Karma and Buddhist Ethics


How does the karma relate to Buddhist ethics? Is karma the basis of Buddhist ethics? Or is Buddhist ethics one thing, and the law of karma something else that is somehow related to ethics? In an earlier essay on this blog I distinguished the psychological from the universal meaning of karma, arguing that western Buddhists very often understand karma in terms of how intentional actions leads to psychological consequences that we experience in this life, whereas Buddhists have traditionally understood karma as operating over many lifetimes. The traditional view of karma as a system of natural justice seems to suggest that Buddhist ethics is based on karma. But for many westerners who think of karma as a psychological rather than a universal law, karma does not seem to be the basis for ethics, because we tend to think of ethics in terms of doing what is right or good, whatever the consequences might be for ourselves.

The question can be phrased like this: is an action good because the karmic consquences are positive, or are the karmic consequences good because the action is good? If we think that an action is good because the karmic consequence is good, then karma is the basis of Buddhist ethics. But if we think that the karmic consequence is good because the action is good, then we think that ethics – what counts as right and wrong – has a validity which is independent of the consequences for ourselves of our actions. I want to argue that karma is not the basis of Buddhist ethics, and that our intuitions about what is good and bad are indeed independent of the consequences of actions for ourselves.

This topic is a Buddhist version of the dilemma posed by Plato in his Euthyphro. In this early dialogue, Socrates engages in dialogue with his eponymous Athenian interlocutor about the nature of piety or holiness. But what is holiness? Euthyphro says that it is what the gods love, but Socrates asks him whether the gods love holiness because of its holiness, or whether holiness is such because it is loved by the gods. This is a dilemma because if the gods love holiness because it is holy, then it is holy whether or not there are any gods; but if the holiness is holy because the gods love it, then what counts as holiness depends on the arbitrary preferences of the gods. The dilemma also translates into more familiar theistic terms. If we suppose that God wills the good, is this good good because God wills it, or does God will the good because it is good? Is goodness the arbitrary invention of God, or is goodness part of the nature of reality, independent of God?

We can similarly ask whether an action is good because the karmic consequences are positive, or whether the karmic consequences are good because the action is good. Is Buddhist ethics based on the law of karma, or does the law of karma depend on an independent moral principle? It is hard to know whether the Buddha or the early Buddhist tradition worried about this kind of question. Nevertheless the words of the Buddha implicitly but very clearly tell us that the law of karma depends on a moral principle that is independent of the law of karma: ‘I say, monks, that karma is intention; intending one does an action through body, speech or mind.’[i]

These words are well-known, but they are more surprising than they appear. By saying that ‘action’ is ‘intention’, the Buddha is saying that what matters is not what you do but your mental state when you do it. The scholar Richard Gombrich has pointed out that, in the context of his time, the Buddha was using the language of karma here in an audacious way. Instead of focussing on ritual action, which was the original Brahmanical meaning of ‘karma’, the Buddha shifted attention to the psychological processes involved.[ii] By doing so, it is clear that the karmic consequence of an action depends on the actor’s intention, so that a good consequence depends on a wholesome intention, rather than the good consequence determining what counts as a good action.

Wholesome (kusala, ‘skilful’) or good intentions are those based on generosity, love and wisdom; unwholesome ones are those based on compulsion, hostility and delusion. Being good is based on the cultivation of wholesome mental intentions. It is wholesome intentions that result in good karmic consequences, and unwholesome ones that result in bad consequences. When we understand the relation of Buddhist ethics to karmic consequences like this, it is clear that ethics is not based on karma, but the law of karma is based on ethics.

So what is the role of karma in the Buddha’s teaching on ethics? I would say that the role is one of motivation. Buddhist ethics is a very practical business. We are all familiar with the experience of knowing the right thing to do but not being able to do it, as when we hide in our corner instead of making an effort to help someone; and we are familiar with knowing that an action is unwholesome but finding ourselves unable to stop doing it, as when we turn to pornography or comfort eating to assuage our existential discomfort. This is the human sitation, and in this situation the teachings on karma give clear reasons for acting from wholesome intentions, and not acting unwholesomely. The reason is that there will be an inevitable appropriate consequence for all of our intentional actions. Such consequences may be discernable in this lifetime (psychological karma), or one may believe in karmic consequences as operating over many lifetimes (universal karma). In either case, we are reminded that our destiny is in our own hands, and we alone are responsible for our future well-being.

Two important consequences follow from the fact that Buddhist ethics is not based on karma, but that the teaching of karma is a motivation to practice ethics. Firstly, we can discuss Buddhist ethics without necessarily discussing the law of karma, either in its psychological or its universal sense.[iii] We can discuss, for instance, how Buddhist ethics is connected with empathy, with the intuition that all living beings, like us, seek happiness and wish to avoid suffering. We can furthermore appreciate how the practice of Buddhist ethics is concerned with the well-being of others as well as ourselves, which is a non-karmic perspective on why we should act ethically.

Secondly, the fact that Buddhist ethics is not based on karma helps us to better understand what the Buddha meant when he taught the desirability of the cessation of karma. It is a very common theme in the early Buddhist discourses that the disciple practises in order to put an end to karma.[iv] We can now understand that this does not mean getting beyond Buddhist ethics, somehow going beyond good and bad. Rather, it simply means getting beyond the self-centred nature of karma as a psychological motivation for ethical action. Once one gains sufficient psychological integration to be able to act from wholesome intentions, there is no need to concern oneself with the consequences of one’s actions when making ethical decisions, since those decisions will be based on an appreciation of the roots of wholesome action, not on a concern for one’s own well-being.

