KARMA.
{181}
_Definition._
/Karma/, or Sanskâra which is sometimes used as its synonym,--though
the latter gives a slightly different shade of meaning,--comes from
the Sanskrit root _kṛ_, “to do,” “to make,” “to perform,” “to effect,”
“to produce,” etc. Both terms mean activity in its concrete as well as
in its abstract sense, and form an antithesis to intelligence,
contemplation, or ideation in general. When karma is used in its most
abstract sense, it becomes an equivalent to “beginningless ignorance,”
which is universally inherent in nature, and corresponds to the Will
or blind activity of Schopenhauer; for ignorance as we have seen above
is a negative manifestation of Suchness (_Bhûtatathâtâ_) and marks the
beginning or unfolding of a phenomenal world, whose existence is
characterised by incessant activities actuated by the principle of
karma. When Goethe says in Faust, “In Anfang war die That,” he uses
the term “That” in the sense of karma as it is here understood.
When karma is used in its concrete sense, it is the {182} principle of
activity in the world of particulars or nâmarûpas: it becomes in the
physical world the principle of conservation of energy, in the
biological realm that of evolution and heredity etc., and in the moral
world that of immortality of deeds. Sanskara, when used as an
equivalent of karma, corresponds to this concrete signification of it,
as it is the case in the Twelve Chains of Dependence (_Nidânas_, or
_Pratyâyasamutpâda_).[84] Here it follows ignorance (_avidyâ_) and
precedes consciousness (_vijñâna_). Ignorance in this case means
simply privation of enlightenment, and does not imply any sense of
activity which is expressed in Sanskâra. It is only when it is coupled
with the latter that it becomes the principle of activity, and creates
as its first offspring consciousness or mentality. In fact, ignorance
and blind activity are one, their logical difference being this: the
former emphasises the epistemological phase and the latter the
ethical; or, we might say, one is statical and the other dynamical. If
we are to draw a comparison between the first four of the Twelve
Nidânas and the several processes of evolution that takes place in the
Tathâgata-garbha as described above, we can take Ignorance and the
principle of blind activity, sanskâra, {183} in the Twelve Chains as
corresponding to the All-conserving Soul (_âlayavijñâna_), and the
Vijñâna, consciousness of the Twelve Chains, to the Manovijñâna, and
the Nâmârûpa to this visible world, _viṣaya_, in which the principle
of karma works in its concrete form.
As we have a special chapter devoted to “Ignorance” as an equivalent
of karma in its abstract sense, let us here treat of the Buddhist
conception of karma in the realm of names and forms, i.e. of karma in
its concrete sense. But we shall restrict ourselves to the activity of
karmaic causation in the moral world, as we are not concerned with
physics or biology.
_The Working of Karma._
The Buddhist conception of karma briefly stated is this: Any act, good
or evil, once committed and conceived, never vanishes like a bubble in
water, but lives, potentially or actively as the case may be, in the
world of minds and deeds. This mysterious moral energy, so to speak,
is embodied in and emanates from every act and thought, for it does
not matter whether it is actually performed, or merely conceived in
the mind. When the time comes, it is sure to germinate and grow with
all its vitality. Says Buddha:
“Karma even after the lapse of a hundred kalpas,
Will not be lost nor destroyed;
As soon as all the necessary conditions are ready,
Its fruit is sure to ripe.”[85]
{184}
Again,
“Whatever a man does, the same he in himself will find,
The good man, good: and evil he that evil has designed;
And so our deeds are all like seeds, and bring forth fruit in kind.”[86]
A grain of wheat, it is said, which was accidentally preserved in good
condition in a tomb more than a thousand years old, did not lose its
germinating energy, and, when planted with proper care, it actually
started to sprout. So with karma, it is endowed with an enormous
vitality, nay, it is even immortal. However remote the time of their
commission might have been, the karma of our deeds never dies; it must
work out its own destiny at whatever cost, if not overcome by some
counteracting force. The law of karma is irrefragable.
The irrefragability of karma means that the law of causation is
supreme in our moral sphere just as much as in the physical, that life
consists in a concatenation of causes and effects regulated by the
principle of karma, that nothing in the life of an individual or a
nation or a race happens without due cause and sufficient reason, that
is, without previous karma. The Buddhists, therefore, do not believe
in any special act of grace or revelation in our religious realm and
moral life. The idea of deus ex machina is banned in Buddhism. Whatever
is suffered or enjoyed morally in our present life is due to the karma,
accumulated {185} since the beginning of life on earth. Nothing sown,
nothing reaped.
Whatever has been done leaves an ineffable mark in the individual’s
life and even in that of the universe; and this mark will never be
erased save by sheer exhaustion of the karma or by the interruption of
an overwhelming counter-karma. In case the karma of an act is not
actualised during one’s own life-time, it will in that of one’s
successors, who may be physical or spiritual. Not only “the evil that
men do lives after them,” but also the good, for it will not be
“interred with their bones,” as vulgar minds imagine. We read in the
_Samyukta Nikâya_, III, 1-4:
“Assailed by death, in life’s last throes,
At quitting of this human state,
What is it one can call his own?
What with him take as he goes hence?
What is it follows after him,
And like a shadow ne’er departs?
“His good deeds and his wickedness,
Whate’er a mortal does while here;
’Tis this that he can call his own,
This with him take as he goes hence.
