June, 2000
Dear Members,
Recently I received an email from a fellow asking some questions about karma. I thought I
might pass it along to the various newsletter people to see if they would like to include it in their
mailings, as similar questions may be held by other members of our temples. Please disregard the
rather colloquial tone and the rather lax attention to grammar; but it is a letter, eh?
In Gassho,
Mike
Dear Steve,
Thanx for the question. Thanx also for the plethora of quotes/arguments regarding the concepts
of karma and reincarnation. Some I found to be interesting; but by and large the most I found to be
plain wordy and confusing.
Frankly, I do not spend a lot of time worrying about whether either of these exist. I figure that, if
I focus on attempting to manifest the higher ideals that the Buddhist teaching suggests, my karma,
and subsequently, my rebirth, will take care of itself.
Seems to me that you are working much too hard. Take a break. The task that you seem to be
laboring on; that is finding some rational/empirical evidence for the existence of either karma, or past
lives, is a fruitless search.
The problem comes in by the nature of karma itself and by the way that the question is framed.
Rational/empirical knowledge implies that there can be an outside/observable proof, that anyone can
see and recognize as being supportive for the existence of either karma, or reincarnation. By its very
nature, the question that you pose will never give rise to a satisfactory answer.
Karma, very simply put, is the tendency for experiences/aims/drives/goals to resonate within the
matrix of the thing that I call "myself" for a time period after that in which the original/ immediate
impetus is gone. It is entirely personal in that the karma that "I" have amassed is mine.
Karma is also very "slippery" in that karmic conditions exist in a rather amorphous state as
potentialities and tendencies for a majority of their existence. They also tend to influence and interact
with each other. Some karmic conditions will mature at any given time, while, at the same time,
others may remain unexpressed, merely projecting their influence, or flavoring into subsequent
moments. A karmic event will come to fruition; that is be manifested, based on all of the myriad
thoughts and actions that I have put into it up until the exact point that it matures, or gets expressed in
the realm of time and space. That is; it can be changed, or influenced, up until the very moment its
effects can be seen.
I would be wary of linear rationalizations for any karmic expressions. Some people love to retro-
rationalize making statements like; I killed horses for a living in the Wild West in a past life, so that
is why I am allergic to horses in this life. These meanderings are interesting; but quite often they
"feel" a little too simplistic for me personally.
You, in framing the question in the way that you have, are asking some "thing" (for lack of a
better word) that exists in a rather amorphous state of potentiality and tendency for a majority of its
existence to: for the sake of our own desperate need for rational proof, manifest itself in a way that
alleviates our doubts. It is not in the nature of karma to do this.
Personally, I do believe in the effects of karma; but only because I personally have seen the hints
of its working in my life. I do not care that I cannot prove absolutely 100% that it exists. As to past
lives, I have to admit that it may be possible for people to "remember" theirs; but having had no
intimate personal contact with my own, I can only admit that this type of situation may indeed be
possible. Either way, once again, I do not really care that I cannot prove that reincarnation, or past
lives exist.
This calls to mind a few inherent biases in the rational/empirical/scientific world view that make
it incompatible with finding "proofs" for karma, or reincarnation. First off, karma by its nature is
entirely personal. This being the case, any perceived "evidence" of it is going to be anecdotal. The
rational mind set does not ascribe a lot of "weight" to anecdotal evidence. If the so called facts
cannot be objectively observed, they cannot be accepted as incontrovertible proof. Karma, is not an
object, it can only be subjectively observed. In the end, there can be no "proof" that an empiricist will
accept.
Secondly, the rational mind set seems to think that if one can entertain doubts about something
then that something cannot be accepted as fact. Lets take for example the Tibetan belief that one can
find the reincarnated being that once was one's teacher. As this is an accepted "fact" in the Tibetan
Buddhist world view, so it would seem to provide proof for the existence of both karma and
reincarnation.
Some time after a respected teacher has died, a rather extensive search is undergone to find the
new body that he has been reborn into. I am not privy to the entire, lengthy process by which the
person becomes "officially" recognized as being the new incarnation of the previous teacher; but one
part of it has the person observed while perusing a bunch of objects some of which had been personal
possessions of the deceased teacher. If the person, for example, chooses from a choice of twenty cups
the specific one that the teacher had carved himself, and had subsequently used for x amount of years
before his death, that would be considered as another check mark in the column indicating that he
may in fact be the reincarnated teacher. I am sure that there are many, many more "tests" that one has
to go through; but in the end, the "evidence" amasses to the point where the person is accepted as
being the teacher himself, only in a new body.
The fact that this tradition has gone on for centuries and seems to produce accurate results
within the society that accepts it is totally lost on the hard line rationalist. The rationalist may point
out that quite often the subject is a child. Therefore, the subject basically wants the approval of the
warm, caring adults who have been treating him kindly. The monks also have a vested interest and a
sincere desire to find their friend and teacher. These two positions may produce a situation in which
the subject picks up on some subtle, non-verbal cues that the monks are not even aware that they are
giving off. A slight raising of an eyebrow, as the subject passes his hand over the cup of the teacher;
an almost imperceptible change in one's breathing rate as the subject's gaze falls on the same cup,
may be just enough to influence the subject so that the test results; from a scientific standpoint
anyway, have to be considered tainted. We are very creative creatures. If we want to remain
skeptical, we can find a myriad of ways to entertain doubt.
I am admittedly biased in that the Buddhist teaching that I follow has a decidedly devotional
flavor to it. That being the case, I find little value in the rationalist's need to have definite proof
before he believes something. The strange thing that I have noticed about the Buddhist mind set is
that, in the beginning at least, one has to suspend one's disbelief just to the point of allowing that
something may exist. After that one is free to allow one's critical faculties back in to assess the data.
I have found that having a mind that is open to possibilities is incredibly helpful. Also, a firm
grasp of how inane I actually am seems to lessen my egotistical desire to believe that I am in any way
capable of completely understanding any facet of my mystical/spiritual nature.
Sorry that this has turned into a rather long and involved diatribe, when the answer that I propose to
your question is really quite simple; karma is not a "thing" to be objectively observed, and as long as
the rational mind set holds anecdotal evidence to be suspect, we will never have an "acceptable"
proof for the existence of either of karma, or reincarnation.
At the risk of sounding combative, I would take the time to seriously ask myself if it is not my
ego centered need to believe in myself as a being capable of understanding things that is behind my
discomfort at not having any objective proof for reincarnation. This may prove to be a more fruitful
search than the one that you are on.
I do not know about you personally; but quite often my ego "hides" behind my propped up
facade of "knowing". And, as you know, all Buddhist schools aim towards revealing one's ego in
order to lessen its negative effects on ourselves and others.
Hope this "answer" (if I can call it that) provides some positive impetus for you. Please feel free
to send a rebuttal, or otherwise remain in contact. Go easy. Have fun with the search!
Yours Truly,
M. Hayashi
