Pāli Pericope and Wrong View

In Richard Gombrich’s article, Three Souls, One or None: The Vagaries of a Pāli Pericope, Gombrich demonstrates how pericopes or stock phrases in the Pali Canon can arise in various suttas that can result in confusion of meaning within the larger context of the sutta it is embedded in.

Gombrich indicates that the pericope makes only perfect sense in its original context, and when supplanted into a different context it sometimes makes no sense at all.

This form of textual contamination or corruption can be seen throughout the Pāli Canon. One particular example is the frequently quoted passage in the Pāli Canon that defines wrong view (taken from the Sāleyyaka Sutta of the Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha):

There is no gift, no offering, no sacrifice. There is no fruit of good and bad actions. There is not this world nor a world beyond. There is no mother, no father, no beings who are spontaneously born. There are no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the world beyond.

What is interesting about this passage is that wrong view (micchā diṭṭhi) is actually composed of a series of views, one view of which denies the efficacy of sacrifice. The mention of sacrifice in this passage is referring to Brahmin sacrificial actions of killing animals to propitiate the gods.

What makes this passage so dubious is that the Buddha never condoned the killing of any animals, especially for empty rituals whose soteriology he explicitly denied and spoke against.

The originating text for this pericope can be found in the Sāmaññaphala Sutta of the Digha Nikaya. This sutta, considered by many scholars to be contain early elements, relates the exposition the Buddha gives on being asked by King Ajatasattu on what is the “reward visible here and now as a fruit of the homeless life.”

Prior to the Buddha answering the question, the King tells of the replies given by other religious leaders when asked this same question. The King goes ahead and quotes the answer of Makkahali Gosala and Purana Kassapa before relating Ajita Kesakambali’s answer (translation from Walshe’s Long Discourses of the Buddha):

‘Ajita Kesakambali said: “Your Majesty, there is nothing given, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world; no other world; no mother; no father; no beings that are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and Brahmins in the world who have themselves realized by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.”’

After relating the replies of three more leading teachers the Buddha finally provides his own answer never explicitly condemning or belittling the other answers.

While the Buddha most certainly disagreed with the overall notion that actions do not lead to any result, he never went ahead and refuted every point expressed by Ajita Kesakambali. Yet we find in the suttas the Buddha preaching this exact passage as being wrong view as these words are his very own.

The fact of the matter is that these words were never spoken by the Buddha but were spoken by King Ajatasattu who was giving an account of what Ajita Kesakambali purportedly said.

Here is an excellent example of the lifting out an ancient passage and applying to a foreign context where it is elevated as an essential doctrine. In reality, the lifting out of the text is merely a self-made fictional, corrupting construction that disguises itself as an authentic piece of doctrine.

I will show in future posts of other suttas concerned with question of rebirth and karma that have pericopes which obscure the meaning by promulgating metaphysical notions of rebirth which underlining text does not support. The result of which is a mischaracterization of the Buddha’s innovative notion of karma as a psychological process rather than a metaphysical one.

Meaning of Upekkhā

The Pali word, upekkhā, which is generally translated in English as equanimity does not quite capture the full meaning of this ancient and important word.

Upekkhā is encountered throughout the Pali canon being associated with the four immeasurables or divine abodes of Brahma and as an important element of the fourth jhana which is considered in the scriptures to be the jumping point to Nirvana.

By examining the word’s construction, we can get a better idea of its meaning.

Upekkhā is formed from the prefix upa and the root ikh meaning, “to see.” The prefix upa generally means unto, to, towards, near, with; it has the notion of bringing towards or with.

Putting these two elements together the meaning of upekkhā can be understood as bringing towards what is one seeing, or a type of seeing which is characterized as bringing into one’s vision or bringing with one’s vision. In short, an inclusive sort of seeing that takes in things.

When we contrast this idea with apekkha the meaning of upekkhā becomes a lot clearer. Apekkha which is translated as longing for or desire has the same root as upekkhā (ikh) but with a different prefix, apa. The prefix apa is in some senses opposed to the prefix upa in that the prefix signifies away from, forth, down or on. Apekkha can thus be understood as looking away or a type of seeing that is characterized by looking forth towards something. This can be interpreted as a form of seeing which goes away from what is one currently seeing to the thing looked upon; a form of vision which leaves or excludes all except the thing desired.