This is what follows after him,
And like a shadow ne’er departs.
“Let all, then, noble deeds perform,
A treasure-store for future weal;
For merit gained this life within,
Will yield a blessing in the next.”[87]
{186}
In accordance with this karmaic preservation, Buddhists do not expect
to have their sins expatiated by other innocent people so long as
their own hearts remain unsoftened as ever. But when the all-embracing
love of Buddhas for all sentient beings kindles even the smallest
spark of repentance and enlightenment in the heart of a sinner, and
when this ever-vacillating light grows to its full magnitude under
propitious conditions, the sinner gets fully awakened from the evil
karma of eons, and enters, free from all curses, into the eternity of
Nirvâna.
_Karma and Social Injustice._
The doctrine of karma is very frequently utilised by some Buddhists to
explain a state of things which must be considered cases of social
injustice.
There are some people who are born rich and noble and destined to
enjoy all forms of earthly happiness and all the advantages of social
life, though they have done nothing that justifies them in luxuriating
in such a fashion any more than their poor neighbors. These people,
however, are declared by some pseudo-Buddhists to be merely harvesting
the crops of good karma they had prepared in their former lives. On
the other hand, the poor, needy, and low that are struggling to eke
out a mere existence in spite of their moral rectitude and honest
industry, are considered to be suffering the evil karma which had been
accumulated during their previous lives. The law of moral retribution
is never {187} suspended, as they reason, on account of the changes
which may take place in a mortal being. An act, good or evil, once
performed, will not be lost in the eternal succession and interaction
of incidents, but will certainly find the sufferer of its due
consequence, and it does not matter whether the actor has gone through
the vicissitudes of birth and death. For the Buddhist conception of
individual identity is not that of personal continuity, but of karmaic
conservation. Whatever deeds we may commit, they invariably bear their
legitimate fruit and follow us even after death. Therefore, if the
rich and noble neglect to do their duties or abandon themselves to the
enjoyment of sensual pleasures, then they are sure in their future
births, if not in their present life, to gather the crops they have
thus unwittingly prepared for themselves. The poor, however hard their
lot in this life, can claim their rightful rewards, if they do not get
despaired of their present sufferings and give themselves up to
temptations, but dutifully continue to do things good and meritorious.
Because as their present fate is the result of their former deeds, so
will be their future fortune the fruit of their present deeds.
This view as held by some pseudo-Buddhists gives us a wrong impression
about the practical working of the principle of karma in this world of
nâmarûpas, for it tries to explain by karmaic theory the phenomena
which lie outside of the sphere of its applicability. As I understand,
what the theory of karma {188} proposes to explain is not cases of
social injustice and economic inequality, but facts of moral causation.
The overbearing attitude of the rich and the noble, the unnecessary
sufferings of the poor, the over-production of criminals, and suchlike
social phenomena arise from the imperfection of our present social
organisation, which is based upon the doctrine of absolute private
ownership. People are allowed to amass wealth unlimitedly for their
own use and to bequeath it to the successors who do not deserve it in
any way. And they do not pay regard to the injuries this system may
incur upon the general welfare of the community to which they belong,
and upon other members individually. The rich might have slaughtered
economically and consequently politically and morally millions of
their brethren before they could reach places of social eminence they
now occupy and enjoy to its full extent. They might have sacrificed
hundreds of thousands of victims on the altar of Mammon in order to
carry out their vast scheme of self-aggrandisement. And, what is
worse, the wealth thus accumulated by an individual is allowed by the
law to be handed down to his descendants, who are in a sense the
parasitic members of the community. They are privileged to live upon
the sweat and blood of others, who know not where to lay their heads,
and who are daily succumbing to the heavy burden, not of their free
choice, but forced upon them by society.
Let us here closely see into the facts. There is one portion of
society that does almost nothing toward {189} the promotion of the
general welfare, and there is another portion that, besides carrying
the burden not of its own, is heroically struggling for bare existence.
These sad phenomena which, owing to the imperfection of social
organisation, we daily witness about us,--should we attribute them to
diversity of individual karma and make individuals responsible for
what is really due to the faulty organisation of the community to which
they belong? No, the doctrine of karma certainly must not be understood
to explain the cause of our social and economical imperfection.
The region where the law of karma is made to work supreme is our moral
world, and cannot be made to extend also over our economic field.
Poverty is not necessarily the consequence of evil deeds, nor is
plenitude that of good acts. Whether a person is affluent or needy is
mostly determined by the principle of economy as far as our present
social system is concerned. Morality and economy are two different
realms of human activity. Honesty and moral rectitude do not
necessarily guarantee well-being. Dishonesty and the violation of the
moral law, on the contrary, are very frequently utilised as handmaids
of material prosperity. Do we not thus see many good, conscientious
people around us who are wretchedly poverty-stricken? Shall we take
them as suffering the curse of evil karma in their previous lives,
when we can understand the fact perfectly well as a case of social
injustice? It is not necessary by any means, nay, it is even productive
of evil, to establish a relation {190} between the two things that in
the nature of their being have no causal dependence. Karma ought not
to be made accountable for economic inequality.
