The Nature of Karma
The first question that lays the foundation for a discussion of kammaniyama is the nature of action itself. Fifth century thinker Vasubandhu presents the argument as twofold: the role of volition and the role of the physical body. The role of volition seems to be a foregone conclusion in studies by Buddhist scholasticism because most of the schools see volition as the key component to any action taking place in the human realm. The role of the physical body, however, is widely debated amongst Buddhist scholars. The Vaibasika school sees the body and voice as having distinct volition from the mind. The body and voice could perform acts of vijnapti, or information, which extend outward from the body and create matter. The reason for this, in short, is that the product of matter is matter itself. Therefore, any actions produced by the body or the voice creates an aggregate of matter, or rupakanhda. Mental volitions, on the other hand, create avijnapti, or non-information. Three items of non-information can be created by mental volition: discipline, non-discipline, and the realm of neither-discipline-nor-non-discipline. These are typically in reference to allowing or disallowing anger or negative concepts to rule mental volitions.
The Sautrantika school of thought sees action as distinct from volition because the body is not form but a “special disposition of colors”. This distinction makes action and movement possible only on a conventional level. Therefore, the Sautrantika idea of non-bodily action results in three-fold volition: deliberation, decision, and movement volition. This school is able to reconcile what is seen as bodily action by the Vaibasika thinkers and volition by saying that without volition, negative actions such as infanticide or homicide are not morally qualified “since intention is at the basis of morality.” Furthermore, it can b e seen that without volition, there is no action because the body is in a constant state of dynamism and flux and, in fact, is merely an aggregate of “colors”.
The Yogacara school provides an extrapolation of the Sautrantika idea by saying that there is no real human body in the first place, so all action has to be mental. The Yogacara thinkers state that all of the volitions and titles we give to bodily or mental action are metaphors so that we can identify the results of our mind’s volitions. The human body is not real; rather, it is a creation of the mind in order to carry out volitions in a realm that makes fulfillment of volition conventionally possible.
The second question is that of how results of action are distributed. According to Buddhist thought, once the body perishes, there is a continuance of the causal stream that existed there, in some cases referred to as the consciousness. Actions produce a positive or a negative result for this causal stream and the ultimate goal is to eliminate this stream and transcend these actions into Nirvana. It is important to ask how these results are distributed amongst the causal streams since this line of thought does not allow for an active memory of deeds we have performed in the past. We are also not cognizant of the degree or the timing for which we will be given the fruition of action’s results, though we are aware that results will be realized further along the causal stream.
The Vaibasika school would say that actions exist in the past, present and future. Past actions are still present in causal streams, not as active agents but as deliverers of results. These past actions are existing in a dormant state, continually present as action and result come into play. Present actions exist to experience the fruits of past actions and future actions come about to continue the process of action and result. The Vaibasika idea of retribution states that past, present, and future action exists at all times but in differing states of activity or inactivity.
The Sautrantika school explains the retribution of results as a “perfuming” of results on each action’s causal streams. The past and the future are not factors in play in this explanation; instead, a person’s actions create results that perfume further in the causal stream, whether it happens within the existence of one physical carrier or another. The analogy used by Vasubandhu in explaining the Sautrantika concept is the painting of flowers on a citron tree with red paint; once the flower comes to fruition, its face is colored red from the paint placed on it by the painter. Actions leave “seeds” in the causal stream and the end of that particular stream is the actualization of that “seed” into a “fruit”.
Finally, the Yogacara explain the retribution of actions by utilizing a receptacle, or “store house”, consciousness to explain the accumulation of results in a particular consciousness. At its most basic, this idea states that two different consciousness inhabit a particular individual; an active consciousness dealing with each present action, and the receptacle consciousness, which “stores” the accumulated results. These results are suppressed, eventually dispersed from the “store house” further along the causal stream. This is an elaboration on the Sautrantika idea of retribution, an attempt to simplify and explain further the idea of “perfuming”.
The last major question that must be answered in dealing with kammaniyama is what exactly obtains the fruition of past action. Since there is no self, individuals do not receive these results because of their temporal limits. The answer provided by the Vaibasika school to this question is a very interesting, and troublesome, one. The Vaibasika school believes that since actions and throughts are based in cause and effect relationships, that each action produces some form of “possession” in the temporary being of dharma. This “possession” moves continuously along even as a dharma degenerates and arises anew. This provides for an explanation of what could possibly receive the fruits of past actions; this “possession” is duplicated with each rise and fall of dharma so that there is a basis for the retribution of action.
The Sautrantika and Yogacara schools provide similar analyses of the problem of what object receives retribution, albeit at different degrees of understanding. The Sautrantika believed that the mental series or consciousness was “perfumed” with the results of actions and that each causal stream ran into the next. Thus, even when the human form was destroyed, the effects on the consciousness were still the same. The particular causal stream endowed with the seed would receive the fruition of results. This did not please the Yogacara thinkers, who did not see that as an elaborate enough explanation for how an entity undergoing constant change, as in consciousness, could possibly harbor such “perfuming”. This brought about the idea of a receptacle consciousness, which woudl receive the bulk of the results. To put this into perspective, it can be seen in the mind as two parallel lines, one the active consciousness and one the receptacle consciousness; the receptacle ends up storing all the “seeds” reaped by the active consciousness and its realized volitions.
Now that a philosophical background has been given for the law of karma, we can investigate which set of ideas is most congruent with other beliefs of Buddhism. Primarily, it should be asked which group is most congruent with the ideas of no-self. This doctrine, which is central to Buddhism, says that there is not a self or an actual individual but merely a collection of dharma, or base units that aggregate into the existence we know. What, then, continues after the death of the human (or non-human) body? This can be seen in the consciousness that is embraced by most Buddhist groups. The consciousness endures past any one temporal moment and continues until Nirvana is obtained. This idea seems difficult for many to grasp, since there is no physical basis for the continuation of this consciousness and anything that is antecedent to it.
