When I’m hungry, I can be grumpy. I’m sure I’m not the only one! Being grumpy can make me snap at people, and I almost always regret it later. This is an example of my physical body affecting my actions.
More serious examples might include clinical depression, which may have a physiological cause. There are also many cases of people who have experienced significant personality alterations after receiving head injuries. In both these cases the people involved might perform actions that they never would have done without the physical condition.
An even more extreme example would being re-born as an animal. If I am reborn as a lion, I will do lots of lion-like things that might attract bad karma.
The discussion usually relates to the karmic causes of these physical conditions, but what about the effect of physical conditions on karma? Do you carry the full weight of negative actions even if they were influenced by physical factors like these?
since kamma is intention, one isn’t supposed to generate kamma doing blameworthy unwholesome things unintentionally
one who lacks control over one’s actions acts in effect unintentionally and thus isn’t supposed to generate new bad kamma either
however for this to be true a condition must really be severe, as normally people are aware of their own actions and so can control them
as far as living as a carnivore is concerned, i came to suspect that animals do not generate kamma at all, but really just reap bad old kamma earned during life in higher states of being
that would mean they’re doomed to never have a chance at leaving samsara, which doesn’t sound fair
i need a little bit more evidence, but my feeling is that the concepts of kamma and rebirth are pretty anthropocentric in a sense that to have a chance at realizing nibbana one must get reborn as a human being, which everyone sooner or later ends up at after a round of wanderings in samsara
human birth is a kind of a starting and ending point
How about animals that work for humans? For example a dog for the blind or a search dog? Or pets even. Pets generate a lot of kindness, caring and love for a lot of people, at least that’s what I observed.
They can make good kamma, the opportunities are just limited. I’ve seen videos where lions actually protect other animals. Most of the times, animals are trapped by their instincts, which is why being born as an animal is tough physically, mentally, and spiritually.
Yes, hunger is a good one. Add tiredness to that. Goodness, can a person be really irritable and even easily angered when he/she hasn’t had enough sleep. I noticed that in myself and in my 4 year old son too. If he didn’t take a nap in the afternoon, oh boy, there it goes, tantrums and he lets loose the “kraken” LOL. But when he has rested, he is happy.
Also, constant tiredness contributes to the weakening of a person’s immune system.
my intuition about kamma would go more along with @Raivo 's and @Russell 's viewpoints, than with yours. I guess Raivo did not mean his statement exclusively, but his statement makes sense to me in regard to the simile of the turtle, which states that rebirth as a human being is very rare. Also, from my general impression of the Dhamma, my feeling is, that the Buddha always warned that one might get stuck in a very long series of unfortunate rebirths, if one gets on the wrong path once and ends up in a bad destination as a result. I would agree, that being an animal one makes a lot of animal kamma. (The mind gets used to that state and is attracted to this state. For animals the mind works pretty much the same way as for human beings. If you end up in hell, you may stay there for a long time, because in all the anguish it may take a lot of time until you can produce a wholesome thought or act. However, this obviously depends.) Also, think of the sutta with the dog ascetic and the cow ascetic. The Buddha said, that if they perfect their practice, then in the best case it will lead to rebirth as a dog or a cow, respectively.
Having grown up with a dog and other animals, I can only support @Russell’s view. In my view dogs pretty much have a personality like a child. They do something wrong and you can see it in their body language. They bluff (start barking even though nobody is there) just to get some praise or a treat. They also rejoice if they did something good. Hence, in my view a dog has intention and therefore can make good or bad kamma. We also had different kinds of turtles. The turtles also obviously had feelings, emotions and intention, but much less easy to read and in my perception simpler than that of the dog. So overall I think that the animal realm also comes in many shades. Being a dog, living in a home in very close relationships to people, the dog might have a fair chance to get a rebirth as a human being. Being a turtle or a fish, I guess it is much more difficult to work your way to the human realm.
So, I do not see support of your view that animals make no kamma. Nor do I see any support for the thesis that the human condition should be a starting point and an ending point to the wandering through samsāra.
(I only see support for the last statement in so far, that after very many rounds of rebirth there is a fair chance that one takes a human rebirth, because a number of favorable supporting conditions for a human rebirth just add up coincidentially - just like if you roll a dice 100.000 times there is a certain chance of getting a “6” five times in series.