A virtuous man is contented with his cleanliness of conscience and
purity of heart. Obscure as is his present social position, and
miserable as are his present pecuniary conditions, he has no mind to
look backward and find the cause of his social insignificance there,
nor is he anxious about his future earthly fortune which might be
awaiting him when his karmaic energy appears in a new garment. His
heart is altogether free from such vanities and anxieties. He is
sufficient unto himself as he is here and now. And, as to his
altruistic aspect of his moral deeds, he is well conscious that their
karma would spiritually benefit everybody that gets inspired by it,
and also that it would largely contribute to the realisation of
goodness on this earth. Why, then, must we contrive such a poor theory
of karma as is maintained by some, in order that they might give him a
spiritual solace for his material misfortune?
Vulgar people are too eager to see everything and every act they
perform working for the accumulation of earthly wealth and the
promotion of material welfare. They would want to turn even moral
deeds which have no relation to the economic condition of life into
the opportunities to attain things mundane. They would desire to have
the law of karmaic causation applied to a realm, where prevails an
entirely different set of laws. In point of fact, what proceeds from
{191} meritorious deeds is spiritual bliss only,--contentment,
tranquillity of mind, meekness of heart, and immovability of
faith,--all the heavenly treasures which could not be corrupted by
moth or rust. And what more can the karma of good deeds bring to us?
And what more would a man of pious heart desire to gain from his being
good? “Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye
shall drink, nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the
life more than meat and the body more than raiment?” Let us then do
away with the worldly interpretation of karma, which is so contrary to
the spirit of Buddhism.
As long as we live under the present state of things, it is impossible
to escape the curse of social injustice and economic inequality. Some
people must be born rich and noble and enjoying a superabundance of
material wealth, while others must be groaning under the unbearable
burden imposed upon them by cruel society. Unless we make a radical
change in our present social organisation, we cannot expect every one
of us to enjoy equal opportunity and fair chance. Unless we have a
certain form of socialism installed which is liberal and rational and
systematic, there must be some who are economically more favored than
others. But this state of affairs is a phenomenon of worldly
institution and is doomed to die away sooner or later. The law of
karma, on the contrary, is an eternal ordinance of the will of the
Dharmakâya as manifested in this world of {192} particulars. We must
not confuse a transient accident of human society with an absolute
decree issued from the world-authority.
_An Individualistic View of Karma._
There is another popular misconception concerning the doctrine of
karma, which seriously mars the true interpretation of Buddhism. I
mean by this an individualistic view of the doctrine. This view
asserts that deeds, good or evil, committed by a person determine only
his own fate, no other’s being affected thereby in any possible way,
and that the reason why we should refrain from doing wrong is: for we,
and not others, have to suffer its evil consequences. This conception
of karma which I call individualistic, presupposes the absolute
reality of an individual soul and its continuance as such in a new
corporeal existence which is made possible by its previous karma.
Because an individual soul is here understood as an independent unit,
which stands in no relation to others, and which therefore neither
does influence nor is influenced by them in any wise. All that is done
by oneself is suffered by oneself only and no other people have
anything to do with it, nor do they suffer a whit thereby.
Buddhism, however, does not advocate this individualistic
interpretation of karmaic law, for it is not in accord with the theory
of non-âtman, nor with that of Dharmakâya.
According to the orthodox theory, karma simply means the conservation
or immortality of the inner {193} force of deeds regardless of their
author’s physical identity. Deeds once committed, good or evil, leave
permanent effects on the general system of sentient beings, of which
the actor is merely a component part; and it is not the actor himself
only, but everybody constituting a grand psychic community called
“Dharmadhâtu” (spiritual universe), that suffers or enjoys the outcome
of a moral deed.
Because the universe is not a theatre for one particular soul only; on
the contrary, it belongs to all sentient beings, each forming a
psychic unit; and these units are so intimately knitted together in
blood and soul that the effects of even apparently trifling deeds
committed by an individual are felt by others just as much and just as
surely as the doer himself. Throw an insignificant piece of stone into
a vast expanse of water, and it will certainly create an almost
endless series of ripples, however imperceptible, that never stop till
they reach the furthest shore. The tremulation thus caused is felt by
the sinking stone as much as the water disturbed. The universe that
may seem to crude observers merely as a system of crass physical
forces is in reality a great spiritual community, and every one of
sentient beings forms its component part. This most complicated, most
subtle, most sensitive, and best organised mass of spiritual atoms
transmits its current of moral electricity from one particle to
another with utmost rapidity and surety. Because this community is at
bottom an expression of one Dharmakâya. However diversified {194} and
dissimilar it may appear in its material individual aspect, it is
after all no more than an evolution of one pervading essence, in which
the multitudinousness of things finds its unity and identity.
Therefore, it is for the interests of the community at large, and not
for their own welfare only, that sincere Buddhists refrain from
transgressing moral laws and are encouraged to promote goodness. Those
whose spiritual insight thus penetrates deep into the inner unity and
interaction of all human souls are called Bodhisattvas.
It is with this spirit, let me repeat, that pious Buddhists do not
wish to keep for themselves any merits created by their acts of love
and benevolence, but wish to turn them over (_parivarta_) to the
deliverance of all sentient creatures from the darkness of ignorance.
