The teaching that immediately jump to mind is “kamma”. Everything happens for some reasons. Dependent arising. Good past kamma contributes a great deal to one’s fortune in the current life. One can compare the life of the Buddha to the lives of other world religion founders. Finish the exercise and there is no question the Buddha’s past kamma was very good indeed. To Buddhist, kamma is directly connected to intention/motivation, and less so to the actual deeds and events (e.g. Hindus focus on cleansing rites & rituals to improve kamma). Buddha stated the mind is the prime driver. The owner of the damaged Benz seems to have kindness and compassion foremost in mind, rather than attachment to material possessions. The Gates, Buffet & their philanthropic pals are also examples supporting the Buddhist view of kamma. Yet many people still question and challenge the Buddhist view of kamma. Indeed there are plenty of examples that they can use to refute the teaching that looks, longevity, wealth, fame, status & power etc in the present life reflect one’s inner mental state. Exhibit-1 would be the politicians in the swamp of Washington DC, from the very top to bottom. The words and ideas coming out of their mouth and tweets are clearly not reflecting kindness and compassion. Even if people living in abject poverty everywhere are the result of their bad past kamma, does it mean they “deserve” the intolerable living conditions? The Buddha stated over and over that one is the heir of their own kamma, the inheritor of their kamma. This is indeed a major hurdle for many people to accept the teaching when counter examples & evidence are all around us. Facts & evidences are more convincing than opinions and dogma. Without an overall understanding of dependent origination, the Noble Truths, and seeing that the “self” is merely a “process” subjected to conditions, it is very difficult to truly accept the Buddha’s kamma teaching. I wish there are more powerful and convincing arguments to tame the doubtful mind.
I believe there is a sutta where the Buddha says wealth isnt the problem, but rather it is the attachment to it. According to the dhamma those who have metta now, are developing very powerful good kamma for the future. Yet, if like those politicians you mentioned, if they wish to squander their wealth and let it control them rather than the other way round, using it for wholesome purposes, then the effects of that good kamma is wasted. From a samsaric perspective we have all been billionaires, and have been extremely poor as well. Rather than yo-yo-ing trying to do good kamma now and have favourable rebirths better use our good kamma as a springboard to reach for enlightenment, if we are lucky enough to have health (mental and physical) and wealth to pursue the path where many may other may not be able to. Mahamangala sutta (SuttaCentral) seem to outline how wealth and a stable life maybe seen a springboard for spiritual practice- rather than seeing them as mutually exclusive binary manner. There is a lot to be said for holding wealth lightly- it causes less suffering when the/a dip happens. Wealth is neither good nor evil. It’s important to have some amount of it. It is known that wealth serves as a buffer to falling down into negativity when bad things happen. Wealth also gives independence and therefore is empowering. Of course the pursuit of wealth must be performed in balance against health, time, etc. and not at the detriment of others (see Wrong livelihood) . Another aspect is developing joy in another’s gain (mudita). This is the opposite of jealousy and helps to be joyful rather than resentful. Also there is blameless joy to be had from wealth for the layity: SuttaCentral
with metta
Hi Mat, your exposition on the benefit of wealth and caution about attachment is not a “more powerful & convincing argument about the relationship between wealth & kamma”.
Although Ajahn Sujato did not explicitly define “real wealth”, he observed that the Benz owner has welfare of others “foremost in mind” and not material possession. We can infer this is what “real wealth” is about. It agrees with the Buddha’s emphasis that intention/motivation is kamma; i.e. what is foremost in mind is directly connected to good kamma and thus good fortune.
But what about the rich & powerful politicians in Washington DC’s swamps? Most of what they tweet or said are rather driven by bigotry, hatred, ill-will, vulgarity, falsehood & ignorance. If habitual unwholesome intentions are foremost in their mind then how does kamma explain their wealth & power? They are the direct opposite of Ajahn Sujato’s example of how kamma works. That is the point of my question.