In conclusion, it turns out that a belief in the law of karma is not necessary for a correct understanding of Buddhist ethics, whether this belief is in the form of a belief in the psychological or the universal meaning of karma. It is possible that many westerners who take up Buddhism have already developed an acute awareness of ethics, without reference to traditional Buddhist teachings on karma. For such western Buddhists, there may be little reason to take on a form of psychological motivation which is culturally alien. Moreover, reflections on culturally western forms of ethical concern, such as those based on rights and duties, seem to be perfectly compatible with Buddhist ethics, if not part of the traditional articulation of ethics. However, I suspect that when it comes to the actual practice of ethics, a reflection on the law of karma will always have a place as a useful psychological motivation to be good.

[i]Anguttara-nikāya 6.63, the Nibbhedika-sutta: cetanāhaṃ bhikkhave kammaṃ vadāmi, cetayitvā kammaṃ karoti kāyena vācāya manasā.

[ii] Richard Gombrich, How Buddhism Began, Athlone, London, 1996 p.51.

[iii]See for instance Sangharakshita, The Ten Pillars of Buddhism, Windhorse, Cambridge, 2010; Sangharakshita, the founder of the Triratna Buddhist Order in which I practise presents Buddhist ethics in this text without basing it on karma and rebirth.

[iv]See for instance the Nibbedhika-sutta cited above.

5 thoughts on “Karma and Buddhist Ethics

  1. Seems Buddhist karma is based on ethics, and not the other way around.

    I’m currently corresponding with JBE’s editors about an article which attempts to show that basing karma on ethics betrays a Zoroastrian influence. Hope to get it published soon.

    When we talk about “Buddhist ethics” we often mean the kusala-kamma-patha, and I think you have this in mind in your essay. One of my other projects at the moment is looking at this type of morality in relation to the sīla section of the Spiral path where the ethic is not one of skilful action, so much as one of *not acting*, i.e. of restraint (saṃvara) and sobriety wrt sense pleasure (appamāda) etc. Perhaps this ethic of non-action is a Jain influence? So it seems to me that there are at least two Buddhist ethics: one which is mainly concerned with how we relate to other people (kusala-kamma-patha); and one that is specifically concerned with the arising of pāmojja in preparation for meditation (sīla). Ayya Khema has said that pāmojja is essential for meditation. Does this suggest that kusala-kamma-patha is insufficient preparation for meditation?

    It’s good to start getting a sense of how these doctrines fit together and how they do not.

  2. This is a very important distinction. In consideration of the historical circumstances, I think it is fair to say that while the Buddha made a breakthrough in an understanding of ethics, his insight was never developed in the way that the Socratic insight was in the West. Following on from Socrates there was a couple of generations of outstanding philosophical minds that were able to debate and discuss the ethical significance of his discovery, culminating in the ethics of Aristotle. Irrespective of what we might think of other aspects of Aristotelian philosophy (and clearly his metaphysical theories would today be subject to outright rejection) he remains the most influential philosopher of all time on the future Western tradition. The distinction between the intention and the act has even worked its way into an understanding of the natural justice of English Common Law between the “mens rea” (the mental intention behind the act); and the “actus rea” (the actual act itself). This is entirely the distinction, for example, between the crimes of manslaughter and murder.

    It is also my experience when talking about ethics to others in just an everyday (non-philosophical) way: most people seem to agree that what they should do is to act on what they believe to be right rather than what directly benefits them. However in order to carry this out requires a degree of awareness that is sometimes lacking. (And in my personal case quite often lacking!). What most people probably do is act in a way that usually has some benefit to themselves and then try to find reasons and rationalizations as to why such actions are supposedly in the interests of everyone else. Perhaps the most clearest example of this is in the way politicians justify their decisions, although I suspect that we all do it to some extent. What is probably a pertinent question for Buddhists here, is whether a belief in karma will help in increasing our ethical awareness? And given the unprovability of the karmic idea I would suggest probably not. Karmic theory will always allow itself to be open to endless rationalizations of current “ethical” actions. Therefore Buddhists should not just put karma aside but should be openly reject it. And what remains, of course, is the ever fascinating issue of what is genuinely in the interests of everyone else and what is not!

  3. Thanks Padmadipa. You’ve really brought out here the important issue: whether karma theory is really helpful in our approach to ethical life, or whether (as I think, and I think you think too) it is a particular Indian development which unfortunately took the place of a genuine development of good ethical theory (as you illustrate with the example of ancient Greece, and how ethical theory developed after Socrates).

  4. Pingback: What Is This Thing Called Karma? - Frantastically Fran!

  5. Thank you for your thought-provoking piece on Karma and Buddhist Ethics. And thanks in general for your valuable and engaging blog.

    I would say that ethical action for a Buddhist is for purifying the mind, that is, aligning it with its true nature. (For “mind”, you can include “heart”, since these ideas are separated in english.) Since our true nature is no different from our neighbour’s, this will be a beneficial way to behave with respect to others.

    This situation is sufficient as a motivation to act ethically. Karma is not the reason to act ethically, except perhaps for a lay person or someone new to Dharma. No doubt it is because of the true nature of mind that to act contrary to it produces bad consequence – such an act would really be its own bad consequence.

    Otherwise you could say that karma is just the way things are, until enlightenment. It’s interesting that you quote the Buddha as urging us to “end karma”. Good advice of course, but easily taken to mean that making only good karma and ‘exhausting’ all bad karma is a way to enlightenment. Good luck, mate! I take the Buddha as meaning to go beyond making karma, to where karma does not apply. What is karma if not conditioned by avidya? “Painting on space”? Maybe it’s the occasional but recognised appearance of Mara.

    PS This answers Jayarava’s comment too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s