The most typical way of concluding any religious treatise by Buddhists,
therefore, runs generally in the following manner:
“The deep significance of the three karmas as taught by Buddha,
I have thus completed elucidating in accord with the Dharma and logic:
By dint of this merit I pray to deliver all sentient beings
And to make them soon attain to perfect enlightenment.”[88]
Or,
“All the merits arising from this my exposition
May abide and be universally distributed among all beings;
And may they ascend in the scale of existence and increase in bliss
and wisdom,
And soon attain to an enlightenment supreme, perfect, great, and
far-reaching.”[89]
{195}
The reason why a moral deed performed by one person would contribute
to the attainment by others of supreme enlightenment, is that souls
which are ordinarily supposed to be individual and independent of
others are not so in fact, but are very closely intermingled with one
another, so that a stir produced in one is sooner or later transmitted
to another influencing it rightfully or wrongfully. The karmaic effect
of my own deed determines not only my own future, but to a not little
extent that of others; hence those invocations just quoted by pious
Buddhists who desire to dedicate all the merits they can attain to the
general welfare of the masses.
The ever-increasing tendency of humanity to widen and facilitate
communication in every possible way is a phenomenon illustrative of
the intrinsic oneness of human souls. Isolation kills, for it is
another name for death. Every soul that lives and grows desires to
embrace others, to be in communion with them, to be supplemented by
them, and to expand infinitely so that all individual souls are
brought together and united in the one soul. Under this condition only
a man’s karma is enabled to influence other people, and his merits can
be utilised for the promotion of general enlightenment.
{196}
_Karma and Determinism._
If the irrefragability of karma means the predetermination of our
moral life, some would reason, the doctrine is fatalism pure and
simple. It is quite true that our present life is the result of the
karma accumulated in our previous existences, and that as long as the
karma preserves its vitality there is no chance whatever to escape its
consequences, good or evil. It is also true that as the meanest
sparrow shall not fall on the ground without the knowledge of God, and
as the very hairs of our heads are all numbered by him, so even a
single blade of grass does not quiver before the evening breeze
without the force of karma. It is also true that if our intellect were
not near-sighted as it is, we could reduce a possible complexity of
the conditions under which our life exists into its simplest terms,
and thus predict with mathematical precision the course of a life
through which it is destined to pass. If we could record all our
previous karma from time immemorial and all its consequences both on
ourselves and on those who come in contact with us, there would be no
difficulty in determining our future life with utmost certainty. The
human intellect, however, as it happens, is incapable of undertaking a
work of such an enormous magnitude, we cannot perceive the full
significance of determinism; but, from the divine point of view,
determinism seems to be perfectly justified, for there cannot be any
short-sightedness on the part of a world-soul as to the destiny of the
universe, which {197} is nothing but its own expression. It is only
from the human point of view that we feel uncertain about our final
disposition and endeavor to explain existence now from a mechanical,
now from a teleological standpoint, and yet, strange enough, at the
bottom of our soul we feel that there is something mysterious here
which makes us cry, either in despair or in trustful resignation, “Let
thy will be done.” While this very confidence in “thy will” proves
that we have in our inmost consciousness and outside the pale of
intellectual analysis a belief in the supreme order, which is
absolutely preordained and which at least is not controllable by our
finite, limited, fragmentary mind, yet the doctrine of karma must not
be understood in the strictest sense of fatalism.
As far as a general theory of determinism is concerned, Buddhism has
no objection to it. Grant that there is a law of causation, that every
deed, actualised or thought of, leaves something behind, and that this
something becomes a determining factor for our future life; then how
could we escape the conclusion that “each of us is inevitable” as
Whitman sings? Religious confidence in a divine will that is supposed
to give us always the best of things, is in fact no more than a
determinism. But if, in applying the doctrine to our practical life,
we forget to endeavor to unfold all the possibilities that might lie
in us, but could be awakened only after strenuous efforts, there will
be no moral characters, no personal responsibility, no noble
aspirations; the mind will be nothing but a reflex nervous system and
life a sheer machinery.
{198}
In fact karma is not a machine which is not incapable of regeneration
and self-multiplication. Karma is a wonderful organic power; it grows,
it expands, and even gives birth to a new karma. It is like unto a
grain of mustard, the least of all seeds, but, being full of vitality,
it grows as soon as it comes in contact with the nourishing soil and
becometh a tree so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the
branches thereof. Its mystery is like that of sympathetic waves that
pass through all the hearts which feel the great deeds of a hero or
listen to the story of a self-sacrificing mother. Karma, good or evil,
is contagious and sympathetic in its work. Even a most insignificant
act of goodness reaps an unexpectedly rich crop. Even to the vilest
rogue comes a chance for repentance by dint of a single good karma
ever effected in his life, which has extended through many a kalpa.
And the most wonderful thing in our spiritual world is that the karma
thus bringing repentance and Nirvâna to the heart of the meanest
awakens and rekindles a similar karma potentially slumbering in other
hearts and leads them to the final abode of enlightenment.
Inasmuch as we confine ourselves to general, superficial view of the
theory of karma, it leads to a form of determinism, but in our
practical life which is a product of extremely complicated factors,
the doctrine of karma allows in us all kinds of possibilities and all
chances of development. We thus escape the mechanical conception of
life, we are saved from the despair of predetermination, though this
is true to a great extent; {199} and we are assured of the
actualisation of hopes, however remote it may be. Though the curse of
evil karma may sometimes hang upon us very heavily, there is no reason
to bury our aspirations altogether in the grave; on the contrary, let
us bear it bravely and perform all the acts of goodness to destroy the
last remnant of evil and to mature the stock of good karma.