If you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I believe good kamma is the soil (field) for good fortune as taught by the Buddha. Wealth is good. There is nothing desirable about abject poverty. What is your point?
You wrote: "From a samsaric perspective we have all been billionaires, and have been extremely poor as well. " I find it highly speculative. It’s similar to state that everyone has been a cockroach and a deva in some distant past lives. I don’t think speculation is called for, or believable.
If I have to come up with an argument in support of the efficacy of kamma, I’ll rather fall back on what the Buddha told the elders of Kalama in the Kalama Sutta. Believe it. Kamma works. Wholesome intention has all the upside and no downside.
Speaking as a Buddhist: even if we enjoy good fortune and wealth in this life as a result of wholesome intentions and good past kamma, until we attain stream-entry we are still liable to regress and relapse into unwholesome intentions. That’ll convince me to be more diligent. But not necessarily to those who have no idea what aryan-sangha means.
With metta.
This sounds like a wise approach to me. I’m from Sri Lanka and what works there is anything that the Buddha said, and especially that which is in the suttas.
with metta
On the ‘surface’ of things we may get a false impression of what is going on when it comes to the comfort and convenience of wealth. An impression that is sweet - but naive. If a poor-person had their bicycle or tuk-tuk destroyed or stolen it could mean the loss of a means of livelihood - destitution.
If a rich individual has their ‘state of the art’ Mercedes damaged it may be nothing more than a formality to have it replaced. They may own other luxury cars. There may be a warranty, as part of the sale the car-dealer may offer free repairs for a period of time, it may have been insured or, the owner may have easy access to money and, have another one delivered to their doorstep the next day. They might prefer to try a B.M.W. or a Bentley if they are in the mood?
It doesn’t really say a lot about the morality of someone if they express concern for the poor. If they are wealthy enough to own a state of the art car in a poverty stricken nation it may be more informative to have a realistic idea about how they distribute their wealth or, whether they mostly sit-on-it, drive it around i.e. feather their own nest. They may feel sad - on occasion - about the extreme poverty they experience when they venture beyond their charmed life - into the midst of their social reality. This is not a significant ethical achievement?
I am not being cynical - just attempting to be a bit more realistic about wealth and privilege. When in the company of a nun or monk it may prompt a pious response that may not be apparent in a different situation. It would be unseemly to become angry or annoyed when something unexpected happened when we are hanging out with renunciate’s.
Do the suttas say anything specifically about unearned wealth, i.e. inherited wealth, or wealth not acquired by one’s own personal efforts? Or about the burdens of managing wealth or maintaining possessions?
Your interpretation of the scene at the damaged Benz is very reasonable. Hawthorne Effect is likely at play in the presence of a monk. But we do not know the car owner personally so there is conjecture. Ajahn Sujato has better direct first hand information.
Proportionality of incremental financial gain/loss to people in different economic classes definitely impact their mental wellness or stress level differently. A few thousand dollars might mean nothing to the wealthy but a great deal to the poor. The wealthy is better insulated and protected against traumatic events, which could be disastrous to the poor.
If one subscribes to the linkage between kamma & wealth, good past kamma also shields one from the foibles of life and lessen the suffering from disasters. The converse is true: bad past kamma amplifies accidental loss, generate more pain and suffering.
If one is born into a wealthy family, life is a lot easier. Born into a poor family, then even minor setback like health problem can become life threatening, especially in third world countries or where there is no universal healthcare system.
Another example comes to mind is the mudslides that devastated Montecito, California in January. In theory a natural disaster doesn’t care who is rich and who is poor. They are equal opportunity destroyers. However, some of the rich residents like Ellen DeGeneres moved out of town ahead of time, or if they survive they have sufficient means to repair the damage quickly, like Oprah. Both Ellen & Oprah are well known for their philanthropy.