To be honest, I am not sure if the Buddha ever stated that chance plays a role in the workings of kamma. This is just my “feeling”, because chance seems to play a role at the very basis of natural laws. What we peceive as a purely deterministic law in the macrocosmos is usually just the average result of many probabilistic events in the microcosmos which works partialy deterministic and partialy probabilistic. I guess that ‘natural laws’ that apply to the mental realm, like kamma, work with the same principles as the physical laws for the material realm, because as we see in quantum mechanics, both realms seem to be connected - there is good evidence that the mental realm has an effect on quantum processes in terms of their result in the material realm… Sorry, I was going off on a tangent here…)
However, I agree with you that in order to be able to realize awakening, one must have been born as a human being or in a higher realm at one point. (I am not sure though what the suttas say exactly on this, but this seems to go very well along the line with the general position of the teachings, that the human rebirth is an extremely fortunate one.)
Could you maybe explain, how you come to the conclusion that animals make no kamma? And what makes you think that the human realm should be the starting point and the ending point of wanderings through Samsāra (other than that the human realm is outstanding because it is pretty much right in the middle of all realms with a fair share of suffering and pleasure as well)?
just logical inference: if kamma is intention, and intention is a result of a conscious decision, living by instincts what animals have is not intentions but sporadic uncontrollable impulses and reactions, and so there’s nothing in them which would produce new kamma, and in a case of carnivores should their killings count towards their bad kamma, they would be pretty much hopeless, since it would drag them to the lowest states of existence and keep them there for ages
of course there’s a place for argument that birth as a carnivore is in itself a kind of indirect and crafty ‘penalty’ where a being is basically made to tighten the kammic noose on its own throat because it cannot make a decision to stop killing and change its dietary habits
that is an interesting remark, because it brings up a question whether children too produce new kamma before they reach a certain age, because up to that point children act very much like animals being driven by instincts.
and if with dogs and higher mammals you have a case, what about insects and further down biological and psychic simplicity?
as i indicated earlier i need more doctrinal evidence and analysis, for now that is just my feeling
I see your point, but I would not fully agree with it. To me your argument is too much black and white. I would think again that there is a whole range of behaviours within one species (not all dogs are likewise subject to their impulses) and of course across species (an insect is probably much more controlled by impulses than a dog - I do not know though very much about the rich emotional life of “Ants”). The human species in my view is just another species in the animal kingdom with certain properties, in my view. Certainly, a number of types of animals (some apes, dolphins) are highly intelligent and very social beings as well.
Just have a look at the videos on Koko the gorialla. A gorilla lady that learned sign language and can read from lips:
Or the work by Frans de Waal on moral behaviour in animals:
I think, that these videos show plenty evidence of an emotionally rich life of animals and also conscious choices. The chimp can decide to help the other chimp pull the cart with fruit, but it could also just mind its own business. Same for the elephant.
I agree though, that I do not know, how this works for insects. They obviously also have emotions like fear, hence they probably also know pleasure. I am not sure though to what extend they are capable of conscious intention.
I also think that it is not necessary to have a conscious intention in order for it to have kammic consequences. And yes, this could mean that it is very difficult to attain a higher rebirth if you are an amoeba, or an ant, or a worm…
I think this shows how blessed we are with a human birth. If we do not mess up too much, we have a fair chance of beeing reborn as a human beeing again. However, if you look at the total number of rebirths in all species on earth in one year, then the number of human births is very rare. Also, if we look at how long it took after the start of this aeon (which may have started with the ‘big bang’) until the human species came about on earth. It took 13 or 14 billion years (our sun was formed 4,5 billion years ago). Humanoid species only exist on earth for maybe a couple of million years (I have no exact figures here). In an other 4,5 billion years the sun will engulf the earth. Also, elsewhere in the universe the stars will start to burn up and will finally extinguish. There will come an extremely cold and dark period when brown dwarfs and neutron stars are the only stars in the universe until even they extinguish… And then according to one of todays theories there will be only black holes, that will dissolve by some sort of dissipation of energy, which will take even longer, at the end of which the universe is again infinite and empty and a new big bang can happen. So, looking at these time scales, the time where inhabitable planets exist in the universe in which an intelligent species evolves that can practice the dhamma is extremely rare. Then again the Buddha seems to indicate in DN.27 that beings are “allowed” into deva realms during this time (but I do not yet fully understand many details in this sutta, which to me seems more concerned with the development of a society than with biological evolution).
