Buddhist Doctrine of Karma

[Vajrasvapna]

The Indian Buddhist doctrine produced a group of seven scriptures: Pali Canon, Abhidharma, Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Buddha Nature, and Vajrayana Tantras. I noticed that each group has its explanation of karma.

The way, for example, Vasubandhu explains karma within the context of Yogacara in his text Thirty Verses can be understood differently, as he speaks of fruition in an experience resulting from actions motivated by negative emotions, with the whole process beginning with the arising of two types of attachments within the mental stream. This text seems to have parallels with Longchenpa's text on karma in his popular trilogy. Here, the understanding I had is fruition only in one experience; Vasubandhu even uses the term equanimity for the experience free from the two attachments. Similar to Longchenpa's view but in the context of Dzogchen. In the cited text, Vasubandhu explains the goal of Yogacara based on the doctrine of the three natures, including the doctrine of emptiness based on dependent origination, something similar to Nagarjuna.

I have also studied various explanations of the karma doctrine. Some Buddhist masters seem to adopt a deterministic view of karma, asserting that all suffering one experiences is a direct result of negative actions. For example, the way Taranatha explains karma in his Lam Rim text, where he claims that karma has a multiplying effect, thus being deterministic.

Within Vajrayana, there is the doctrine of karmic winds, with a perspective on internal and external winds. Various tantric systems aim to make karmic winds flow within the central channel.

Should the karma doctrine be understood to have definitive and provisional doctrines?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Should the karma doctrine be understood to have definitive and provisional doctrines?

It’s not so much about being definitive or provisional, but more so having to do with context, or what you might call one reality inside of another reality. By that, I mean for example, in the Pali texts, the Buddha mentions a short list of things that are what we would call accidents, things that are not related to one’s motivation, that are not caused as the result of a person’s karma. For example, a tree branch falling and hitting you on the head. But some Vajrayana teachings say that ultimately everything we experience is due to karma. Which one is correct? They both are.

So, A branch falling off a tree and hitting a human on the head is not the result of that person’s karma. But, the fact that this person is a human to begin with, and not a fish or a hungry ghost is the result of karma. So, in that way the branch falling on his human-shaped head is related to karma.
The reality of the branch on the head of the human is nested inside the reality of the human in the cycle of realms of samsara.

[SvatahSiddha]

Should the karma doctrine be understood to have definitive and provisional doctrines?

It’s not so much about being definitive or provisional, but more so having to do with context, or what you might call one reality inside of another reality. By that, I mean for example, in the Pali texts, the Buddha mentions a short list of things that are what we would call accidents, things that are not related to one’s motivation, that are not caused as the result of a person’s karma. For example, a tree branch falling and hitting you on the head. But some Vajrayana teachings say that ultimately everything we experience is due to karma. Which one is correct? They both are.

So, A branch falling off a tree and hitting a human on the head is not the result of that person’s karma. But, the fact that this person is a human to begin with, and not a fish or a hungry ghost is the result of karma. So, in that way the branch falling on his human-shaped head is related to karma.
The reality of the branch on the head of the human is nested inside the reality of the human in the cycle of realms of samsara.

This is pretty good.

There is scope (context) in what is being said about karma but no distinction between what karma (activity) is exists; everything is empty of any independent causation or origination.

If we want to understand what the buddhadharma is saying about karma, we must consider the unconditioned.

Should the karma doctrine be understood to have definitive and provisional doctrines?

I'm interested in were we would find people finding these distinctions, or equivalently what distinctions could be drawn and how they might be justified.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If we want to understand what the buddhadharma is saying about karma, we must consider the unconditioned.

No surprise there!

[master of puppets]

If we want to understand what the buddhadharma is saying about karma, we must consider the unconditioned.

No surprise there!

[Aemilius]

The Indian Buddhist doctrine produced a group of seven scriptures: Pali Canon, Abhidharma, Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Buddha Nature, and Vajrayana Tantras. I noticed that each group has its explanation of karma.

It is even more complicated. There were several canons of the different Sravakayana schools that contained the Three Baskets (Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidharma). Different schools had their own Abhidharmas or Matrikas.

Mahasamghika Canon consisted of Five Baskets: Sutra, Vinaya, Abhidharma, Dharani and Kshudraka (Miscellaneous). -According to Etienne Lamotte in History of Indian Buddhism.

Mahayana schools had their own Three (or more) Baskets. There is or was also Mahayana Abhidharma. We have the Abhidharma Samuccaya as a representative of this class of scriptures.

[SvatahSiddha]

The Indian Buddhist doctrine produced a group of seven scriptures: Pali Canon, Abhidharma, Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Buddha Nature, and Vajrayana Tantras. I noticed that each group has its explanation of karma.

It is even more complicated. There were several canons of the different Sravakayana schools that contained the Three Baskets (Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidharma). Different schools had their own Abhidharmas or Matrikas.

Mahasamghika Canon consisted of Five Baskets: Sutra, Vinaya, Abhidharma, Dharani and Kshudraka (Miscellaneous). -According to Etienne Lamotte in History of Indian Buddhism.

Mahayana schools had their own Three (or more) Baskets. There is or was also Mahayana Abhidharma. We have the Abhidharma Samuccaya as a representative of this class of scriptures.

Based on their being different schools we might assume different things are being taught; I would expect these various views would all find a basis of harmony in the underlying thing being pointed to.