It makes sense to ensure that we cultivate good kamma & do not generate bad kamma through unwholesome intentions that affect body, speech & mind. Through “right livelihood” one should build up some assets as insurance against accidents. All in all, it is good advice to be mindful of our motivation. Be kind, be generous. Make improvements for ourselves and then to help others.
What is the hawthorne effect? The term that comes to my mind is: impression management. When you say our dear Ajahn has first hand information are you saying because he was there at the time his perception of the incident is likely to be more accurate - is this necessarily so?
When we receive help and assistance from people we are often grateful. It can influence the way we perceive other people - the helpful one. If we make a point of practicing loving kindness and seeing the best in each other we may find almost anyone worthy of high regard.
My comment was an attempt to draw attention to actual deeds in contrast to kind thoughts and words. We may have kind thoughts and sweet words and, our orientation to the valid needs of others may not amount to much.
Oddly enough, I have also experienced the reverse. My dead-brother had a very negative view about most people, his thoughts and words were far from kind and considerate but his actions were of great benefit to many people.
Another trait or tendency my brother had was a complete disinterest in wealth and assets.
He did not:
He just worked and was a very capable person - a jack of all trades. When he died it created a vacuum in many peoples lives because they always new that my brother would help them even if it meant he missed out on a better life for himself.
I know a man who is extremely wealthy. He is elderly in the final stage of his life. If he were able to access his wealth in 10 future lifetime’s he would live in luxury without having any need for money. I asked him why he holds onto his fabulous wealth - I assume he knows he is an old man and will never have enough time to exhaust his wealth. His answer made no sense at all. He said: he needs it for his security.
Much of the kamma-talk I hear from Buddhists seems a bit empty - devoid of meaning.
I find it a bit smelly when reasonably comfortable people discuss the lives and misfortunes of desperately poor and struggling people in terms of bad-kamma. There just getting what they deserve! There is something toxic about that way of looking at poverty and misfortune.
Hawthorne Effect: the alteration of behavior by the subjects of a study due to their awareness of being observed.
You might have missed that I put quotes around “deserved” for exactly the reason. It is clearly “Politically Incorrect” to say so. But it highlights a typical difficulty in understanding these passages about kamma in AN 5-57 & MN-135 (and repeated in other suttas):
“This noble disciple reflects thus: ‘I am not the only one who is the owner of one’s kamma, the heir of one’s kamma; who has kamma as one’s origin, kamma as one’s relative, kamma as one’s resort; who will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that one does. All beings that come and go, that pass away and undergo rebirth, are owners of their kamma, heirs of their kamma; all have kamma as their origin, kamma as their relative, kamma as their resort; all will be heirs of whatever kamma, good or bad, that they do.’ (AN 5-57 Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation)
‘It’s not just me who shall be the owner of my deeds and heir to my deeds. For all sentient beings shall be the owners of their deeds and heirs to their deeds, as long as they come and go, die and are reborn.’ (AN 5-57 Ajahn Sujato’s translation)
“Beings are owners of their actions, student, heirs of their actions; they originate from their actions, are bound to their actions, have their actions as their refuge. It is action that distinguishes beings as inferior and superior.” (MN-135 Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation)
Sentient beings are the owners of their deeds and heir to their deeds. Deeds are their womb, their relative, and their refuge. It is deeds that divide beings into inferior and superior. (MN-135 Ajahn Sujato’s translation)
To Buddhists, the conviction in validity of kamma & rebirths is part of “right view” at the worldly level. The conviction in the Four Noble Truth and Dependent Origination is part of “right view” at the transcendent level, aiming for liberation from rebirths.
Acceptance of kamma is difficult for many people. The easy way out is to convince themselves that “God works in mysterious ways”. Is it possible to observe the trajectory of lives objectively and with detachment so that the pattern of cause & effect can be examine? I think so. But that is the issue.
Not necessarily an irrational view, depending on one’s circumstances. In the United States where there is no government-funded health payment system, the last few years of a person’s life can be the most expensive. My father encountered severe medical issues the last two years of his life. Even with Medicare the co-payments were staggering. I saw a couple of the bills. The amounts were hard to believe. That is the reality of medicare care for very old people in many Western countries.