_The Maturing of Good Stock (kuçalamûla) and the
Accumulation of merits (punyaskandha)._
One of the most significant facts, which we cannot well afford to
ignore while treating of the doctrine of karma, is the Buddhist belief
that Çâkyamuni reached his supreme Buddhahood only after a long
practise of the six virtues of perfection (_pâramitâs_) through many
a rebirth. This belief constitutes the very foundation of the ethics
of Buddhism and has all-important bearings on the doctrine of karma.
The doctrine of karma ethically considered is this: Sentient beings
can attain to perfection not by an intervention from on high, but
through long, steady, unflinching personal efforts towards the
actualisation of ideals, or, in other words, towards the maturing of
good stock (_kuçalamûla_) and the accumulation of merits
(_punyaskandha_). This can be accomplished only through the karma of
good deeds untiringly practised throughout many a generation. Each
single act of goodness we perform to-day is recorded with {200} strict
accuracy in the annals of human evolution and is so much the gain for
the cause of righteousness. On the contrary, every deed of ill-will,
every thought of self-aggrandisement, every word of impurity, every
assertion of egoism, is a drawback to the perfection of humanity. To
speak concretely, the Buddha represents the crystalisation in the
historical person of Çâkyamuni of all the good karma that was
accumulated in innumerable kalpas previous to his birth. And if
Devadatta, as legend has him, was really the enemy of the Buddha, he
symbolises in him the evil karma that was being stored up with the
good deeds of all Buddhas. Later Buddhism has thus elaborated to
represent in these two historical figures the concrete results of good
and evil karma, and tries to show in what direction its followers
should exercise their spiritual energy.
The doctrine of karma is, therefore, really the theory of evolution
and heredity as working in our moral field. As Walt Whitman fitly
sings, in every one of us, “converging objects of the universe” are
perpetually flowing, through every one of us is “afflatus surging and
surging--the current and index.” And these converging objects and this
afflatus are no more than our karma which is interwoven in our being
and which is being matured from the very beginning of consciousness
upon the earth. Each generation either retards or furthers the
maturing of karma and transmits to the succeeding one its stock either
impaired or augmented. Those who are blind enough not to {201} see the
significance of life, those who take their ego for the sole reality,
and those who ignore the spiritual inheritance accumulated from time
immemorial,--are the most worthless, most ungrateful, and most
irresponsible people of the world. Buddhism calls them the children of
Mâra engaged in the work of destruction.
Dr. G. R. Wilson of Scotland states a very pretty story about a royal
robe in his article on “The Sense of Danger” (_The Monist_, 1903,
April), which graphically illustrates how potential karma stored from
time out of mind is saturated in every fibre of our subliminal
consciousness or in the Âlayavijñâna, as Buddhists might say. The
story runs as follows:
“An Oriental robe it was, whose beginning was in a prehistoric dynasty
of which the hieroglyphics are undecipherable. With that pertinacity
and durability so characteristic of the East, this royal garment has
been handed down, not through hundreds of years, but through hundreds
of generations,--generations, some of them, unconsciously long and
stale and dreary; others short and quick and merry. A garment of kings,
this, and of queens, a garment to which, as tradition prescribed, each
monarch added something of quality,--a jewel of price, a patch of
gold, a hem of rich embroidery,--and with each contribution a legend,
worked into the imperishable fibre, told the story of the giver. Did
something of the personality of these kings and queens linger in the
work of their hands? If so, the robe was no dead thing, no mere
covering to be lightly assumed or lightly laid aside, but a living
{202} power, royal influence, and the wearer, all unwitting, must have
taken on something of the character of the dead. It is a princess of
the royal blood, perhaps, sensitive and mystical, trembling on the
apprehensive verge of monarchy, who dons the robe, and as she dons it,
tingles to its message. These great rubies that blaze upon its front
are the souvenirs of bloody conquerors. As she fingers them idly, she
is thrilled with an emotion she does not understand, for in her blood
something answers to the fighting spirit they embody. Pearls are for
peace. That rope has been strung by kings and queens who favored art
and learning; and as the girl’s fingers stray towards them the
inspiration changes and her mind reverts to the purposes of the
civilised scholar. Here is a gaudy hem, the legacy of an unfaithful
queen, steeped in intrigue all her life until her murder ended it; and
as the maiden lifts it to examine it more closely, she learns with
shame and blushes, yet not knowing what has wrought this change in
her, that, deep down in her character, are mischievous possibilities,
possibilities of wickedness and disgrace that will dog the footsteps
of her reign. Suchlike are the suggestions which the hidden parts of
the mind bring forth, and in such subtle manner are they born.”
The doctrine of karma thus declares that an act of love and good-will
you are performing here is not for your selfish interests, but it
simply means the appreciation of the works of your worthy ancestors
and the discharge of your duties towards {203} all humanity and your
contribution to the world-treasury of moral ideals. Mature good stock,
accumulate merits, purify evil karma, remove the ego-hindrance, and
cultivate love for all beings; and the heavenly gate of Nirvâna will
be opened not only to you, but to the entire world.
We can sing with Walt Whitman the immortality of karma and the eternal
progress of humanity, thus:
“Did you guess anything lived only its moment?