We could use them in this case like the various observations of elephant taken by blind men; a process of triangulation of sorts, that provides the equivalent of an error checking code.

Is this your understanding of them?

Do you know of any compilations of the doctrinal differences found?

Should the karma doctrine be understood to have definitive and provisional doctrines?

I'm interested in where we would find people finding these distinctions, or equivalently what distinctions could be drawn and how they might be justified.

[Figured it would be appropriate to credit the quote to the right person and address the comment where it was intended.]

[Dhammanando]

Do you know of any compilations of the doctrinal differences found?

I don't think there's yet any wholly comprehensive work on this, but Roger Jackson's Rebirth: a guide to mind, karma and cosmos in the Buddhist world (Shambhala 2022) covers more ground than most.

[SvatahSiddha]

Do you know of any compilations of the doctrinal differences found?

I don't think there's yet any wholly comprehensive work on this, but Roger Jackson's Rebirth: a guide to mind, karma and cosmos in the Buddhist world (Shambhala 2022) covers more ground than most.

Thanks, I'll look into getting a copy.

[Aemilius]

The Indian Buddhist doctrine produced a group of seven scriptures: Pali Canon, Abhidharma, Prajnaparamita, Madhyamaka, Yogacara, Buddha Nature, and Vajrayana Tantras. I noticed that each group has its explanation of karma.

It is even more complicated. There were several canons of the different Sravakayana schools that contained the Three Baskets (Sutra, Vinaya and Abhidharma). Different schools had their own Abhidharmas or Matrikas.

Mahasamghika Canon consisted of Five Baskets: Sutra, Vinaya, Abhidharma, Dharani and Kshudraka (Miscellaneous). -According to Etienne Lamotte in History of Indian Buddhism.

Mahayana schools had their own Three (or more) Baskets. There is or was also Mahayana Abhidharma. We have the Abhidharma Samuccaya as a representative of this class of scriptures.

Based on their being different schools we might assume different things are being taught; I would expect these various views would all find a basis of harmony in the underlying thing being pointed to.

We could use them in this case like the various observations of elephant taken by blind men; a process of triangulation of sorts, that provides the equivalent of an error checking code.

Is this your understanding of them?

Do you know of any compilations of the doctrinal differences found?

Buddha used the elephant simile in reference to ascetics and brahmans of other sects, who had understood some aspect of reality or a partial truth.

There is or there used be in the Blue Annals a dream prophecy, taken from the canonical scriptures, in which after Buddha's parinirvana the various buddhist schools cut a piece of cloth (or a robe) into 19 or 20 pieces. But then each of these 19 or 20 pieces becomes a whole cloth again. The meaning is that even a small part of the Buddha's teaching contains the whole teaching, it contains the path to nirvana which cannot be cut to pieces.

"Doctrinal differences" are words and concepts. If you follow the different instructions of will know where they lead to. Otherwise you will not know. In a sutra/sutta Buddha gives about 20 synonyms of nirvana. And Avatamsaka sutra says there are millions of different names for Dharma. But people will almost always start discussing and arguing "in what sense is emptiness (shunyata) different form reality limit (bhutakoti) and from nirvana (cessation), etc..? "

[PadmaVonSamba]

"Doctrinal differences" are words and concepts.

That’s a good point. Although there are some actual differences between some schools, for the most part, what appear to be differences in teachings are simply differences based on the perspective of the practitioner, or type of practitioner.

It is says that when the Buddha spoke, each listener understood his words perfectly, in their own language and in their own dialect, the same regardless of whether they sat near or far. This is another way of saying that each person understands the Dharma according to their own needs and capacity.

Also, the apparent differences in teachings are similar to different instructions on how to get to Coney Island beach in New York. We usually think of east and west as opposites. But if someone on land wants to know how to get to Coney Island, the answer is to go east. If someone is on a ship in the Atlantic Ocean, then the answer is to go west. Both answered are 100% correct.

[SvatahSiddha]

Buddha used the elephant simile in reference to ascetics and brahmans of other sects, who had understood some aspect of reality or a partial truth.

There is or there used be in the Blue Annals a dream prophecy, taken from the canonical scriptures, in which after Buddha's parinirvana the various buddhist schools cut a piece of cloth (or a robe) into 19 or 20 pieces. But then each of these 19 or 20 pieces becomes a whole cloth again. The meaning is that even a small part of the Buddha's teaching contains the whole teaching, it contains the path to nirvana which cannot be cut to pieces.

"Doctrinal differences" are words and concepts. If you follow the different instructions of will know where they lead to. Otherwise you will not know. In a sutra/sutta Buddha gives about 20 synonyms of nirvana. And Avatamsaka sutra says there are millions of different names for Dharma. But people will almost always start discussing and arguing "in what sense is emptiness (shunyata) different form reality limit (bhutakoti) and from nirvana (cessation), etc..? "

I'm using the simile in the same way.

I'm not saying that there is a partial truth that is realized by the schools.

I'm saying that necessarily the expression of the unconditioned within conditions is limited to conditions and therefore provides a given perspective.

We can take advantage of the multitude of perspectives to better ascertain, from within conditions, what is being pointed to.

I'm saying that they were never actually cut into pieces when properly understood; just as you say, they all have the seeds of the same truth.

The synthesis is useful.