Upekkhā being in a sense the opposite of apekkha, can now be undetstood as a form of seeing that gracefully includes whatever comes into the field of vision.

Unlike apekkha that is characterized by the exclusive movement of the mind away to something, upekkhā is characterized by the inclusive movement of the mind that brings in something. While the desire expressed in apekkha is discriminatory in that it distinguishes and focuses on one aspect of reality, upekkhā is nondiscriminatory in that it does not break up reality but includes all in it.

It is important to not get confused at this point and understand upekkhā as indifference. Indifference is not upekkhā because indifference is discriminatory while upekkhā is not. Unlike apekkha that focuses on one thing at the expense of other things, indifference excludes by focusing away from some things (generally things not considered important). As such indifference always involves value judgments unlike upekkhā that does not.

Hopefully at this point, upekkhā can be seen as a far richer word than the English word of equanimity. From this analysis, upekkhā can be better understood as a noncritical quality that embraces reality and the totality of existence.

Buddha's Second Insight Altered? - Part 2

One of the most important passages from the Pali Canon that elucidates the Buddha’s view on what differentiates humans from each other comes from the Vasettha Sutta in the Sutta Nipata. The sutta begins with two Brahmin students arguing on whether it is by birth or by a person’s actions that make him a Brahmin. On reaching an impasse, they decide to travel and meet the Buddha to see if he can resolve the argument.

The Buddha responds to the question by first pointing out that there are different species of plants, insects, snakes, fish and mammals. The Buddha then contrasts the differences in animal species to that of humans and notes:

Unlike in other species there is not among men differences in kinds of species with regards to their eyes, ears, mouths, noses, lips, eyebrows and even their hair – all are of the same type. . . . [Humans] do not have the variety of inherited features that other creatures have. In fact, in the case of humans, differences are differences by convention. (608-611)

The Buddha further expands on the notion of convention that differentiates humans by arguing that people are named because of their profession and not by their birth. He explains that a Brahmin is a Brahmin because he performs priestly ceremonies; a person is a soldier because he is paid to kill, and a servant is a servant by virtue that he or she serves and so on.

After this long exposition, he directly answers the Brahmins’ question by definitively stating that a person is a Brahmin by deed and not by birth:

No one is born a Brahmin; no one is born a non-Brahmin. A Brahmin is a Brahmin because of what he does; a man is not because of what he does; a man who is not a Brahmin is not a Brahmin because of what he does. (648-650)

The Buddha concludes his sermon by stating the centrality of karma:

The world exists because of casual actions; all things are governed by and bound by casual actions. They are fixed like the rolling of the wheel of a cart, fixed by the pin of its axle shaft. (654)

In direct contrast to the passage which indicates a person is such and such because of actions in a past life, the Buddha is clearly indicating that who we are is not the result of our past lives but the result of our actions or kamma in this very life which bounds us and governs us.

The implications of this important sutta are quite radical. The main purport is that no person by virtue of their background, birth or physical appearance has any more special claims or privilege for being a “superior” person. The Buddha would say that these supposed differences are merely, “conventions”, and do not exist outside an agreed upon human concept.

Because it is the actions that make the man or woman, then it follows that any person with a mind and an ability to act has the capability of bettering themselves and thus making themselves “superior.” And of course for the Buddha, the ultimate action is achieving enlightenment.

The Buddha in his time took converts from all classes in Indian society from the very highest class (Brahmins) to the lowest class (Sudras). He did not distinguish between a person’s gender whether or not one could become enlightened and allowed for the creation of the Buddhist order of nuns, which in a patriarchal society was a controversial thing to do. The Buddha allowed people from all walks of life and genders to listen and practice his teachings because he saw no distinction in people due to their background or gender in their capability to become enlightened.

This is fundamentally a message of hope that encourages us to go beyond the conventional labels of our society and define ourselves by our actions and not by our heritage or circumstances.

Summary

By looking at this important sutta and comparing it to the passage of the Buddha’s second insight which indicates our past life karma is responsible for the differences in people, there is a definite conflict. If the deterministic cosmological context is stripped out, we find both passages agreeing in spirit and expressing a more profound picture of kamma. Because of this and the medley sentences surrounding the key sentence of the second insight, I believe the second insight was altered and thus the Buddha never made such a cosmological statement about kamma.