The world does not so exist--no part palpable or impalpable so exist;
No consummation exists without being from some long previous
consummation--and that from some other,
Without the farthest conceivable one coming a bit nearer the beginning
than any.”[90]
_Immortality._
We read in the _Milinda-pañha_:
“Your Majesty, it is as if a man were to ascend to the story of a
house with a light, and eat there; and the light in burning were to
set fire to the thatch; and the thatch in burning were to set fire to
the house; and the house in burning were to set fire to the village;
and the people of the village were to seize him, and say, ‘Why, O man,
did you set fire to the village?’ and he were to say, ‘I did not set
fire to the village. The fire of the lamp by whose light I ate was a
different one from the one which set fire to the village’; {204} and
they, quarreling, were to come to you. Whose cause, Your Majesty,
would you sustain?”
“That of the people of the village, Reverend Sir,” etc.
“And why?”
“Because, in spite of what the man might say, the latter fire sprang
from the former.”
“In exactly the same way, Your Majesty, although the name and form
which is born into the next existence is different from the name and
form which is to end at death, nevertheless, it is sprung from it.
Therefore is one not freed from one’s evil deeds.”
The above is the Buddhist notion of individual identity and its
conservation, which denies the immortality of the ego-soul and upholds
that of karma.
Another good way, perhaps, of illustrating this doctrine is to follow
the growth and perpetuation of the seed. The seed is in fact a
concrete expression of karma. When a plant reaches a certain stage of
development, it blooms and bears fruit. This fruit contains in it a
latent energy which under favorable conditions grows to a mature plant
of its own kind. The new plant now repeats the processes which its
predecessors went through, and an eternal perpetuation of the plant is
attained. The life of an individual plant cannot be permanent
according to its inherent nature, it is destined to be cut short some
time in its course. But this is not the case with the current of an
ever-lasting vitality that has been running in the plant ever since
the beginning of the world. Because this current is not individual in
its nature and stands above the vicissitudes {205} which take place in
the life of particular plants. It may not be manifested in its kinetic
form all the time, but potentially it is ever present in the being of
the seed. Changes are simply a matter of form, and do not interfere
with the current of life in the plant, which is preserved in the
universe as the energy of vegetation.
This energy of vegetation is that which is manifested in a mature
plant, that which makes it blossom in the springtime, that which goes
to seed, that which lies apparently dormant in the seeds, and that
which resuscitates them to sprout among favorable surroundings. This
energy of vegetation, this mysterious force, when stated in Buddhist
phraseology, is nothing else than the vegetative expression of karma,
which in the biological world constitutes the law of heredity, or the
transmission of acquired character, or some other laws which might be
discovered by the biologist. And it is when this force manifests
itself in the moral realm of human affairs that karma obtains its
proper significance as the law of moral causation.
Now, there are several forms of transmission, by means of which the
karma of a person or a people or a nation or a race is able to
perpetuate itself to eternity. A few of them are described below.
One may be called genealogical, or, perhaps, biological. Suppose here
are descendants of an illustrious family, some of whose ancestors
distinguished themselves by bravery, or benevolence, or intelligence,
or by some other praiseworthy deeds or faculties. These {206} people
are as a rule respected by their neighbors as if their ancestral
spirits were transmitted through generations and still lingering among
their consanguineous successors. Some of them in the line might have
even been below the normal level in their intellect and morals, but
this fact does not altogether nullify the possibility and belief that
others of their family might some day develop the faculties possessed
by the forefathers, dormant as they appear now, through the
inspiration they could get from the noble examples of the past. The
respect they are enjoying and the possibility of inspiration they may
have are all the work of the karma generated by the ancestors. The
author or authors of the noble karma are all gone now, their bones
have long returned to their elements, their ego-souls are no more,
their concrete individual personalities are things of the past; but
their karma is still here and as fresh as it was on the day of its
generation and will so remain till the end of time. If some of them,
on the other hand, left a black record behind them, the evil karma
will tenaciously cling to the history of the family, and the
descendants will have to suffer the curse as long as its vitality is
kept up, no matter how innocent they themselves are.
Here one important thing I wish to note is the mysterious way in which
evil karma works. Evil does not always generate evils only; it very
frequently turns out to be a condition, if not a cause, which will
induce a moral being to overcome it with his {207} utmost spiritual
efforts. His being conscious of the very fact that his family history
is somehow besmirched with dark spots, would rekindle in his heart a
flickering light of goodness. His stock of good karma finally being
brought into maturity, his virtues would then eclipse the evils of the
past and turn a new page before him, which is full of bliss and glory.
Everything in this world, thus, seems to turn to be merely a means for
the final realisation of Good. Buddhists ascribe this spiritual
phenomenon to the virtues of the upâya (expediency) of the Dharmakâya
or Amitâbha Buddha.[91]
To return to the subject. It does not need any further illustration to
show that all these things which have been said about the family are
also true of the race, the tribe, clan, nation, or any other form of
community. History of mankind in all its manifold aspects of existence
is nothing but a grand drama visualising the Buddhist doctrine of
karmaic immortality. It is like an immense ocean whose boundaries
nobody knows and the waves of events now swelling and surging, now
ebbing, now whirling, now refluxing, in all times, day and night,
illustrate how the laws {208} of karma are at work in this actual
life. One act provokes another and that a third and so on to eternity
without ever losing the chain of karmaic causation.
Next, we come to a form of karma which might be called historical. By
this I mean that a man’s karma can be immortalised by some historical
objects, such as buildings, literary works, productions of art,
implements, or instruments. In fact, almost any object, human or
natural, which, however insignificant in itself, is associated with
the memory of a great man, bears his karma, and transmits it to
posterity.
