I care very little for classical or academic Buddhist opinions or writings on the subject of karma, specifically because I believe the authors throughout the ages were no different than many of the writers on Fraughtwithperil. Antiquity lends validation – let a few decades go by and all of the sudden some wannabe Buddhist hack who writes an ill-thought out piece on karma becomes an “authority” by virtue of the distance of time.
Karma is – in my opinion – a concept that describes the very basis for the advent and purpose of individual human life.
Popular usage of the word does not do justice to it, which is quite the understatement. “That’s bad karma dude” says little about the true nature of the concept of karma. Put briefly karma describes the past causes that determine the conditions from which the essence of a human life reemerges from ku (the void), or in short, is reborn. Karma, from a more immediate perspective, also describes the causes we make in our current life which lead to our current suffering or fulfillment.
In my mind to think in terms of “bad karma” and “good karma” is shallow. In light of the Buddhist concept of the decline and renewal of individual human life (in whatever form that really is) the values of good and bad become somewhat obscured. Put differently, if you never really die, then there's really no good and evil, rather merely our karmic residue.
Without the process of karma there really isn’t much point in the universe’s expression of individual human lives.
Provisional Buddhist teachings strive towards the cessation of the creation of karma in the hope of stopping the cycle of birth and death. I would respond "what’s the point of life then?" Myoho is a perfect thing, a concept that describes the entire whole of the universe in which we exist. The expression of life must have some purpose and karma defines the function of that purpose.
The reality we face in a practical light is found in the karmic effects we experience in this lifetime. It doesn’t work to follow a careless karmic policy throughout one’s life – a “who cares, I’ll be reborn anyway” sort of approach because no one seeks out suffering intentionally. (Yes, this is a generalization, I’m sure one could think of exceptions).
The bottom line is that if you make negative causes in this life you experience suffering and are denied fulfillment, in other words, you get bad karma.
The purpose of Buddhist practice is to “direct” our karmic causes because in the end it’s difficult in most circumstances to determine if we’re making bad or good causes or karma. Certainly I do not believe that judging our own karmic causes or the causes of others is possible from an intellectual perspective.
In the final analysis the subject of karma is just, well – complicated…
Rev. Greg Dilley
Hi Charles,
I know I can harping on this and again in the context of Greg's discussion and Chiku's comments it is a tangential point. Nevertheless, I think it does have practical significance, but I have obviously failed to show that there is practical significance to properly understanding ku or emptiness.
Let me start by saying that a misunderstanding of emptiness can lead to two big understandings which can ruin our lives and practice of Buddhism.
1. The mistake of thinking that Buddhism is nihilism and that it is the teaching that "since everything is empty nothing matters." This is not a problem with most if any Nichiren Buddhists. It is usually the scourge of Zen and Tibetan Buddhists, esp. the armchair variety who don't really practice anything and have no good teachers.
2. The mistake of thinking that Buddhism is about some kind of altered state of consciousness or some kind of trippy access to a mystical reality underlying this one which goes by the name "emptiness" or "void" or "true reality" or (rarely) "nirvana" or somesuch. This at least is not nihilistic but it is otherworldly and escapist and those who practice this way are tending to view their practice as a way to get metaphysically high. So this points away from reality and leads to greater delusion. This is the problem with thinking of "emptiness" as some-thing - a mystical reality underlying this one rather than as a description of the way things are in this very moment.
So my concern is that historically some Buddhists have used the teaching of "emptiness" to point away from reality and to justify practices or attitudes to practice which are nihilistic, world denying, other worldly or escapist rather than as a tool to see the flowing interdependent nature of what really is and to abide in reality through our Buddhist practice.
So emptiness need not be discussed theoretically at all - it is a tool for detaching ourselves from fixed views about essences or lack of essence. Once the tool has done its work in removing cognitive or emotional hinderances - then we can let go of it and better settle into our practice. So emptiness is not a view of nihilism or mystic realities (which is what I am objecting to) but just a corrective method to help us return to our practice of being upright in the midst of what is real right here and now.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Rev. Greg and other contributors:
A thought provoking essay, to be sure. I wonder, after reading all the responses if our explanations do more to obscure the truth of reality, karma, rebirth, and emptiness? I recall some moving words of Joseph Cambell saying to the effect that it is the ritual that invokes the archetype images and the truth of the teaching - once one attempts to describe it, the truth doth vanish.