Buddha's Second Insight Altered? - Part 1

In the Mahasaccaka Sutta the Buddha describes his enlightenment as obtaining the three knowledges. The second knowledge which specifically has to do with kamma the Buddha describes as thus (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):

When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: 'These beings -- who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings -- who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views -- with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.' Thus -- by means of the divine eye, purified & surpassing the human -- I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

This passage states clearly that the second insight the Buddha achieved by the means of the “divine eye” or psychic power was that good and bad actions or kamma can result in a person going to heaven or hell.
This appears to be straight forward and with no ambiguity. However, if we look at this passage with closer scrutiny there does appear to be incongruencies between different ideas expressed in the passage.

The first thing that seems somewhat contrived in this passage is the phrase, “by means of the divine eye, purified and surpassing the human” which follows right after, “I saw” which is actually "I see" (passāmi). Notice that the first sentence talked about the mind being, “purified” (pariyodāta) and now immediately after we have another perceiving faculty, the “divine eye” (dibbena cakkhunā), described as being “purified” (visuddhena) as well. So now there are two perceiving faculties described when one beginning the passage would have done. This duplication seems to interrupt the flow of the sutta which indicates to me that the “divine eye” was possibly a latter addition.

What also makes me suspicious of this passage is the fact that the “divine eye” is described as “surpassing the human.” This assigning of super human or almost god like powers to the Buddha can be seen in many suttas which scholars usually argue are later additions to the canon as such passages are indicative of the propensity in religious traditions to endow their founder with super human qualities as the tradition grows.

The next sentence after the divine eyes continues with the Buddha who is said to have seen, “beings passing away & re-appearing and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.” This to me is the key part of the passage. Here the Buddha is describing the vision of beings arising and passing away and seeing that they differ in status, looks and fortune by virtue of their actions or kamma.

If the sutta was to end at this point then the question of the meaning of this key sentence could have multiple interpretations. The sutta continues, however, attempts to rescue us from this possibility by abruptly continuing with a stock passage in a commentarial like fashion, describing how good kamma leads to heaven while bad kamma leads to hell while at no time really clarifying or elaborating on the notion of kamma having to do with “beautiful & ugly” (suvaṇṇa & dubbaṇṇe), and “inferior & superior” (hīne & paṇīte). This in itself seems a little fishy, but when this impression is coupled with medley nature of the following sections that interrupts the flow of the passage, a decent argument can be made that the “heaven and hell” sentence was a later addition.

If these proposed interpolations are exercised out, the passage can be distilled down to the following: “I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.”

Having greatly shortened the passage, the question becomes whether it still makes sense and if it does, what is the meaning of it? And assuming a realistic meaning can be provided is it authentic and possibly the original meaning?

To begin with, the first part of the sentence states, “I saw beings passing away (cavamāne) & re-appearing (upapajjamāne).” This simply indicates a recollection of many different beings dying and being born. The passage continues, “and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance (yathākammūpage) with their kamma.” Here the second part of the sentence is describing clearly that the differences among people are due to their actions.

Now I do believe the Buddha is relating that there are indeed differences among people due to birth, background and general fortune, this much the Buddha grants by recalling all the many beings coming and going which obviously differed in circumstances and physical characteristics. However, I do not believe, he grants that these difference by virtue of circumstances or birth to be ultimately important.

What differences I do believe the Buddha thinks are important are those differences created by acts or kamma which he expresses in the second part of the sentence. If the differences in beauty, wealth and fortune the Buddha is mentioning can be interpreted in a figurative sense rather than a literal sense, the Buddha is essentially saying, for example, that a beautiful person is one that performs beautiful acts (compassion, kindness) rather than one being born beautiful due to previous acts.

In summary, it can be argued that this stripped down sentence can be interpreted as expressing the idea that the important differences in people are not by virtue of their birth, but by virtue of their actions.

Is this idea a crazy one? Can we find other similar passages in the Pali canon that express a similar idea thus lending some credence to it?

Crassness of the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta

In the Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta, a young Brahmin student goes to the Buddha and asks him why there are differences between people (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):

Master Gotama, what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race? For short-lived & long-lived people are to be seen, sickly & healthy, ugly & beautiful, uninfluential & influential, poor & rich, low-born & high-born, stupid & discerning people are to be seen. So what is the reason, what is the cause, why baseness & excellence are seen among human beings, among the human race?