Everybody is familiar with the facts that all literary work embodies
in itself the author’s soul and spirit, and that posterity can feel
his living presence in the thoughts and sentiments expressed there,
and that whenever the reader draws his inspiration from the work and
actualises it in action, the author and the reader, though corporeally
separate and living in different times, must be said spiritually
feeling the pulsation of one and the same heart. And the same thing is
true of productions of art. When we enter a gallery decorated with the
noble works of Græcean or Roman artists, we feel as if we were
breathing right in the midst of these art-loving people and seem to
reawaken in us the same impressions that were received by them. We
forget, as they did, the reality of our particular existence, we are
unconsciously raised above it, and our imagination is filled with
things not earthly. What a mysterious power it is!--the {209} power by
which those inanimate objects carry us away to a world of ideals! What
a mysterious power it is that reawakens the spirits of by-gone artists
on a sheet of canvas or in a piece of marble! It was not indeed
entirely without truth that primitive or ignorant people intuitively
believed in the spiritual power of idols. What they failed to grasp
was the distinction between the subjective presence of a spirit and
its objective reality. As far as their religious feeling, and not
their critical intellect, was concerned, they were perfectly justified
in believing in idolatry. Taking all in all, these facts unmistakably
testify the Buddhist doctrine of the immortality of karma. A chord of
karma touched by mortals of bygone ages still vibrates in their works,
and the vibration with its full force is transmitted to the sympathetic
souls down to the present day.
Architectural creations bear out the doctrine of karma with no less
force than works of art and literature. As the uppermost bricks on an
Egyptian pyramid would fall on the ground with the same amount of
energy that required to raise them up in the times of Pharaohs; as a
burning piece of coal in the furnace that was dug out from the heart
of the earth emits the same quantity of heat that it absorbed from the
sun some hundred thousand years ago; even so every insignificant bit
of rock or brick or cement we may find among the ruins of Babylonian
palaces, Indian topes, Persian kiosks, Egyptian obelisks, or Roman
pantheons, is fraught with the same spirit and soul that actuated
{210} the ancient peoples to construct those gigantic architectural
wonders. The spirit is here, not in its individual form, but in its
karmaic presence. When we pick these insignificant, unseemly pieces,
our souls become singularly responsive to inspirations coming from
those of the past, and our mental eyes vividly perceive the splendor
of the gods, glory of the kings, peace of the nation, prosperity of
the peoples, etc., etc. Because our souls and theirs are linked with
the chain of karmaic causation through the medium of those visible
remains of ancient days. Because the karma of those old peoples is
still breathing its immortality in those architectural productions and
sending its sympathetic waves out to the beholders. When thus we come
to be convinced of the truth of the immortality of karma, we can truly
exclaim with Christians, “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where
is thy victory?”
It is hardly necessary to give any further illustration to establish
the doctrine of karma concerning its historical significance. All
scientific apparatus and instruments are an undying eye-witness of the
genius of the inventors. All industrial machines and agricultural
implements most concretely testify the immortality of karma created by
the constructors, in exact proportion as they are beneficial to the
general welfare and progress of humanity. The instruments or machines
or implements may be superseded by later and better ones, and possibly
altogether forgotten by succeeding generations, but this does not
annul the fact that the {211} improved ones were only possible through
the knowledge and experience which came from the use of the older
ones, in other words, that the ideas and thoughts of the former
inventors are still surviving through those of their successors, just
as much as in the case of genealogical karma-transmission. Whatever
garb the karma of a person may wear in its way down to posterity, it
is ever there where its inspiration is felt. Even in an article of
most trivial significance, even in a piece of rag, or in a slip of
time-worn paper, only let there be an association with the memory of
the deceased; and an unutterable feeling imperceptibly creeps into the
heart of the beholder; and if the deceased were known for his
saintliness or righteousness, this would be an opportunity for our
inspiration and moral elevation according to how our own karma at that
moment is made up.
We now come to see more closely the spiritual purport of karmaic
activity. Any intelligent reader could infer from what has been said
above what important bearing the Buddhist doctrine of karma has on our
moral and spiritual life. The following remarks, however, will greatly
help him to understand the full extent of the doctrine and to pass an
impartial judgment on its merits.
Here, if not anywhere else, looms up most conspicuously the
characteristic difference between Buddhism and Christianity as to
their conception of soul-activity. Christianity, if I understand it
rightly, conceives our soul-phenomena as the work of an {212}
individual ego-entity, which keeps itself mysteriously hidden
somewhere within the body. To Christians, the soul is a metaphysical
being, and its incarnation in the flesh is imprisonment. It groans
after emancipation, it craves for the celestial abode, where, after
bodily death, it can enjoy all the blessings due to its naked
existence. It finds the nectar of immortality up in Heaven and in the
presence of God the father and Christ the son, and not in the
perpetuation of karma in this universe. The soul of the wicked, on the
other hand, is eternally damned, if it is conceded that they have any
soul. As soon as it is liberated from the bodily incarceration, it is
hurled into the infernal fire, and is there consumed suffering
unspeakable agony. Christianity, therefore, does not believe in the
transmigration or reincarnation of a soul. A soul once departed from
the flesh never returns to it; it is either living an eternal life in
Heaven or suffering an instant annihilation in Hell. This is the
necessary conclusion from their premises of an individual concrete
ego-soul.