There is also the question of inheritance. I have not been practicing Buddhism long enough to know all of its teachings regarding inherited wealth, but the wealthy man you describe may be saving his money to pass on to future generations. Or he may very well be planning to have that wealth be put towards charitable purposes.
I, for one, will likely be in a situation when I die that I will have no heirs but an estate of some value. It would be prudent not to use up all the money I have while I am alive not knowing what my medical expenses will be as I approach the end of my life. I am being careful to save sufficient funds for extended medical care which can be quite expensive. Assuming I don’t need it all for that purpose, and assuming I live longer than my only other living blood relatives (of which there are fewer than a handful), the bulk of my estate will go to charitable causes.
There is nothing mysterious about the accumulation of wealth.
Its an irrational view when you have 10’s of millions or 100’s of millions of dollars at your disposal.
Its ridiculous to believe that you are financially insecure when you have enormous personal wealth but it still happens.
If I wait until I am dead before I practice generosity its not the same as sharing with others when I am still alive.
We have to let go of whatever wealth and assets we have when we die. Dead people do not generate the intention to give or receive - kamma is intention.
Its good to benefit others when we are dead but it’s not the same thing as practicing Buddhism while we are still breathing.
… in this life, the LOSS of material wealth, class of birth, and other “possessions”, despite honest and “socially conscious” living, i now count as immensely fortunate, not in-and-of themselves, but because these “losses” allowed me to consider what really matters, and progress towards disillusionment with samsara. I count these experiences as priceless wealth.
How then could anyone benefit from speculating about “my” past lives, or those of anyone else in apparent misfortune?
Kamma is NOT a supernatural justice system. It may be a very natural UNIVERSAL educational system; but its rewards are not actually material, or social, or status points. It just is what is, along with all else that is, as much as it is, and no more.
It would be a waste of attention and effort for me to try to imagine (or even recall) what kamma might have partially caused this for this life, for several reasons: it is a distraction; it cannot improve morality in this life; it will not give support to my walking the Path; it could feed craving, resentment, anger, and those things i work to extinguish.
edit: i think real wealth is grounded concern for others, and the possibility of sharing that value with others. The “mercedes” material aspects incident imo was irrelevant, merely a good exercise, an opportunity for those with less in the eyes.
need to learn how to reply outside of the thread…
Sorry I can’t help you - I am not sure how to do that - I just know they are called PM’s. Good luck!
I believe we are making related observations but we are approaching the topic from different angles.
You seem to be acknowledging the difficulty when we talk about poverty with reference to kamma - kamma is intention.
If, we intentionally use a theory of kamma to justify conspicuous wealth and, worse, as a justification for not being generous to those in need, saying, ‘its their bad-kamma and its not my problem’ then, we have taken a wrong turn somewhere and we need to find our way back to basic human decency.
If we use kamma as an explanation for entrenched poverty in societies where there is an enormous and growing gap between the rich and the poor then we are not thinking clearly.
This gap continues to grow almost everywhere and it has a lot to do with how societies operate economically - plain and simple.
It does not help to solve a problem if we mystify it.
To explain away the desperation of extreme poverty by reference to kammic-retribution when we don’t have to live with the challenges that poor people face - in trying to stay alive - is disgraceful.
It may seem odd to have to point this out but as we all know, theories of kamma do lead some people into this unfortunate perspective on wealth and poverty - including Buddhists.
I am not sure - in all instances - that people are lead into this twisted kammic-ideology. It can be ‘used’ intentionally as an excuse to not act responsibly for the welfare of others.
As Buddhists, we should not ignore the valid needs of all sentient beings. We try to help wherever and whenever we can. If we can’t then that’s unfortunate - every little bit helps.
Small acts of kindness and practical care can be of great benefit.
I think Singalovada Sutta or Parabhava sutta is talking about it.