The Buddha cryptically replies, "Students, beings are owners of kamma, heir to kamma, born of kamma, related through kamma, and have kamma as their arbitrator. Kamma is what creates distinctions among beings in terms of coarseness & refinement."

The student perplexed by the Buddha’s statement asks the Buddha to elaborate. The Buddha explains in further detail by elaborating that the physical, socio-economic and intellectual differences in people are due to their kamma. He emphasizes the retributive nature of kamma by stating that if someone kills another person, that individual will in a next life experience a short life. He also relates that if a person is ill-tempered, he or she will be reborn ugly. If a person does not give, he or she will end up poor in the next life. If a person is not intelligent enough to ask wise men important questions, he or she will be born dumb in the next life and so on. He summarizes that it is our actions that will determine our length of life, health, beauty, influence, wealth, social status and intelligence:

So, student, the way leading to short life makes people short-lived, the way leading to long life makes people long-lived; the way leading to sickliness makes people sickly, the way leading to health makes people healthy; the way leading to ugliness makes people ugly, the way leading to beauty makes people beautiful; the way leading to lack of influence makes people uninfluential, the way leading to influence makes people influential; the way leading to poverty makes people poor, the way leading to wealth makes people wealthy; the way leading to low birth makes people low-born, the way leading to high birth makes people highborn; the way leading to stupidity makes people stupid, the way leading to discernment makes people discerning.

The underlining motif in the sutta is that one’s actions always have consequences. The form of the actions you take, you will experience in a future life (thus, for example, if you kill a person thus shortening their life you will experience a short life in the next one).

Seeds of this idea can be seen in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, possibly suggesting a Brahmanism influence, where in the discussion of desire it is stated (translation by Patrick Olivelle): "A man resolves in accordance with his desire, acts in accordance with his resolve, and turns out to be in accordance with his action” (4.4.5).

While the main motif in this sutta may be borrowed from the religious milieu during or after the Buddha’s time, the motif, nevertheless, can be found in various scriptures. The Cula-kammavibhanga sutta is a worthy example to examine, what I believe, to be an immoral and tasteless teaching.

The main issue I have with this sutta, besides its naïve, unsophisticated and retributive undertone, is it promotes a “blame the victim” attitude towards everyone’s misfortune or suffering while explaining away any injustices a person experiences as their fault and no one else’s.

To begin with, modern science of today can explain the reason for many of the physical differences and sicknesses that people are subject to. Modern science can not only explain the terrible deformities and afflictions people are born with but in some cases eradicate them.

It is beyond dispute that many deformities can be explained by genetics or the exposure of dangerous pathogens during pregnancy. As a simple example, there is ample evidence that parents who have exposure to high-levels of radiation are more likely to sire a deformed child. Let me emphasize the point: this has nothing to do with kamma but with dangerous gamma rays.

Intelligence is also another category that under closer statistical examination has nothing to do with kamma. Modern statistics show that an intelligent mother and father are more likely to produce intelligent children rather than dumb ones. Genetic explanations hold far more weight than a speculative belief that a person is dumb because in a previous life that person did not honor a religious person, failed to listen to the truth or some other thing they did stupidly from a religious stance.

As for the issue of a person who has a shortened life, the same argument applies. If we take for example, a child with incurable cancer who will clearly have a shortened life. Does that mean it was caused by bad kamma in a previous life? Modern science has shown that many different types of cancers have a genetic basis, and can be caused by dangerous pathogens, radiation and so on.

What is terrible about the view that a child’s shortened life is the cause of bad actions in a previous life is that the child is in some sense responsible for their short life; the child’s cancer is their fault.

To me this is not only morally repulsive but borderline inhumane. If one takes this sutta seriously and has a dying child that asks, “Daddy, why am I going to die and not live a full life?” That “loving and compassionate” Buddhist parent will respond, “Child, you are going to die a horrible and painful death well before your prime, because in a previous life you did horrible, bad things.”

In my opinion, those poor souls who experience great physical, mental sufferings or injustices do not need to be blamed for their particular predicament or viewed from a perspective that they somehow deserve it. Such views, when taken seriously, can only mitigate compassion (if they are to blame, then why have sympathy and loving kindness for them) which these people so dearly need. Such a perverse belief system would regard those that really have unfortunate circumstances to have done really terrible things in the past, evening lessening more the natural compassion one feels for those in need.

