Escaping the Inescapable: Changes in Buddhist Karma

Introduction This article presents a study of way doctrine of karma changes over time. The particular feature of karma doctrine that is explored is inevitability of experiencing consequences of actions. Part I of this article recaps some points from Did King Ajatasattu Confess to Buddha, and did Buddha Forgive Him? (Attwood Ajatasattu) and establishes that karma was absolutely inescapable during period represented in Pali Nikayas, which I take to cover last half millennium B.C.E., and perhaps a century into Common Era. Inescapability of karma remained a feature of Theravada thought through at least to Buddhaghosa in Fifth century C.E. Part II deals period from about 1000 B.C.E. to 500 B.C.E. and looks at precedents of Buddhist karma, particularly changes to Brahmanical eschatology that emerge in Brhadaranyaka Upanisad. Drawing on Possible Iranian Origins of Sakyas and Aspects of Buddhism (Attwood), Part II will outline a possible prehistory for karma and will explore conjecture that Zoroastrian ideas influenced development of Buddhist theory of karma. Part II will also try to show why karma had to be inevitable to have moral force. Part III will look at how karma changed in India during first millennia C.E.. Developments in karma theory can be seen in Sramanyaphala Sutra, Siksasamuccaya of Santideva, and in Sarvatathagata-tattvasamgraha (STTS). The Sramanyaphala is an early Buddhist text that has been edited by and/or for a Mahayana milieu. The Siksasamuccaya, on other hand, is firmly rooted in Mahayana and does not cite Early Buddhist sources, though it does show some possible hints of tantric influence. STTS represents a mature Tantric Buddhist attitude to karma. The neutralizing of bad karma, that is, sidestepping of inevitability, becomes an increasingly important theme. The nature and role of ethics in this changed worldview is different from ethos of early texts. Over course of this survey of Buddhist ideas, a major change in conception of karma is seen. This article suggests that a perennial problem for Buddhists may have been influential in bringing about change: problem of how unawakened can escape their own negative conditioning. Part I: The Inevitability of Karma In Samannaphala Sutta King Ajatasattu is troubled by his conscience and goes to meet Buddha. After hearing a Dharma discourse, he confesses that he killed his father, King Bimbisara, who was also Buddha's patron. (2) The Buddha accepts this news, and acknowledges that King intends to return to lawfulness (yathadhammam patikaroti). However, when Ajatasattu leaves, Buddha says to bhikkhus, the king is wounded (khata), and done for (upahata) (D i.86). Had Ajatasattu not killed his father, text tells us, he would have attained eye of wisdom (dhammacakkhu) after hearing discourse. Patricide is one five which result in immediate rebirth in hell after death. The committer of patricide is said to be atekiccha (incurable or unpardonable) and discourse could have no effect on him (C.f. A iii.146). Buddhaghosa's commentary records that after his death, Ajatasattu goes to Hell of Copper Kettles (DA 1.237). It is a central feature of karma in Pali texts that consequences of manifest as rebirth in one or other of realms in which one can be reborn. In Culakammavibhanga Sutta, for instance, using a stock phrase, fruits of are experienced with breaking up of body after death (kayassa bheda param marana M iii.203) as a happy or miserable destination (sugati/duggati). However, moral force of karma would be weakened if it did not allow for to ripen in this as well. The technical term for this is: actions to be experienced in this life (kammam ditthadhammavedaniyam). …