its fulfillment’, this being so, there is living of religious life and opportunity to ending of suffering.
The reason for this is, as F.L. Woodward remarks, that the particular kind of karma does not find its exact replica in fulfillment, because time and men and things are always in the state of constant change.
Another thing is that, according to Buddhism, the result of karma ripens not only in accordance with the karma, but also with the character of the doer of the karma. The Ańguttara-Nikāya shows that the same karma has been done, but its result varies in accordance with the character of the doer. A trifling evil deed done by a certain individual, who is generally careless in the culture of body, speech and thought, who had not developed insight, who is insignificant, and whose life is restricted and miserable, will drag him down to a hellish world, but the same deed done by another individual, who possessed the opposite characters, will work its result out entirely in this very life; and will not push him to the hellish world. It is just like a small amount of salt when put in a cup of water, will make it undrinkable, but it is not so when the same amount of salt is added to the water of the Ganges. Likewise, a poor man has to go to prison for a debt of a halfpenny, but a rich man, who owes the same amount, does not have to go to prison. It is, therefore, not surprising that in our practical experience we find that the wicked men do not always suffer for their deeds in this very life. This should not lead to the wrong assumption that “those who do good do not receive good but evil, that those who do evil do not receive evil but good, and that we reap what we have not sown.” If this were the case, then the basic law of karma that “it is impossible that the fruit of bad deed should be pleasant and leads to the heavenly world; and the fruit of a good deed should be unpleasant and leads to the hellish world” will be meaningless and implausible.
The wrong assumption stated above must be removed by considering the details of the way in which karma works its result out when the time comes as elucidated in the Mahākammavibhańga-Sutta (the discourse on the greater analysis of deeds). The Sutta suggests a reason that a murderer in some instances gets pleasant results and is reborn in a heavenly existence, in spite of his act of murder. This is because he has either sometimes in the past done good deeds, which have resulted in these experiences or at the time of his death, he has changed his own ways and has adopted the right view of life. This amounts to saying that the Buddha never accepts the view that everyone who kills and lies, and so on, will be reborn in hell and that everyone who refrains from the immoral acts will be reborn in heaven. According to him, indeed, some such individuals may even be reborn in heaven and in hell as well respectively because of their past deeds.
In this Mahākammavibhańga-Sutta, the Buddha further criticizes the limited knowledge possessed by others. The heavenly life enjoyed by one person after his misconduct should not be the basis for the conclusion that everyone, in spite of his misconduct, will be born in heaven after death. According to the Buddha, this calls for a different explanation. He maintains that this particular man must have had either good deed or bad deed in the past, or his right or wrong views at the time of his death. The Buddha proclaims himself to have the knowledge of the “operation of karma” superior to those who form generalization on the basis of one or a few observations without examining a universal aspect of the case. It is accepted that in daily life an individual is capable of doing both good and bad deeds till his death, and on death he may be reborn in a heavenly world, if the result of his accumulated good karma is sufficient to supersede the result of his wrong action, or he may be reborn in an unpleasant existence if the effect of his bad deed supersedes the result of good karma. However, the accumulated deed will finally produce its fruit when the result of the deed which has superseded it has been exhausted.
Karma apart, if “one does not receive what one has done” it depends on the following four pairs of failure (vipatti) and accomplishment (sampatti), which affect the ripening of karma. The four kinds of failure (vipatti) are : (i) gati-vipatti (failure due to the place of birth), which means unfavourable environment, circumstances or career; (ii) upādhi-vipatti (failure due to defectiveness of body), which means the person is born deformed and has unfavourable personality and health ; (iii) kāla-vipatti (failure due to deficiency of time), which signifies the unfortunate time ; and (iv) payoga-vipatti (failure due to lack of effort), which denotes the shortcoming of undertaking or inadequate endeavor. As against this, there are four opposite factors favourable to the ripening of good karma called Sampatti or accomplishment. What is meant by failure (vipatti) and accomplishment (Sampatti) is elucidated in three statements :
There are some evil actions performed, which prevented by fortunate rebirth, body, time and effort, do not mature. There are some evil actions performed, which because of unfortunate rebirth, body, time and effort, do mature. There are some sound actions performed, which, prevented by unfortunate rebirth, body, time, and effort, do not mature, and there are some sound actions performed, which, because of fortunate rebirth, body, time and effort, do mature.
