How to response to "it's their past kamma"?

Discussion
1

During discussions about karma or compassion with many local Theravadins (most of them pretty wealthy and big donors to things like Sivali statues for $10K a pop), I’ve brought up how disturbing it is that millions of kids die from hunger, people are born into war zones or extreme poverty, or have severe birth defects from day one. And I noticed a pattern:

The stock reply I get is: “It’s their past kamma.”

If I push back with something like, “Didn’t the Buddha say not everything is caused by past kamma? And isn’t it cruel to judge people based on an unprovable assumption?” the follow-up is usually either some Abhidhammic, or something like: “They’re just lazy.”

I get where they’re coming from, doctrinally. But in practice, it feels like this view gets used to justify inequality and maintain the status quo, especially by people who are already well-off.

From a Theravada point of view, is this actually a correct way to frame other people’s suffering? How could I respond using sutta references?

3 Likes
2

Hello lavantien,

I find the book “Good Kamma! Bad Kamma! What Exactly is Kamma?“ by Bhante Dhammika very helpful.

4 Likes
3

Hi lavantien..

I remembered this book by the Venerable Bhikkhu P. A. Payutto…

In Chapter 5, The Law of Kamma, there’s a section on page 495 where he talks about “Social or Collective Kamma”.

From a Theravada point of view, is this actually a correct way to frame other people’s suffering?

In this part of the book, he talks about the importance of leadership and how one person’s attitude can influence the entire community..

In brief, kamma is a matter pertaining to human beings; human matters are equivalent to kamma. Individual kamma does exist, yet when one examines kamma from a broader perspective, kamma pertains to all human activities and is the catalyst for the formation of human society. Generally speaking, one need not differentiate the kamma of individual people and the kamma of society, or to distinguish between kamma on the personal level and kamma on the social level. Instead of making that distinction, one should distinguish kamma, all of which pertains to human beings, from matters dealing with material objects, the natural environment, trees and plants, etc.

Although each person leads an individual life, the very engagement and interaction with others is the basis for society. Similarly, although everyone performs individual kamma, when people live together and perform volitional actions towards, or in collaboration with, others, a specific kind of social kamma is created. When viewing kamma in this broad sense, one sees that it encompasses both individual human beings all the way up to the entire human society. For this reason, except for the purpose of unique considerations, it is unnecessary to distinguish between individual and social kamma.

Take the example of a village in which the residents are farmers and sustain a decent living by work in the fields. One day a gambler skilled at cock-fighting visits the village and displays his craft. He drums up interest in others, encouraging them to engage in cock-fighting. This is his own intentional action, and he will receive the fruits of acting in this way. Here, the perspective is on the individual level. A further analysis reveals that before long almost every head of the household in this village adopts this new activity, delighting in the joys of cock-fighting, and they neglect their work. Each individual who acts in this way likewise receives the fruits of his or her intentional actions.

A broader perspective of the entire village, however, reveals the collective fruit of a change in lifestyle among a large portion of the villagers, including an increase in alcohol consumption and theft. The entire fortune of the village, even including the physical environment, undergoes an alteration as a consequence of these actions.

By examining this series of events one is able to distinguish between those matters pertaining to an individual and those pertaining to the community as a whole. In terms of the formal teachings, a broader perspective reveals how the set of conditions (paccayākāra) are naturally interconnected.

Many Buddhists may have heard the Pali adage: kammunā vattatī loko, which may be translated as ‘the world turns by way of kamma’. It is important to understand the deeper meaning of this teaching. The ‘world’ here refers to human society. Let us examine how the human world proceeds according to kamma.

How could I respond using sutta references?

And in this part of the book he uses a quotation from a Sutta..

Monks, there is one person who arises in the world for the harm of many people, for the unhappiness of many people, for the ruin, harm, and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings. Who is that one person? It is one who holds wrong view and has an incorrect perspective. He draws many people away from the true Dhamma and establishes them in a false Dhamma. This is that one person who arises in the world for the harm of many people, the unhappiness of many people, for the ruin, harm, and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings.