Yes, of course. Karma isn’t to be taken in isolation to other values in the EBTs. It should be taken as a motivator to develop wholesome qualities. Wealth is an unintended side effect, which may be beneficial for oneself and others, in the path.
With metta
I’m not sure that ‘unintended side effects’ is a major contributor in the accumulation of wealth.
Our ‘kamma’ (intention) may set us on a particular course of action. Its expressed through our intentions - our motivation which drives our behaviour.
We may ‘intentionally’ take a course of action to make money, acquire assets etc. We can see how the course of action we take has resulted in our present level of wealth or poverty.
We can discern obvious ‘cause and effect’ relationships when it comes to wealth and poverty that have nothing to do with mysterious variables. Education and social connections play an important role.
We usually have an intention - a reason why - we try to increase our wealth and assets. This is what determines how much we keep for ourselves and, how much we share with others.
If wealth is inherited its not difficult to see how it was accumulated.
Our forebears were wealthy or poor for non-mysterious reasons that we may be aware of if we know something about our family history.
Are you saying people can become wealthy - unintentionally? It can happen, but this is not how most wealth is acquired and maintained.
Assets may increase or decrease in value due to natural disasters, climate change, accidents, market fluctuations, supply and demand etc.
A basic understanding of economics may prove useful in understanding poverty and its causes. Remember the G.F.C. and the loss of wealth and poverty it produced?
We can seek to increase our wealth as a primary motivation in life. Our potential for success in this enterprise is often determined by how much money we have access to when we set out to increase our wealth - working capital.
If we are wealthy we can afford to fail and, have the means to start again. This is why a poor-person who loses their bike or tuk-tuk is in a difficult situation and someone who is wealthy can have their car destroyed and not suffer a major inconvenience.
We do not benefit others when we take more than we need. We do not benefit ourselves when we give more than we can manage.
When we see a display of conspicuous wealth and its clear that people are taking more than they need we are faced with a problem. That wealth could be of benefit to others - who are struggling - in so many ways.
Wealth can produce a ‘feeling’ of security and comfort, provide an increased sense of control and self-importance, increase pride, conceit and, a sense of privilege. We may come to value these gratifications more than we value the welfare of other sentient beings.
The accumulation of wealth and maintaining an expensive lifestyle can, and often does, take place in societies where there is extreme deprivation. It isn’t an acceptable situation when wealth is increasingly in the hands of fewer and fewer people - like the modern world - while others struggle to find the basic requisites for life. This is an economic and moral predicament.
This growing gap between the rich and the poor is a very real problem that needs to be resolved. It will not be resolved if we passively accept that it’s just the working-out of the law of kamma that results in wealth and poverty.
In fact, this kind of kammic-ideology can be used as yet another excuse for turning a blind-eye to the problem. I have heard it used in this way along with statements like: inequality is natural and inevitable etc.
There can be a ‘normalising’ of issues that require a careful and compassionate response. They are labelled as ‘unfixable’ and kammically-determined - when in fact they are not.
There is much that can be done to improve the lives of those in desperate need and it would be unethical not to help in any way we can - every little bit helps. Do you see the issue I am drawing attention to?
It may be the case that our understanding of kamma may lead us into forms of immorality. An understanding that does not lead to dispassion and liberation. To an awakened 
There is a kammic-ideology that does not benefit our own practice and, by implication, the lives of others. This may be something we need to investigate in our lives as Buddhists?
The words are cheap, Mercedes is expensive. Maybe by buying cheaper car without all ,trimmings’’(but still requisite for transport) could use this money to help many unfortunate tuk-tuk drivers?
Compassion is measured by action, not by words or tears (unless you really can’t do anything to help).
Regarding ,safety’’ net while gathering wealth: shouldn’t we take example from Buddha and Sangha? Shouldn’t we contemplate more the difference between need and greed?
And if we want to find safety and security in our body and material possessions isn’t it opposite to Buddha’s teachings?