ความเห็น (5)
บันทึกนี้เป็นเนื้อหาส่วนหนึ่งในวิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญาเอกของผม ที่ผมเอาเรื่องกฏแห่งกรรมของพระพุทธศาสนาเถรวาทมานำเสนอ ก็เพื่อให้ผู้อ่านได้เปรียบเทียบคำสอนเรื่องกรรมของศาสนาฮินดู ในบันทึกเรื่อง ภควัทคีตา บทเพลงแห่งพระผู้เป็นเจ้าของผม สรุปเบื้องต้นง่าย ๆ ว่า กฏแห่งกรรมของพระพุทธศาสนาตั้งอยู่บนพื้นฐานหลักปฏิจจสมุปบาท ทุกอย่างล้วนเป็นกระบวนการของธรรม แต่ของฮินดูบ่งชัดเจนว่าคุณต้องทำกรรมดีตามหน้าที่ เพราะหน้าที่ เพื่อหน้าที่ แล้วพระเจ้าก็จะให้รางวัลเอง โดยที่ผู้ทำกรรมไม่ต้องไปปราถนาผลของมัน
ท่านอาจารย์ครับ
ว่างๆ ช่วยนำงานวิจัยของมหาจุฬา ระดับปริญญาเอก มาเผยแพร่บ้างก็ดีนะครับ
ด้วยความนับถือ
ท่านอาจารย์โสภณครับ
คงจะทำตามข้อเสนอของอาจารย์ไม่ได้ เพราะวิทยานิพนธ์ทุกเล่มเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัย เราไม่สามารถนำมาเผยแพร่ได้ถ้าไม่ได้รับอนุมัติจากมหาวิทยาลัย แต่อย่างไรก็ตามหากอาจารย์สนใจจริง ๆ ก็สามารถค้นหาในเวบไซด์ของมหาจุฬาฯได้ โดยคลิ๊กที่ลิงค์งานวิจัย ผมเห็นงานวิทยานิพนธ์หลายชิ้นที่น่าสนใจอยู่ แต่เข้าใจว่าเป็นงานวิจัยในยุคท่านคณบดีองค์ก่อน แต่ในยุคปัจจุบัน ทางบัณฑิตวิทยาลัยไม่ได้นำออกมาเผยแพร่ทางอินเตอเนท จะเผยแพร่เฉพาะในรูปแบบหนังสือซึ่งต้องไปขอยืมอ่านได้จากสำนักหอสมุดและเทคโนโลยี
สำหรับงานวิทยานิพนธ์ของผม แม้ว่าจะเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยมัทราสก็จริง แต่ขณะนี้กำลังอยู่ในช่วงการตรวจจากผู้เชี่ยวชาญทั้งในอินเดียและอเมริกา จึงถือว่าเป็นสิทธิ์ทั้งของมหาวิทยาลัยและของผม แต่เมื่อไหร่ที่ผมสอบป้องกัน(คาดว่าไม่เกินเดือนตุลาคมนี้)เสร็จ วิทยานิพนธ์ของผมก็จะกลายเป็นลิขสิทธิ์ของมหาวิทยาลัยมัทราสโดยสมบูรณ์ เพราะฉะนั้นในระหว่างนี้ผมจึงสามารถโพสต์ข้อความบางตอนจากงานวิทยานิพนธ์ของตัวเองได้โดยไม่ต้องขออนุมัติจากมหาวิทยาลัย
บันทึกครั้งหน้าผมจะนำเสนอกฏแห่กรรมในฐานะที่เป็นพื้นฐานทางจริยศาสตร์ของพระพุทธศาสนา ซึ่งเป็นสิ่งที่น่าสนใจมาก เพราะหลายศาสนามีเพียงศีลธรรมพื้นฐานซึ่งไม่เป็นระบบที่สมบูรณ์ เพื่อนผมคนหนึ่งเล่าให้ฟังว่า Prof. Richard F. Grombrich นักปราชญ์ทางพุทธศาสนากล่าวในการบรรยายพิเศษที่กรุงนิวเดลีว่า มีเพียงพุทธศาสนาเท่านั้นที่มีระบบจริยธรรมที่สมบูรณ์แบบที่สุด ศาสนาอื่น ๆ อย่างฮินดูมีเพียงศีลธรรมพื้นฐาน ผมก็เลยคิดว่าเป็นเรื่องที่น่าสนใจมาก และมองไกลไปอีกว่าในยุควิกฤติทางศีลธรรมของโลกปัจจุบัน พระพุทธศาสนาน่าจะเป็นทางออกให้กับชาวโลกได้ เพราะมีระบบจริยธรรมที่สอดรับกับความก้าวหน้าทางวิทยาศาตร์และวิทยาการสมัยใหม่
เมื่อไรจะเปิดเผย ผู้สร้างระบบ กรรม ที่ไม่เคยผิดพลาดให้ผู้คนทราบ เล่าครับท่านอาจารย์ อย่าอุบเแาไว้คนเดียว รู้แล้วไม่บอกต่อ มุสา/ด้นะครับ