Monks, there is one person who arises in the world for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people, for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people, of devas and human beings. Who is that one person? It is one who holds right view and has a correct perspective. He draws many people away from a false Dhamma and establishes them in the true Dhamma. This is that one person who arises in the world for the welfare of many people, the happiness of many people, for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people, of devas and human beings.

A. I. 33 ?

Well, I just tried to summarize the part where he talks about Social or Collective Kamma; reading the whole part will help you understand it better, and I couldn’t find the correct source for the Sutta quote.

:anjal:

1 Like
4

I also have access to a version, perhaps an older one, of that same part of the book translated into Portuguese.

From a Theravada point of view, is this actually a correct way to frame other people’s suffering?

In this part of the book, he talks about the importance of leadership, how one person’s attitude can influence the entire community, and about Ditthi – attachment to ideas/opinions.

Guided by incorrect ideas, everything else will go wrong. With correct understanding, actions are guided in the right direction. Thus, the desire for personal gain can be beneficial if it is based on correct understanding, but with incorrect understanding or belief, all resulting actions will be harmful. On an individual level, ideas are expressed through the belief in the desirability of certain conditions, which in turn lead to the effort to achieve them. On a social level, we find attitudes that are adopted by the whole society. When there is a conviction of the desirability of a certain thing, society will support it. This collective support becomes a social value, a quality adopted by society as a whole, which in turn pressures its members to perpetuate such beliefs or preferences.

It is easy to see the influence that social values ​​have on people. Sociologists and psychologists are well familiar with the role played by social values ​​and the effects they have on our minds. Starting from social values, ditthi expands outward to become a complex of beliefs, ideologies, and political and economic systems, such as capitalism, communism, and so on, as well as religions. When political theories, beliefs, and ideologies are blindly accepted, they are always the product of ditthi contamination.

How could I respond using sutta references?

And this version has 2 quotes that are in the Suttas..

“Then those beings gathered together and lamented the emergence of those evil things among them: taking what was not given, censure, lying, and punishment. And they thought: “What if we were to appoint a certain being who would show anger when anger was due, censure those who should be censured, and banish those who deserved to be banished! And as a reward we would give him a portion of rice.” So they approached the one among them who possessed the finest attributes, the most admirable, the most agreeable, and the most capable, asking him to do that for them in return for a portion of rice, and he accepted…and thus the word ‘king’ arose…”[DN.I.92] (DN 27)

“Thus, because there was no generosity towards the needy, poverty spread; from the increase in poverty, taking what is not given spread; from the increase in theft, the use of weapons spread; from the increase in the use of weapons, the act of taking life spread…” [D.I.70] (DN 26)

:anjal:

5

Is there really a need to respond? It sounds like the issue arises from when you bring the subject up in the first place, at least from your original post.

I suggest not bringing it up with them. You already know what they are going to say and you don’t like their response.

AN4.197 is a good example of how to respond to the facts about karma and results.

6 Likes
6

Thanks. I’ll take a read.

I don’t get it, it seems to complicate things further. Like how and why would I bear the fruit of Trump doing crypto scams? Kamma as I understand taught by the Buddha is individualistic and pertain only to inner judgement.

I don’t think that quote supports this idea. As in SN 36.21, External violence/systemic coercion can also be a cause for present harm and suffering, not really relate to past kamma of an individual.

From personal observation, those who seek the position of leadership often are the most greedy and narcissistic. Power absolutely corrupts. And I would rather not be led by anyone but myself and the Dhamma.

Thanks for the quote. So the core problem of poverty and subsequent violence is indeed systemic first. From those leaders at the top, abusing the asymmetry of power, hoarding all the resources for themselves and their gang.

Take a lady who is … wherever she is reborn she’s ugly, unattractive, and bad-looking

The Buddha makes a categorical statement. This together with MN 135 seems to justify their response of “it’s their past kamma” and supports the idea of karrmic determination.