I find my self in a peculiar position of not agreeing with the esteemed Reverend, the great Chikushonin, and the learned Ryuei. You've all compelled me to go chant.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at February 8, 2005 08:56 PMHi again,
Quick comment on Chiku's comments - thanks for pointing out the role of faith and joy. Also, as you say, it is important to realize that altruism does not mean self-abnegation. Buddhist altruism (or rather loving-kindness and compassion) does not exclude but encompasses oneself (in the sense of our own immediate aggregation).
Comment to Greg, I know that you were speaking to the masses. I am not trying to quibble, but I do think you can write accessibly without misusing some basic Buddhist terms like "ku". True, many SGI memembers think of "ku" in the way you describe, but I am happy to see that recent SGI publications have been correcting previous misuse of the term and using it the way it was meant to - as a description of the way things have no essence because they are interdependent.
I used to get all confused by the mystique surrounding terms like Myoho (or Wonderful Dharma or Subtle Dharma and so on) and Emptiness. I have since learned that this mystique is largely the fault of Zen Buddhists like D. T. Suzuki and some early translators of Buddhism who were jumping to conclusions. Recent scholarship, translation, and most importantly the availability of genuine Buddhist teachers who can speak English has shown that no mystical gobbledygook is necessary, as I think Brian Holly will concur. Interdependence is really the heart of Buddhist philosophy - and emptiness and the Wonderful Dharma (or Mystic Law) are both pointing to interdependent transformation and all its subtle and marvelous implications. No need for pseudo-Platonic mystical quantum elixirs. I feel bad harping about this because otherwise the essay is fine and this part really doesn't detract from your main point so much - but it does perpetuate a certain confusion that I feel inhibits and obscures a clear understanding of Buddhism when it comes to emptiness and interdpendence (which are really synonymous as they are used in Madhyamika and T'ien-t'ai tradition and therefore in Nichiren Buddhism as well).
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Ryuei writes;
"While in general I like this essay, this statement is a misunderstanding of what is taught in the sutras. There is no "essence" that sinks into or emerges from anywhere, and "ku" is not some mystical field that things merge into or reemerge from."
If we are to be free to express ourselves, we need some frame of reference, especially when dialoging to the greater masses, as it were.
The reality is we can't know or understand the actual workings of the universe. Even the expression "workings of the universe" is in itself nothing but a frame of reference, like saying "left past the 7-11" doesn't actually say "where".
That was my point in the first paragraph Ryuei, even the sutras don't come any closer in discribing concepts such as Myoho of Ku.
I don't mind my own thoughts and feelings being dissected. Thanks for the compliment, and thanks for reading. I only wish to inspire.
Rev. Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at February 8, 2005 07:33 AM"I have a different thought: The purpose of Buddhist practice is to awaken the Buddha wisdom and thereby manifest in one’s actions (karma means ‘actions’) the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment."
I thought that's what I said. As I said, I care less to have to adhere, or be a prisoner to the classic texts in a fundamentalist fashion. In the very end we are left to our own lives and devices, enduring or enjoying the fruit of our own connection to our own lives, nothing more and nothing less.
If the goal in Buddhism was to win the Buddhist olympics, I have no doubt you'd win Chiku.
We all have our purpose in the end. Thanks for replying Chiku and Rev. Ryuei.
Rev. Greg, Shidoshi
Posted by: Rev. Greg at February 8, 2005 07:25 AMDear Rev Greg,
Interesting essay.
“The purpose of Buddhist practice is to “direct” our karmic causes because in the end it’s difficult in most circumstances to determine if we’re making bad or good causes or karma.”
I have a different thought: The purpose of Buddhist practice is to awaken the Buddha wisdom and thereby manifest in one’s actions (karma means ‘actions’) the wisdom appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment.
A writing attributed to Nichiren states, “In reference to ordinary beings, we speak of the three truths (kutai, ketai, chutai), but when one attains the fruit of Buddhahood, they are called the three bodies. These are but different names for a single thing.”
The writing quoted above also states: “The three bodies of the Buddha of the true teaching possess both essence and function.”
To my mind the essence of these three bodies are the attributes of Sovereign, Teacher and Parent, and their functions are the power and influence to protect; the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong; and, taking compassionate and selfless actions appropriate to the circumstances of the present moment, respectively.
Much is said of altruism that is associated with selflessness. True selflessness is not found in subjugation of oneself anymore than it is found elevating self-interests over the interests of others. True selflessness is found in actions that benefit both self and other without distinction—doing what is needed to be done, regardless of the perceived gain or loss, to self or other.