Buddhism, however, does not teach the metaphysical existence of the
soul. All our mental and spiritual experiences, it declares, are due
to the operations of karma which inherits its efficiency from its
previous “seeds of activity” (_karmabîja_), and which has brought the
five skandhas into the present state of co-ordination. The present
karma, while in its force, generates in turn the “seeds of activity”
which under favorable conditions grow to maturity again. Therefore, as
long {213} as the force of karma is thus successively generated, there
are the five skandhas constantly coming into existence and working
co-ordinately as a person. Karma-reproduction, so to speak, effected
in this manner, is the Buddhist conception of the transmigration of a
soul.
A Japanese national hero, General Kusunoki Masashige, who was an
orthodox Buddhist, is said to have uttered the following words when he
fell in the battle-field: “I will be reborn seven times yet and
complete discharging my duties for the Imperial House.” And he did not
utter these words to no purpose. Because even to-day, after the lapse
of more than seven hundred years, his spirit is still alive among his
countrymen, and indeed his bronze statue on horseback is solemnly
guarding the Japanese Imperial palace. He was reborn more than seven
times and will be reborn as long as the Japanese as a nation exist on
earth. This constant rebirth or reincarnation means no more nor less
than the immortality of karma. Says Buddha: “Ye disciples, take after
my death those moral precepts and doctrines which were taught to you
for my own person, for I live in them.” To live in karma, and not as
an ego-entity, is the Buddhist conception of immortality. Therefore,
the Buddhists will perfectly agree with the sentiment expressed by a
noted modern poet in these lines:
“We live in deeds, not years; in thoughts, not in breaths:
In feelings, not in figures on a dial,
We should count time by heart-throbs. He most lives
Who thinks most, feels the noblest, acts the best.”
{214}
Some may like to call this kind of immortality unsatisfactory, and
impetuously demand that the ego-soul, instead of mysterious force of
karma, should be made immortal, as it is more tangible and better
appreciated by the masses. The Buddhist response to such a demand
would be; “If their intellectual and moral insight is not developed
enough to see truth in the theory of karma, why, we shall let them
adhere as long as they please to their crude, primitive faith and rest
contented with it.” Even the Buddha could not make children find
pleasure in abstract metaphysical problems, whatever truth and genuine
spiritual consolation there might be in them. What their hearts are
after are toys and fairy-tales and parables. Therefore, a motto of
Buddhism is: “Minister to the patients according to their wants and
conditions.” We cannot make a plant grow even an inch higher by
artificially pulling its roots; we have but to wait till it is ready
for development. Unless a child becomes a man, we must not expect of
him to put away childish things.
The conclusion that could be drawn from the above is obvious. If we
desire immortality, let there be the maturing of good karma and the
cleansing of the heart from the contamination of evils. In good karma
we are made to live eternally, but in evil one we are doomed, not only
ourselves but every one that follows our steps on the path of evils.
Karma is always generative; therefore, good karma is infinite bliss,
and evil one is eternal curse. It was for this reason that at the
appearance of the Buddha in the Jambudvîpa {215} heaven and earth
resounded with the joyous acclamation of gods and men. It was a signal
triumph for the cause of goodness. The ideal of moral perfection found
a concrete example in the person of Çâkyamuni. It showed how the
stock of good karma accumulated and matured from the beginning of
consciousness on earth could be crystalised in one person and brought
to an actuality even in this world of woes. The Buddha, therefore, was
the culmination of all the good karma previously stored up by his
spiritual ancestors. And he was at the same time the starting point
for the fermentation of new karma, because his moral “seeds of
activity” which were generated during his lifetime have been scattered
liberally wherever his virtues and teachings could be promulgated.
That is, his karma-seeds have been sown in the souls of all sentient
beings. Every one of these seeds which are infinite in number will
become a new centre of moral activity. In proportion how strong it
grows and begins to bear fruit, it destroys the seeds of evil doers.
Good karma is a combined shield and sword, while it protects itself it
destroys all that is against it. Therefore, good karma is not only
statically immortal, but it is dynamically so; that is to say, its
immortality is not a mere absence of birth and death, but a constant
positive increase in its moral efficiency.
Pious Buddhists believe that every time Buddha’s name is invoked with
a heart free from evil thoughts, he enters right into the soul and
becomes integral part of his being. This does not mean, however, that
{216} Buddha’s ego-substratum which might have been enjoying its
immortal spiritual bliss in the presence of an anthropomorphic God
descends on earth at the invocation of his name and renders in that
capacity whatever help the supplicant needs. It means, on the other
hand, that the Buddhist awakens in his personal karma that which
constituted Buddhahood in the Buddha and nourishes it to maturity.
That which constitutes Buddhahood is not the personal ego of the
Buddha, but his karma. Every chemical element, whenever occasioned to
befree itself from a combination, never fails to generate heat which
it absorbed at the time of combination with other elements; and this
takes place no matter how remote the time of combination was. It is
even so with the karma-seed of Buddha. It might have been in the
barren soil of a sinful heart, and, being deeply buried there for many
a year, might have been forgotten altogether by the owner. But, sooner
or later, it will never fail to grow under favorable conditions and
generate what it gained from the Buddha in the beginning of the world.
And this regeneration will not be merely chemical, but predominantly
biological; for it is the law which conditions the immortality of
karma.
PRACTICAL BUDDHISM.
{217}