Which is add odd with other suttas, in which the view “everything is caused by past karma“ is declared as wrong view (SN 36.21, MN 101, and AN 3.61), and with the working of kamma being imponderable (AN 4.77).

I will, I see the fruitlessness now. Or unless I want to piss them off I’ll bring this issue back up.

1 Like
7

Yes, the way I look at it is that if the Buddha had tried to present all of the subtleties, complexities, and caveats every time the topic of actions and their results came up, things would get really bogged down.

The Dhamma is, after all, for the wise.

I think it’s a valid topic of discussion, and that you have your own concerns you want to work out. But those just aren’t the people to do that with.

3 Likes
8

No. I will second reading ‘Good Kamma, Bad Kamma’.

Not everything is kamma. Additionally the reason someone is might be reborn in a war zone could be because they are very attached to their country or family, rather than it being a punishment. Imagine that this person was spending 20hrs a day doing aid work and this was their life and then they were killed. Seems like a reasonable cause to be reborn in that place. Realistically, we don’t know unless our practice is pretty finely tuned. Knowing rebirth and kamma is only beginning to be understood at Stream Entry.

When you look in the suttas, someone has practiced the 4 jhannas and removed all hinderances and obstructions they can start looking at past lives. It’s a stock passage, but I taught this sutta today, so it’s fresh in my mind.

When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it toward recollection of past lives. …
When their mind has become immersed in samādhi like this—purified, bright, flawless, rid of corruptions, pliable, workable, steady, and imperturbable—they extend it toward knowledge of the death and rebirth of sentient beings.

Also, in a recent talk Bhante Sanathavihari made the cheeky point that we use kamma as a way to bypass our own anger (or other emotions such as conceit). When we weaponise kamma we don’t have to acknowledge our own privilege or anger. We also can justify not doing anything to help these people.

6 Likes
9

Dear Venerable Pasanna,

Very good point. For a long time, I also misunderstood kamma in this way. Perhaps because that’s how I heard it and wanted to hear it. Now I’m glad that I was open enough to read the book “Good Kamma, Bad Kamma.” That really changed my perspective.

Maybe. But people change too, and maybe the moment will come when it is possible?

I am glad that others have confidently shared their views on kamma with me.

1 Like
11

Some more suttas that shed light on past kamma: SN 12.37, SN 35.146, AN 3.100, AN 6.63, AN 10.219.

1 Like
12

Hi @lavantien :slight_smile:

First, I’d say the fact that you care about others’ welfare is a great thing and something to rejoice in. Sometimes our care can be mixed with frustration or confusion, but the goodwill and care is itself wholesome.

One perspective which could be helpful is to set aside the question of whether or not it’s true that “it’s their past kamma,” but to look at the present kamma being made. The teachings on kamma are most relevant to guide our present actions. So if someone says that dying children are “just lazy” with an arrogant attitude and lack of compassion, what kind of kamma are they making at that time? It isn’t looking so good.

Regardless of our views on past kamma, I think everyone ought agree that present kamma should be based on principles such as generosity (or non-greed) and goodwill (or non-hate). Any speech which is motivated by cruelty, arrogance, aversive fault-finding, and so on would be coming from unwholesome roots.

Sometimes this can be helpful to kindly and skilfully discuss with other reasonable practitioners. You don’t need to try and change anyone’s views, just working within the established common principles of Buddhist ethics. At the very least, it might be helpful for your own practice: to focus more on the our and others’ actions in the present than speculation over the past. And of course, this includes that we ourselves not speak aversively or arrogantly to others who we perceive as doing so, because then we fall in the same trap!

Wishing you well! :slight_smile:

4 Likes
13

Another important principle when teaching about Dhamma is assessing the individual you’re teaching. I think the excerpt from MN 103 below can be applied to a teaching situation. The takeaway is that even if the other person gets irritable, even if you are troubled, and even if they hold fast to their views, it is still worth teaching them if they can be drawn away from the unwholesome and established in the wholesome. But if they can’t be drawn away from the unwholesome and established in the wholesome, then equanimity may be the right approach.