As an example, it was not more than around 50 years ago when black people in the United States were routinely discriminated against, abused, burned and hanged for no apparent reason than the color of their skin. Even today, discrimination still exists for many minorities. For all those people past and present that experienced great injustices purely due to skin color, the notion of kamma would say that to be born a black man or woman was due to evil actions in a past life. In other words, to be born black is a punishment. Thus to be black is “bad.”

On the flip side, a slave owner who experiences wealth and well being due to the exploitation of human beings that are treated as animals would be regarded by the doctrine of kamma as experiencing such good fortune because in a previous life they did many noble and good acts. In a sense the slave owners are entitled to their slaves and fortune because they are being rewarded due to past life deeds. What more, the ownership and exploitation of slaves is nothing bad. The slave owner is simply carrying out the karmic sentence that has been given to slaves. If they were not bad in a past life they would not be born a slave. The poor exploited slaves they are there not because of an inhuman political and social system but they deserve to be there because of their bad past karma.

I hope it is clear from these examples that this retributive notion of kamma explains away any terrible atrocity a person who group of people experience as being their fault and the carrier of justice is just helping to carry out the kammic sentence.

A women who is brutally beaten and gang raped: her fault due to bad kamma. A child is sexually molested by a pedophile: the child’s fault due to bad kamma. A mother watching her child be murdered in front of her eyes: the mother’s fault due to bad kamma. The millions of Jewish people that were gassed, shot, experimented on and eradicated: it was their fault. The Nazi’s weren’t really to blame they were simply carrying out what the Jewish people “deserved.”

Conclusion

The retributive notion of kamma has been portrayed in many of suttas as a means to scare or entice those towards more moral actions in their lives. For whatever the reason, the earlier compilers of the suttas thought it necessary to treat many aspirers to Buddhism as animals needing to be prodded and led by infantile notions of reward and punishment so as to alter or preserve existing behavior.

In the process, many elements were borrowed from the religious milieu that developed into explaining all the differences between human beings. Contrary to many of the suttas where the Buddha saw moral action in the current life as the only thing worthy of differentiating people, kamma became an elevated principle explaining everything having to do with the differences in people, their circumstances and the universe itself through a cosmology based on planes of existence determined by kamma.

The Cula-kammavibhanga Sutta is an atrocious example of a notion of kamma in Buddhism that seeks to explain all the differences between human beings. It is a shockingly cruel idea which blames the victim and seems to provide justification to any atrocity committed by the most reprehensible in society.

Heaven, Hell and Karma -- Part 2

Notion of Rebirth Spanning Multiple Life Times

Another important aspect of the cosmological notion of karma and rebirth is the idea that our current life is simply the culmination of a long succession of past lives, and we (unless we reach enlightenment) will continue to go through a series of future lives.

This central idea has the effect of expanding an individual’s notion of personal time beyond their current life to potentially an infinite number of future lives. If such a tenet is believed, it can be inferred that the psychological effect on a person will be a general lack of alacrity and a greater inclination to be more accepting of one’s current circumstances and do little to change it.

This is because people who find themselves in impoverished social, economic or spiritual circumstances are more likely to accept their common lot and put their spiritual concerns aside in the hope that a future life will provide them with a better situation more conducive for liberating pursuits. Any spiritual actions they do perform will be more likely geared towards gaining a favorable rebirth into a rich or powerful family where only then may a spiritual quest be more realistic.

Even if a poor individual does get reborn into more favorable circumstances, what is that individual’s motivation to seek enlightenment in this current life? If the cosmological perspective is taken seriously, and they realize that enlightenment is difficult to achieve, why would a person not take an easier path towards an even more favorable rebirth instead, in a deva world, for example, rather than pursue the rather esoteric goal of nirvana?

What more, the notion of multiple successions of lives results in the devaluation or immediate importance of one’s current life. When one sees one life in relation to a whole series of future lives, the single current life that is directly being experienced now does not seem as important.

One possible outcome of this realization is that one is more inclined to place oneself in risky situations, engage in dangerous sexual behavior or other such life-threatening activities because if something goes wrong, the person will always have another life to recover from the mistake or try risking again.

And here we encounter the “do over” attitude; where no matter what one does in this life, they will always have a chance to repeat the situation again and hopefully this time around get it “right.” While such an attitude may be forgiving, it does not foster a concerned, careful, live-life-to-the-fullest approach which the Buddha advocated in many suttas.

