Topics, Session 4 – Kamma and Rebirth
Here’s where we start getting into the fun stuff.
Most Westerners, if they have any notion of Buddhism at all, associate Buddhism with the notion of kamma (Sanskrit karma) and rebirth. The idea, at its most basic, is that you’re reborn again and again; if you’ve made good kamma (e.g. been kind, generous, honest, etc.), you’re reborn into fortunate circumstances; if not, you’re reborn less fortunately. The goal of enlightenment is to bring rebirth to an end. (And really, who would want that?)
In our session on Thursday, we’re going to look at the Buddhist notion of rebirth (and its inevitably accompanying re-death) with a little more nuance. The understanding that I will present is my own understanding. While it is rooted in canonical sources and is in general accord with an understanding of kamma and rebirth that has been articulated by many modern Buddhist scholars and practitioners, it is far from an orthodox view of the subject (if the idea of orthodoxy even makes much sense in the context of Buddhism). It is certainly not how an ordained Buddhist monk is likely to present the idea. For one sample of such a presentation, you might want to look at Bhikkhu Bodhi’s start at an essay on the subject. He’s clearly uncomfortable with the whole idea of having to justify the notion of rebirth as it is presented in the canonical teachings, but he is also unwilling to accept that a changing scientific view of the world might give one permission to interpret the canonical teachings in a way that is too very different from the interpretations offered by the classical commentators.
When one is presented with a new idea, especially one that seems to conflict with ideas that one already holds, the temptation is to assume that we understand the new idea, on first hearing, well enough to evaluate it. We do so, decide whether we’re for it or against it, and dig our heels in. From that point on, our strategy is more or less to interpret any argument we’re given, or any evidence that’s offered, in light of our entrenched position, and to push back against the argument, reject or re-interpret the evidence, and ridicule or revile the motives of anyone who disputes our entrenched position. Unfortunately, that’s how most public discourse proceeds in this country today.
There is another way. That is to assume, if something makes no sense to us, or seems to conflict with a deeply held belief, that we may not be understanding it rightly. We can make an effort to understand it differently, so that it begins to make a little more sense, or to pose a less certain threat to our existing views. If we assume a certain level of good will on the part of those who confront us with new ideas, we may even begin to find some common ground: shared assumptions about how things are, or about how we’d like things to be.
That is the approach I’ve tried to take with my essay on kamma and rebirth. The idea of rebirth has never made much sense to me, and my instinctive rejection of that idea caused me, for many years, to reject Buddhism in general. As I’ve come to understand Buddhism better, and especially as I’ve come to admire the Buddha himself and to find relevance and wisdom in his core teachings, I’ve had to re-evaluate my instinctive reaction of an idea that was clearly close to the center of the Buddha’s own conceptual universe.
There is no question that the Buddha accepted the fact of rebirth; it was part of his cultural milieu, and it is an important component of very many of the teachings we have in the Pali Canon. But it’s also true that the Buddha resisted, strongly and consistently, any attempt to define exactly what happened in the course of rebirth. Indeed, views about the detailed workings of the rebirth process – just what was reborn and how the influence of kammic action emerged in an individual’s life – were among the most pernicious views of all; the most difficult fetter to break. The Buddha’s reticence on this topic, along with his general encouragement to think things through for yourself and to give authoritative precedence to direct experience, justifies, I believe, the kind of redefinition of kamma and rebirth that I’ve tried to work out in my essay. I encourage you to read that essay before this coming week’s session, and also, if you have time, to read Bhikkhu Bodhi’s more orthodox understanding.
I anticipate a good discussion, and I look forward to seeing you all on Thursday.