As you train in harmony, appreciating each other, without dispute, one of the mendicants might commit an offense or transgression. In such a case, you should not be in a hurry to accuse them. The individual should be examined like this: ‘I won’t be troubled and the other individual won’t be hurt, for they’re not irritable and acrimonious. They don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. However, they don’t hold fast to their views, but let them go easily. I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for the other individual to get hurt is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled but the other individual won’t be hurt, for they’re not irritable and acrimonious. However, they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. Nevertheless, I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for me to be troubled is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. Nevertheless, I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful. But for me to be troubled and the other individual to get hurt is a minor matter. It’s more important that I can draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ If that’s what you think, then it’s appropriate to speak to them.

But suppose you think this: ‘I will be troubled and the other individual will be hurt, for they’re irritable and acrimonious. And they hold fast to their views, refusing to let go. I cannot draw them away from the unskillful and establish them in the skillful.’ Don’t underestimate the value of equanimity regarding such an individual.

-MN 103

4 Likes
14

What comes to mind for me in this situation is that there are many different kinds of kamma and times and ways that kamma ripens. So, as Venerable Pasanna mentioned above, there may be lots of different kamma and vipaka situations that are constantly playing out for each and every person. What about the people in war zones or poverty who are handling their situations with wisdom and Right Action? A blanket explanation seems unreasonable to me.

15

Hi,

I too have found that people who are not developed in dhamma are more likely say - ‘It’s their Kamma’. I personally have to make a conscious effort not to do this myself sometimes.

I feel that it’s best to use different perspectives to counter this argument. I haven’t put the sutta references due to lack of time in looking them up.

  1. Compassion and Metta: In most cases yes it would be true to say that the person suffers as a result of their own past kamma. However, this still does not justify having a cold and indifferent attitude towards the suffering of other beings and not doing what one can to help them or at least send metta to them. The Buddha praised the practice of Metta towards all beings.
  2. Complexity and unpredictability of Law of Kamma : The Buddha said that only Buddhas can analyse and exactly predict the fruits of Kamma and if other people were to try doing so they might even go mad. So we don’t know for sure if it certain results are due to past Kamma or more as a result of wider social and political problems. The external circumstances have to also be conducive for good Kamma to bear fruit.
  3. Vicissitudes of the endless rounds of Samsara: Fortunes in Samsara change very quickly due to impermanence and one can very easily find oneself in a vulnerable and weak position and would then hope and expect help from those around. So it is a good practice to perform good kamma by helping others less fortunate when one is capable of doing so.
  4. More emphasis on the importance of present Kamma : The Buddha did not say that everything is caused by past kamma. There were other sectarian teachers who taught the view that everything is caused by past kamma and that it is pointless to perform good actions. A simple example is that if one eats stale food and suffers stomach ache as a result then it would be wrong to blame the suffering on past kamma. One has to also be careful in their present actions, and in fact because past kamma has already been done, it is mainly our present conduct and actions that we need to focus on.
  5. Rarity of a human birth : The Buddha said that a human birth is very rare and to hear the teachings of the Buddha is even more rare. The Buddha also stated that there are countless beings who die in their mother’s womb without anyone knowing about it. So even a person born into poverty or with birth defects had to have good merits of the past to be born as a human. If we do not help them to realise their potential then the opportunity to do good deeds, which is the essence of a human birth, is sadly lost for those people. If such people do good deeds, especially by practicing the dhamma, then they will have fortunate rebirths and eventually when their good kammas ripen they will be able to free themselves from all suffering. In the Pali cannon there are accounts of even animals who listened to monks chanting and because of the good merit of listening to the dhamma despite not understanding the teaching were reborn as humans or devas and eventually were freed from suffering.
2 Likes