Ryuei commented “So the question I have is how to turn habitual self-seeking activity into awakened altruistic manifestation of the vow power of the buddhas and bodhisattvas which is nothing less than reality compassionately unfolding?”
This is not complicated. The Lotus Sutra answers this question directly:
When they have become truly faithful.
Honest, upright, gentle in intent.
Single-mindedly yearning to see the Buddha.
Not begrudging their lives to do so.
Then (at this moment) I and the assembly of Monks.
Appear/together at Holy Eagle Peak.
This is both the path to, and the fruit of, Buddhahood.
In the practice of the Lotus Sutra, faith (a seeking mind responding with acceptance and joy) is the essential cause for awakening the wisdom of all Buddhas. Once one is so awakened, the above passage expresses the functioning effect of Buddhahood and is read:
When they have become truly wise.
Honest, upright, gentle in intent.
Single-mindedly yearning to see the Buddha in others.
Not begrudging their lives to do so.
Then I and the assembly of Monks.
Appear/together at Holy Eagle Peak.
“In reference to ordinary beings, we speak of the three truths (kutai, ketai, chutai), but when one attains the fruit of Buddhahood, they are called the three bodies. These are but different names for a single thing.”
“The three bodies of the Buddha of the true teaching possess both essence and function.”
chikushonin 智倶諸人, common mortal of myojisoku
大求道心,妙覚,命時僧倶經.
南無妙法蓮華命時儈倶經
"Put briefly karma describes the past causes that determine the conditions from which the essence of a human life reemerges from ku (the void), or in short, is reborn."
While in general I like this essay, this statement is a misunderstanding of what is taught in the sutras. There is no "essence" that sinks into or emerges from anywhere, and "ku" is not some mystical field that things merge into or reemerge from.
In Abhidharma Buddhism there are in fact dharmas which are supposedly indivisible, but these are not people or things as we know them but things like resistance, temperature, movement, and a whole host of mental feelings, attitudes, and cognitive processes which are the bits that make up reality on the everday level. Mahayana Buddhism critiqued the view that these dharmas have some abdiding individible essence or sustance and instead pointed out that they too are empty (ku) because they are simply conglomerations of causes and conditions in process. There are no "things" that emerge or reemerge from anywhere and emptiness is not a place or field but a description of the interdependent causal and conditioned nature of reality as it is present to us right at this moment.
In terms of "karma", it is, as you say, the congolomeration of past causes that allow this moment to be what it is and the causes made in this moment that will in part determine the giveness of the presents continued unfolding. But let's not reify human life or the void by making the former an "essence" and the latter a kind of plenum into which thing merge and out of which they reemerge. The whole project of Abhidharma and its Mahayana critiques was to continually and more and more thoroughly head off that kind of thing as it leads to cognitive and eventually emotional fixations.
"Provisional Buddhist teachings strive towards the cessation of the creation of karma in the hope of stopping the cycle of birth and death. I would respond "what’s the point of life then?"
This is a good question. The way I see it, the Mahayana showed that while karma in the sense of self-seeking intentional activity is cut off, it is replaced by the vows of the bodhisattva, in other words altruistic intention that is not self and other referential but compassionate activity for its own sake.
Curiously, when I contemplate the mental and emotional makeup of arhats in the Abhidharma it seems to me that what is meant by the cutting off of karma doesn't mean that arhats no longer act intentionally, because how could any human being act without any intention at all? Rather, they act so completely that the intention of the act does not seek some kind of reward or justification or self-affirmation beyond the act itself. In other words, the arhat acts in such a way that they leave no loose ends and are fully content with the act as its own reward. I might be wrong about this, but that is how it strikes me.
That bodhisattva, however, does go outside such a restriction in making and living by altruistic vows, but it would seem that the Buddha returns to the completeness of every act but on a higher level where all is fulfilled and not just their own enlightenment.
"Myoho is a perfect thing, a concept that describes the entire whole of the universe in which we exist. The expression of life must have some purpose and karma defines the function of that purpose."
I think that karma is usually restricted to an act that seeks some completion as a result of its actitivity and is tied in with self-referential seeking. But I see what you are saying - life expresses itself in its actual unfolding and through intentionality and not in just finding some static end. So the question I have is how to turn habitual self-seeking activity into awakened altruistic manifestation of the vow power of the buddhas and bodhisattvas whihc is nothing less than reality compassionately unfolding?
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei