[Attarderb]

Hi Murchovski,

It might be useful to distinguish between karma (action) and vipaka (result). Karma can only be created in the present moment, for obvious reasons. You can't "take action" in the past or the future -- although you can plan an action or regret one.

Vipaka, however, can occur in the past, present and future. The point of contention, as I see it, is whether the karma-vipaka model is consistent with one lifetime, or requires multiple lifetimes in order to remain coherent. The problem, in the first case, is that clearly some karma will not yield its fruit, and likewise beings will experience vipaka without having created the karma.

As I understand it, however, karma-vipaka does not refer only to external events, but more importantly to psychological states. That is, certain events may happen to us as a result of some prior action, but the really central question is: how does it affect our mind state? The external events just provide the conditions for certain mind states to flourish.

For example, coming into great wealth can provide an opportunity for someone's greed and paranoia to run rampant, thus speeding entry into hell (whether you take this literally or figuratively). Alternatively it could provide an opportunity to help others, thus creating merit. We could say the same for practically any other external event. It seems to me that when we look at karma in psychological terms rather than as an explanation for objective events, the rebirth issue becomes less significant.

People sometimes misconstrue karma-vipaka as being a simple, linear, deterministic process, but the Buddha taught otherwise. You might find this essay by Thanissaro Bhikkhu worth a read:

For the early Buddhists, karma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that karma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that karma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

So, instead of promoting resigned powerlessness, the early Buddhist notion of karma focused on the liberating potential of what the mind is doing with every moment. Who you are — what you come from — is not anywhere near as important as the mind's motives for what it is doing right now. As for whether karma-vipaka can be a relevant teaching in a modern, secular age...well, opinions differ. It sees to me there are ways to interpret and apply it without getting caught up in arguments over "literal" heavens and hells, post-mortem rebirth, and so on. Past life karma could be seen more generally as the causes and conditions which came together to produce the present-life "you.". Future life vipaka could be seen generally as the effects of your actions in the present moment.

Maybe this is not a strictly orthodox way of looking at it, but it does have the advantage of avoiding speculative entanglements, and it strikes me as consistent with the Mahayana understanding of sunyata. Certain contemporary teachers tend to approach the subject this way.