Nevertheless, I think there is an apt explanation for this reality in the Sautrantika position. Primarily, it explains the consciousness as a stream of causal realities, with one result building on another. These results affect new causes and volitions and continue in perpetuity. The cycle continues for each causal stream until Nirvana is achieved for that stream, but all the streams surrounding it continue. With reference to the “seeds” that are laid in the causal stream, it can be seen that these “seeds” are in essence the influence that actions have upon other causal streams. The fruition of this potential comes about after a series of complex relationships are resolved and the causal streams end up coming contact through future actions.
Questions arise with the issue of how results are dispersed after the giver of an action is no longer alive. This is resolved by knowing that it is not necessary for the same body to receive the results of the action; the actual unit that is being affected is the causal stream that this particular individual was endowed with. Causal streams continue on, and become involved with, new hosts dependent on the direction in which the stream has been heading; a right set of actions leading closer to Nirvana, a wrong set of actions leading to a perpetual cycle of suffering. This individual receives the results (good or bad) that are linked to that causal stream and receive the fruit of the “seed”.
It is important also to refute both the Vaibasika and Yogacara theories on karma in relation to the no-self doctrine because they are not congruent with the doctrine itself. The Vaibasika theory is too intimately related to the body; if a physical body dies, it can no longer perform actions, because actions are bodily and produce matter. Thus, once eliminated, the three states of action no longer exist because they are incapable of being performed. As well, it can be noted that while they do believe in some form of consciousness, with such an intimate relation to the body, there can be no continuity of consciousness into transmigration.
The more tricky refutation comes when discussing Yogacara theory of karma. It can be seen as an elaboration on the idea of “perfuming” results into a consciousness. The problems Yogacara thinkers had with this idea is that once the active consciousness dies and the organs for retribution are destroyed, how are results obtained? Well, the idea of the “store house” comes from this very objection. While I understand how the “store house” consciousness might work, I am not sympathetic to the Yogacara claim to this idea. The “store house” fills up with “seeds” and compresses them. These results are then dispersed out of the receptacle onto the active consciousness. I am not sure that answers how results are given, especially in the context of the no-self doctrine.
Looking at the Yogacara idea of a receptacle consciousness, we can see two lines of consciousness running parallel to each other. One is the active consciousness, responsible for action and volition. The other consciousness obtains the results of these actions and suppresses them until it is time to release them into the active consciousness. I do not believe that this is reconcilable with the no-self doctrine; if there is an active consciousness both acting and receiving the fruits of its own action, it sounds very much like a self. The self can be seen as an identifying characteristic that gives us meaning as well as a reason to do many of the things we do in life. We can see these characteristics in the active consciousness since it both performs actions and eventually receives the results of these actions. Though it is not necessarily in the same temporal state that these results are given, it is nonetheless a self-identifying entity. The receptacle consciousness acts as a type of judgment device, providing results to past actions. This fear of receiving a result for an action that was negative or non-positive is an agent that is similar to the conscience, which is an element of the self.
Another association of the Buddhist doctrine must be reconciled before concluding these statements. This association is between the law of karma and the idea that all things are interdependent. Again, the Sautrantika theory creates the best connection between these two ideas. With the causal stream constantly in flux and in constant contact with other causal streams, there isa web of interdependence that comes about. Each action and each result create unique effects upon other causal streams, which in turn creates more unique actions and results. Interdependence is thus a key component to the ideas of the Sautrantika school.
The other two schools do not seem to fit well into the connection between interdependence and karma. As in the aformentioned analysis, the Vaibasika are not well equipped to create the proper relationship between interdependence and karma. While there is interdependence at a momentary level in the temporal world, the results of this relationship are not born unto future existences. Without some form of independence of consciousness from the body, there is no chance of fruits being born after transmigration.
Once again, the Yogacara school does provide an answer that on the most basic level seems to make sense. It should be surmised that like the Sautrantika idea, all actions affect rseults that end up in the receptacle consciousness, which is then carried over into further existences. However, I do not believe that the answer provided by this group is intricate enough. The idea of a “store house” consciousness provides an easy answer to the questions presented because of the Sautrantika school. Interdependence is a very difficult and complex concept to understand. I believe that the creation of the “store house” can be explained as an offshoot of Ockham’s Razor: the simplest explanation is the best explanation. In most cases, and in particular this case, this idiom is a major fallacy. In the case of the Yogacara, the idea of a receptacle is an attempt to simplify the very intricate and difficult process of retribution; in this attempt, it muddies the water for future exploration by providing for another issue to deal with. Instead of simplifying the complex, the Yogacara pull the knot tighter instead of loosening it up. The Sautrantika thinkers end up providing the most logical explanation for the interdependence of causal streams and its relationship to kammaniyama.
With the previous analysis and conclusions, we can see that there are many different perspectives on what the law of karma entails. The common thread amongst all different perspectives on what the law of karma entails. The common thread amongst all groups is their tacit connection to the basic tenants of Buddhism, such as no-self doctrine, interdependence, and the law of karma itself. Given such an analysis, I must provide a qualification for my study: I am not a Buddhist nor am I well versed in many of the texts of Buddhism. Nevertheless, I believe that the analysis and explanations I have provided should be taken as a serious, albeit preliminary, exploration of the philosophical questions of karma. I believe that the Sautrantika school is the most congruent with the thoughts of Buddhism that I have learned, which are the essential tenets of the religion. Therefore, I feel that it is safe to say that there is at least significant basis for my opinion and further study would provide more evidence for my contention.