For the Buddha, he emphasized that all that could become nuns and monks should strive diligently to achieve liberation now and not some future life.
The Buddha went so far in the Sabbasava Sutta as to suggest that even pondering such questions a future life, let alone desiring them, are hindrances on the path (translation by Bhikku Bodhi):

By attending to things unfit for attention and by not attending to things fit for attention, both unarisen taints arise in him [the meditator] and arisen taints increase.
This is how he attends unwisely: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future?

Conclusion

The Buddha was chiefly concerned with over-worldly concerns that led to liberation from the mundane world. He encouraged his disciples to strive diligently to find their salvation and not waste time to be free from suffering.

The belief in rebirth over multiple lives can encourage an attitude that is in direct contrast to what the Buddha emphasized. Instead of instilling a sense of immediacy for the supramudane, the belief in beings having multiple lives can promote worldly, selfish ends with no sense of emergency for the unborn.

Heaven, Hell and Karma -- Part 1

Performing an on-line serach on the Pali Canon for niraya or the name for Buddhist hell revealed the word appearing over five-hundred times. The Buddhist hell is often mentioned in tandem with heaven, and a prototypical passage can be found in the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta (Ñanamoli Thera’s translation):

Here, student, some woman or man is a killer of living beings, murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a state of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, in hell.

But here some woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, lays aside the rod and lays aside the knife, is considerate and merciful and dwells compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Due to having performed and completed such kammas, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination, in the heavenly world.

This passage is a representative example of the retributive portrayal of karma that lies throughout the Pali canon. Here the passage clearly promulgates the fear of hell and the promise of heaven as a primitive means of controlling people’s behavior through reward or punishment.

The main objection I have of such a notion of karma, besides the rather demeaning undertone that seems to regard people as mere animals to be goaded the correct way, is that a person is either deterred or motivated to commit an action only because of their own selfish interest and not the concern or interest of others who may be hurt or benefitted from such actions.

What such a naïve morality does is devalue the act itself by emphasizing the result. Even the most wholesome actions of joyful giving and the practice of loving-kindness are not valued in ends-in-themselves but merely means to gain the reward of going to heaven (again taken from the Cula-Kammavibhanga Sutta with Ñanamoli Thera’s translation):

"But here some woman or man is a giver of food, drink, cloth, sandals, perfumes, unguents, bed, roof and lighting to monks and brahmins. Due to having performed and completed such kamma, on the dissolution of the body, after death, he reappears in a happy destination in the heavenly world.”

In direct contrast to the Buddha’s encouragement of compassion, which by its very definition is the feeling with others, such teachings of retributive karma result in a mitigation of a focus on others while increasing the focus on a greater sense of self – a sense of me and mine which the Buddha, again and again, preached against as obstacles on the path.

In my opinion the Buddha emphasized such beneficial acts of loving kindness and giving, not for the sake of achieving heaven or avoiding hell, but to allow one to experience glimpses of selflessness; an experience which helps to break down selfish tendencies and not conflate them. Giving and loving kindness is ultimately an experience where we begin to notice not just ourselves but others as well.

When the simplistic notion of karma and rebirth is understood from a cosmological stand point, it has the tendency to impoverish the more subtle, refined notion of karma which emphasizes the cause and effect of not just one’s self but the cause and effect such actions has on others.

The Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta explains this more refined notion of karma (translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu) with a conversation of the Buddha and his young son who had just joined the Sangha:

"What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?"

"For reflection, sir."

"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection."

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: 'This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?'"

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both?'"

"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it: 'This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both?'"

"Thus, Rahula, you should train yourself: 'I will purify my bodily actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my verbal actions through repeated reflection. I will purify my mental actions through repeated reflection.' That's how you should train yourself."

Here in this beautiful passage the Buddha does not chide his son with promises of heaven or hell, put points out how one should behave ethically by contemplating the effects of one’s actions to their self and others.

Such a view emphasizes the responsibility and power we have for our own destiny and the positive or negative influence we can have on the destinies of others. By seeing karma as a web of interactions is to realize that our existence is intrinsically tied up with the people around us; all of us are subtly impacting one another all the time. To me this is the essential foundation of the Buddhist view of ethics; an ethics based on intelligence and consideration and not one that espouses the fear of punishment or the promise of reward.