Karma, Meet Egolessness
Any Buddhists out there? I have a question. Or not so much a question as something I don’t get. (I know of at least one Buddhist out there. Maybe I’ll email her, or maybe she’ll say something here before I get around to it.) This morning I was reading a book about feminism and world religions – called Feminism and World Religions – and in the essay on Buddhism Rita Gross tells us that many Buddhists explain male dominance as a result of karma: everyone’s ‘current position’ is a result of karma from the past, so women’s inferiority results from ‘negative karma’ so they have to bear it gracefully, which will probably lead to the good karma of rebirth as a man. (She then says what’s wrong with that view – you don’t get to say ‘it’s your karma to be oppressed by me’ because that’s bad or ‘negative’ karma for you.) But on the next page she talks about egolessness and the non-existence of the ego, the self, the identity. That’s fine, I have no problem with that, it just sounds like dear Hume to me; but what I don’t get is how those two things can possibly make sense in combination. If the self doesn’t exist in this life, what sense can it possibly make to say that what we did in a past life belongs to us in this one? Accepting the (absurd, but never mind) idea of rebirth just for the moment for the sake of argument – what is it that is reborn if there is no self? I want to know. What is it that is reborn, and what is its relationship to its ‘karma’? It’s presumably not anything material; it’s not meant to be the same atoms or anything; but it’s also not the same person, because personhood is an illusion. So what is it?
This is a blindingly obvious problem, so surely it must have been discussed to within an inch of its life, but I seem to have slept through that class. Answers on a postcard please.
Personally, I’d quite like to book in advance several lives’ bad Karma now and join the Rolling Stones for one last tour.
greetings from thailand,
no expert either, but apparently the *karma* rap has been twisted and actually originally meant only deeds you did in this life would affect your behavior and fate in this life. *karma* was not transferrable from life through death into the next life. over the centuries, the concept was misinterpreted etc.
as for what is reborn, apparently in english we would say *spirit* or *consciousness* or somesuch. dalai lamas and others believe they are reincarnated, but don’t flash back and hang out in their past life because they say it is a waste of time. like you don’t obsessively dwell in some abandoned thursday in say 1988. you are much busier and better off perceiving today and the *now*.
another way to think of it, totally different from buddhism, might be the way you can think of d.n.a. as life, and d.n.a. merely using our bodies as hosts to be born into and then discard. so d.n.a. had past lives — that is to say your d.n.a. existed in your previous relatives until it reached your body and then unfolded — and it right now continuing to unfold even as you pixelate on this page.
i have some *tibetan book of the dead* and *dalai lama* interviews i did on my website, so feel free to surf over, or link, or blog me or whatever you like.
cheers,
http://www.geocities.com/asia_correspondent
If the self does not exist, what am….
And if you ask rational questions about it, a Zen master twats you with a big stick…
Dave – is that why most Buddhists I see shopping in Waitrose are so stupid ?
Thanks, asia correspondent. I still don’t quite see how an individual ‘soul’ or ‘consciousness’ can be real when the self and the ego are unreal. If there is no self, whose soul or consciousness is it?
*sigh*… Like I said, *nothing is real* [and therefore, inevitably, nothing to get hung about…] ;-)
That which functions as a ‘conscious person’ is no more than a ripple on the pond of eternal illusion, which, when you open the box of enlightenment, collapses into the nothingness of quantum nirvana…
Got it now?
Yes, I got it now, and got it before, I think, but what I don’t got is how karma then works. And since karma is part of Buddhism, it is a real question – that is, a reasonable question about a real contradiction. Nobody’s explained that yet.
Are you just saying nothing is real including karma? But that’s no good, that just brushes the contradiction aside, when karma is in fact part of the doctrine.
>>If there is no self, whose soul or consciousness is it?
Strictly speaking, the anatta (or an-atman, Non-soul or Non-self. Nothing-ness. Another analogy is that of different lifetimes being like the ripples on the ocean surface – itself samsara, karmic flow- with each ripple having only a transient, illusory identity. One lifetime does not direct another but may leave a slight impression or ‘conditioning’.
It’s beeen a tough one, sorting out the niceties of the philosophy of nothingness for the Buddhists themselves and even the Buddha compromised in his discourse:
From an interior perspective, a person who remembers or imagines a past life is likely to think of it as representing a continuity of existence between lifespans, i.e., that the same person (however defined) was formerly one person (with a certain name and body) and is now a different person (with another name and body). This perspective is objectionable from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy on two counts. First, because it seems to postulate an enduring, self-existing entity that exists separate from the elements of mind and body, contrary to the Buddhist philosophical position of anātman. Second, because it overlooks the characterization of this process as one of constant change, both within and between lives, in which the newly-arising life is conditioned by but in no respect identical to the predecedent life.
Nonetheless, the Buddha is represented using language reflecting the interior perspective in stories about his past lives in both jātakas and sūtras. For instance, “At that time I was the Brahmin, the Great Steward…” (Mahāgovinda-sutta, DN.19) or “Six times, Ānanda, I recall discarding the body in this place, and at the seventh time I discarded it as a wheel-turning monarch…” (Mahāsudassana-sutta, DN.17). This can be regarded as a concession to the needs of conventional speech.
(from wiki)
Eh, the mahayanas had enough trouble with this that they invented the indesctructible, eternal kernal of potential that exists in all, the ‘buddha nature’ inherent in all sentient beings.