Also, I think, if say an ant is a reincarnation of a stream of consciousness that ‘inhabited’ the body of a human being before, then at least after death, some reflection on those lifes might be possible in the inbetween realm, leading to wholesome intention, causing a more fortunate rebirth, but this of course is just pure speculation on my side.
Further more, looking for example at Savant’s which were discussed in the recent Rebirth&Kamma class No. 4, we see very unusual capabilities in some human beings, which one could explain as originating from a previous life. Also, most human beings seem to know moments where the mind seems relatively free from greed, hatred and delusion, where wisdom arises and wholesome intention arises resulting in good kamma. Especially, if one assumes that the mind can work independent of the body, why should there not be moments in everyday life, where the mind goes beyond the limitations of the body. Such a thing seems to happen naturally for an extended period of time in deep meditation where the body goes completely on stand-by. So why should this not also happen for an ant very ocasionally? The thing is, just by looking at the physical form, we do not know what mind sits behind it. The physical form is just a symptom, which is caused by many factors, one of which is the mind. So, my pledge is, that even an ant could be driven by a beautiful stream of consciousness, which is temporarily trapped there, maybe due to some very old kamma that had to come to fuition. But upon the break-up of the ant body, the mind might regain its full strength, might reflect on that ant-life with wisdom and mettā, and then take a rebirth as a human being or in a deva realm. (Again this is pure speculation, but a beautiful way to see these things.)
In summary, my goal is not to convince you. I just wanted to share my views, some of which are speculative (a few even highly speculative). However, I see good evidence that many animals have intention and hence make kamma. I agree, however, that I have not seen myself evidence for this in insects. I do not agree, that only conscious decisions cause kamma, but I agree that one then has difficulties explaining how a being, which is born in a low animal realm or in hell realm can manage to leave that realm again. I tried to offer a speculative explanation for this, which assumes that a mind can have brigth moments with good kammic results, beyond the limitations of an insect brain or beyond the limitations one faces in a hell realm, because the mind can break free temporarily from those bonds (for which we see evidence in deep meditation). Also, good kamma could be made in the inbetween realm (also a speculation on my behalf).
Having grown up with several pet dogs, I can also say that they are capable of very complex emotions that sometimes even make them behave counter to their animal instincts.
One dog we had, used to get upset at my parents when they went on vacation and didn’t take him along. When they came back after a week or two he wouldn’t come to greet them and would even turn his head away when they offered him his favorite food. If someone who stayed offered it to him, he’d take it. And this behavior lasted for a day or two every time they came back from a longer trip.
Nowadays there’s more and more evidence showing that we humans aren’t really all that special when it comes to moral behavior:
in this behavior i don’t discern intentionality, the dog’s emotional reaction of resentment simply overpowered and shut off for some time his affection to certain people and desire for food, but i don’t think he took conscious decision to boycott them, his behavior is rather reactive
i don’t deny complex emotions in animals, but their expression is still not intentional as in many humans as well BTW, as intention is a function of an intellect, of a rational mind
intention i link with ability to plan, a sense of responsibility and freedom of choice, because only then a being can take morally significant decisions and be held accountable for them, but neither of those is present in animals
Dear Alexander,
this is also a speculative assumption on your side. In fact, most people including you and me do not know for certain how far the ability of those animals goes to make conscious decisions. Many people, who live with animals, would tell you that they think animals have that capacity. Do you or did you live with highly developed animals like cats or dogs?
As for the “rational mind”, many tests have been carried out, testing the capabilities of various animals to solve riddles. Crows are known to be able to solve simple mathematical problems (I will try to find a reference, maybe someone has a reference at hand). Rats are known to solve complex mazes. Dolphins are reported to be intelligent, being able to solve various types of problems (I think some are also able to do basic calculations and understand some form of sign language).
The video @Raivo and I shared showed sequences where elephants and chimpanzes even successfully work together in a coordinated manner, in order to get to a fruit treat. This obviously involves planning and empathy… So I see no ground for the claim that animals do not have an intellect and are purely driven by emotional reactions so that they cannot make morally significant decisions.
