[Buddha-l] Re. karma and consequences

[Bob Zeuschner]

I have been sharing this discussion with interest. Let me share one 
philosopher's perspective on what I learned about karma and causality 
from several scholars on early Buddhism.
In Sanskrit, karma means "action." But there is a special meaning to 
karma that I am not seeing addressed very clearly.

What I learned is that the term for "causality" is pratityasamutpada, 
and (as I recall) there are five different subgroups or types of 
causality. Karma is just one type of causality.
In early Buddhism, "karma" is not a synonym for "causality" (acc. to 
David Kalupahana's CAUSALITY: Central Phil. of Buddhism).

What distinguishes karma from the other four forms of causality is that 
the consequences not only extend outwardly, but the karmic action 
generates consequences which rebound back upon the moral agent.
When one's words, speech, or intention are moral (in accord with 
dharma), the consequences are positive AND RESEMBLE or are APPROPRIATE 
to the original action.
When one acts immorally (contrary to dharma), the consequences are 
negative AND RESEMBLE (somehow) or are APPROPRIATE to the original act.

The common belief that karmically generated action rebounds upon the 
agent, and somehow resembles the initial act (good deeds produce good 
karma, bad deeds produce painful karmic consequences) is indeed 
metaphysical and I have never seen any reason to think that it is a 
correct description of the universe I inhabit.
It most certainly is not the simplest hypothesis.

If we interpret karma as merely asserting that we develop patterns of 
behavior or habits, we overlook the claim that negative consequences 
will follow from those patterns. They may, but they may not. What is the 
evidence to support the claim?

I am rather fond of pratityasamutpada, and I wish karma did describe my 
universe. As a description of ultimate reality, by definition karma is 
metaphysical. I have tended to interpret the Buddha as preferring not to 
speculate on the ultimate nature of reality (metaphysics).

Indeed, karma may serve as a social sanction inclining people to act 
morally, but its effectiveness as a sanction is zero evidence that it is 
an accurate description of certain kinds of causality.

In addition to karma, God(s) can act as the same sort of social 
sanction, and so can the judgment of Mithra or heaven or hell. I see no 
evidence to accept these metaphysical claims either.

The claim that the concept of karma describes our universe is weakened 
by the fact that no possible observation is relevant to it; no possible 
or conceivable observation could ever be taken as disproving karma.
If karma is compatible with every possible state of affairs, then it is 
not describing anything in my world.
If no possible state of affairs could ever weaken or disprove karma, it 
is unfalsifiable.
Karma may shape behavior, may be an image which can give meaning to 
one's life (as poetry can do), and one might accept karma for these 
reasons. But I want to know if the description is as accurate as the 
claim that the earth goes around the sun, or as accurate as the claim 
that all living things share a common ancestor.

Bob Zeuschner
Dept. of Philosophy