Most normal people. myself included, get a headache when they try to digest these, hence a natural need for a nice lie down next. Here, Buddhism recommends a spot of meditation. The aim is to gain knowledge of the true nature of existence, ie stare into the yawning abyss.
Well, karma isn’t really at the heart of Buddhism — or, rather, isn’t a purely Buddhist concept, as Gautama was more interested in what would get people out of the wheel of suffering, than why they were there in the first place [ditto his resolute refusal to discuss the existence of a deity]. Why not read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
And when you’ve finished, maybe you can start on the nature of the Trinity…?
I thought we all agreed religions were hokum around here anyway?
while i was labouring away on my explanation, you got about a dozen explanations! But I don’t understand it either.
karma may just stand for the inevitability of life. You are in NE India (hell hole if there was one) and suffering like a dog or at least insecure. The kind buddha wants to relieve your angst and assure you that it all means nothing but he is talking to a bunch of indians you see, you have to hang the nothingness on a logwinded metaphysical framework for them to truly believe you, somewhat like homeopathy.
longwinded, not logwinded in case Ophelia goes off looking for exotic ritual wood.
“objectionable from the point of view of Buddhist philosophy on two counts”
Well there, they admit it’s a problem then; this is what I’m saying.
I could read wikipedia, but I wanted to do it this way instead.
Karma may not be at the heart of Buddhism (I don’t know), but part of the point of this article is that in practice the idea of karma is what is used to justify the subordinate status of women – so it certainly does matter.
Of course we mostly agree religions are hokum around here. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth looking at specific internal contradictions, or apparent contradictions. It seems to me this one must be pretty central, so I’m curious about it.
mirax,
Yes – the kind buddha was stuck with the material he had. Makes sense. But the doctrine doesn’t!
>>part of the point of this article is that in practice the idea of karma is what is used to justify the subordinate status of women – so it certainly does matter.
Worse in hinduism. It’s used to justify the caste system and passivity in the face of horrendous human suffering.
I know. Haven’t read that article yet. Getting there.
the problem was that the buddha saw suffering/life as one unceasing natural force or flow – the samsara- rather than a one off problem confined to the specific lifespan of that individual. He had to provide a remedy for escaping that entire tiring, tedious cycle rather that just ask his followers to kill themselves to end the misery. Thus karma. Karma links one ripple/lifetime to the next. Not very well at all – just a vague ‘conditioning’ or impulse to certain volitions, not a full memory(really like the ‘essence’ of the homeopathic remedy). Karma is the action that bonds, or rather dooms you to existence (which is by definition, don’t forget, suffering).
It is not the buddhist aim to earn good karma but to end or fulfil one’s karma and thus escape the cycle of rebirth. Without the concept of karma, no solution for human redemption (not the right word,I know) exists.
“It is not the buddhist aim to earn good karma”
Ah. That helps. Because the scholar’s point here is that the answer is wrong – it’s no good saying ‘it’s your karma to be oppressed by me’ – so the people who say that could well be confused in more than one way.
‘it’s your karma to be oppressed by me’
I think that would be quite wrong by light of buddhist thinking since one is creating very bad karma and longer suffering time by indulging in oppressive action. But when a person is born female or poor or disabled, quite a few hindus and buddhists assume that to be a natural consequence of pastlife misdeeds, bad karma. That person hence ‘deserves’ her poor station in life and need not receive sympathy or help.
Indeed, much like Calvinism posits material prosperity as a sign of election, despite everything JC says in the gospels about the merits of poverty… Religion, it always has what you need, you just need to look hard enough, from the right angle, with one eye closed….
Hi Ophelia. Sorry to be answering so late but just have to throw in my 2 cents.
First off, I’m a practicing buddhist since 1983. This does NOT make me an expert but have enough under my belt to get around on my own (smile). First things first in fundamentals. The Buddha is not some transcendent being or super human. He or she, importantly YOU, are the Buddha, or is your true self, your full potential, a realized human being. All the deep answers of the universe you will eventually come to answer for yourself because it comes from yourself. Recognize first how fundamentally respect-worthy you truly are, whatever form you are in this lifetime and whatever your circumstances or karma. We are in this life by virtue of karma, cause and effect, and depending upon our will and desire, if you innately feel that there is some negativity or bad circumstances that you are experiencing and want to change, it’s NOT only human but absolutely necessary that you strive to do so. We will always have problems and obstacles in life that impedes us and it’s only natural that we are doing what is humanly possible to overcome them. Problems will always be there and it’s up to you make them the ‘firewood’ of your enlightenment. (part 1) Will follow up on your questions next when I have a little more time to give youa better answer. best, Dan
Hi Dan. Thanks. But that doesn’t get at the question I asked in the post (and I still don’t know what the answer is, apart from “__________”). I still don’t see how karma can make any sense in combination with the idea of egolessness. Karma seems to posit a much more robust ego rather than a less robust one. An ego that can pass from one person to another is some powerful ego, it seems to me.
I also don’t really see what is specifically Buddhist about any of what you said. You could get the same thing from other religions and from secular ideas, surely. I mean – we all have problems and it’s up to us to solve them. Right, but it doesn’t take Buddhism to tell us that.
Don’t get me wrong: I quite like much of what I know about Buddhism. But there are some things I don’t get.