However, I concede that I do not know how far this capability goes (which seems to vary anyways within one species, as it varies among human beings), but in my view there is no evidence supporting the claim that no animal ever had and never can have such capabilities.
I think if the possible emotional reactions you describe in the dogs mind happened in a human mind, the result could be a “concious decision to boycott them” but that would also be a conditioned response created by a non-self process appearing to him as his intention.
When it comes to rational minds, I have to say I’ve only seen them on the pages of textbooks. It’s true most animals lack the reasoning and planning capabilities of humans but I believe that also means the’re more in touch with their intuition or “gut feeling”.
But if animals can let go of immediate sensual gratification for some possible future good, I think that suggests the existance of some kind of planning ability. Also most animals guard their offspring very fiercely (also dogs guard property), so that would suggest they have something we could call a sense of responsibility.
When it comes to freedom of choice, I’m under the oppinion that that’s just an illusion in all beings. The ability to be aware of what happens in our mind is conditioned into us, our understanding of what is good or bad is conditioned into us and the ability to act or not act in different situations is conditioned into us. It’s only when we understand how that conditioning process happens that we can start to unravel it. And that is also a conditioned process.
i don’t claim it to be the TRUTH, but this is my point of view
do you think a dog would be able to decide on the length of his boycott and maintain that time period?
to me it seems the dog would end his ‘boycott’ as soon as he felt like it, which goes to show that he’s a subject to impulses rather than a rational actor
and even if we agree on higher mammals and some birds, they constitute only a portion of the world’s fauna, what about all other species?
if there’re planning and empathy it’s out of necessity rather than a conscious choice
it would be interesting to see some animals tests where their actions are not encouraged by nutritive reward , otherwise it’s playing on their instincts whom i don’t think animals can resist
but can they? if they can it may suggest that provided the drive for sensual gratification is not temporarily weakened by other instincts
generally i could agree, yet i’m speaking of it as of simple ability to decide whether to act, and i don’t think animals can refuse to act when they have an urge
There’s a lot of different definitions and oppinions on what intelligence in humans and in animals or even computer algorithms actually is. I really like the following video on this topic:
I just wanted to thank you for this discussion, which I very much enjoyed. We may not arrive at a common stand-point, nevertheless the discussion was very worthwhile to me, because it brought some loose ends to my attention, which I need to look further into.
It seems to me that all of us (people and animals) can act with both mindfulness and mindlessness. I have a dog, and we have a very close relationship. We have substantial, significant two-way communication (largly non-verbal!). He is certainly capable of acting with care, concern and compassion. But it is very easy for him to be swept away by instincts, into what seems like autopilot, and it takes quite a few minutes to “get him back” when that has happened.
I remember reading something by Richard Dawkins (written when he was still primarily a zoologist) pointing out that between any human being and any animal, there is a continuous line of actual creatures and lives lived. For example, from me, I can go back via my mother or father, through one of their parents, back, back, back until I get to the most recent common ancester of me and my dog. That creature, probably very different from both me and my dog, really did exist, and lived a life here on earth a few million years ago. From there, I can go forward, first to one of its offspring, then forward, forward, forward to one of my dog’s parents, and then to my dog. Every single link in this chain is a parent/child link. The changes along the lines are very gradual, presumably with no child vastly different from its parent.
The reason I mention all this, is that it seems to me that the very significant differences between me and my dog are a matter of degree, rather than type. I think my dog is more easily swept up by his impulses than I am, but it still happens to me sometimes…especially when I’m hungry.
I just wanted to add this. Ajahn Brahm said in a recent Friday night talk “Dealing with Desasters” in an answer to a question (in the Q&A session at the end of the talk), that in his opinion animals such as cats and dogs and beings in lower realms can make good kamma. Go to 50:40 (min:sec) to see & hear that part:
It’s been my observation that little kids are also prone to being swept away by impulses, so I agree with the “degree not type” idea. There are huge differences in impulse control among adult humans as well.
Also, although I’m quite a mellow guy most of the time, I too get grumpy when I’m hungry…lately I’ve had enough mindfulness and wisdom to notice it, accept it as being normal and eat before I snap at someone.
!!!
It’s true most animals lack the reasoning and planning capabilities of humans but I believe that also means the’re more in touch with their intuition or “gut feeling”.