Albert Ahlf

Many educated people such as philosophers and scientists are

attracted to certain Buddhist ideas while disagreeing with other ideas. One
area of Buddhism which is an example of disagreement or disbelief is the
doctrine of karma. Scientists in particular such as Horgan, reject the idea of
being rewarded through a karmic system which is fueled by postisve or
negative actions. They reject this notion because it implies a divine Judge
which lacks scientific evidence. Also socially in the eyes of the secular world,
the doctrine of karma can be seen as horribly invalidating because it
invalidated the suffering of others around the globe. To say that a kid who
dies of starvation deserved it due to the negative actions he took in a past
life is quite cruel sounding to just about any decent human being who isnt a
sociopath. One could also say however that karma isnt black and white and
there is perhaps a grey area involved.
Sentient being exist; they think, feel, and act in ways that have effects.
These effects are of two kinds: personal/intrapersonal, and environmental,
affecting the natural and built world. This interpretation of karmic causality
has social, economic, and political effects. Karmic causality depicted in this
way is natural. It is not a result of theistic intervention at the beginning of
the process.
Owen Flanagan offers two different interpretations of the concept of
karmic causality. The first interpretation of karmic causation that Flanagan

offers is the tame interpretation. The tame interpretation involves the cooccurrence of three uncontroversial ideas which are; sentient beings exist,
these beings engage in mentally initiated purposeful action, and all the
actions of sentient beings, (intentional and unintentional) have abundant
effects. If these three ideas are uncontroversial, one might wonder why it is
worth distinguishing karmic causation from physical causation. Tame karmic
causation depicts the casual intricacies of the lives of sentient beings,
especially when they act intentionally in the right way.
The second interpretation of karmic causation the Flanagan offers is
less tame/untame interpretation. Untame karmic causation is intended to do
more than simply express the three ideas listed above. It names an
existentially unique kind of causation that accounts for how the minds of
future beings are determined by a set of casual processes that consist of
more than the environmental and psycho-social-political-economic effects of
previous sentient inhabitants of the earth. What is meant by concept of
karmic law is this: my consciousness does not die with my body. It lives on
and continues into the next and possibly many future lives to reap what it
sows in its previous lives. This is what all theories of salvation and of hope
for the final times say in one form or another. What makes UNTAME karmic
causation distinctive is that immaterial properties of sentient beings produce
casual effects in the natural world; upstream, down the road, and in the
future.

In both the TAME and UNTAME interpretations of karmic causality, the

world evolves as it does, in some significant measure, due to the effects of
how humans live. According to the law of karma, the minds of future beings
are influenced by a karmic reward and punishment system. The reason that
Flanagan offers two different interpretations of karmic causality, is to make a
distinction between two different types of causes. These two different
causes are non-intentional physical causes, and intentional physical causes.
According to Flanagan, written statements by the Dalai Lama in his book and
general knowledge about the Buddhist views on rebirth and the nature of
mind, causes one to think that the contrast between ordinary causation and
the law of Karma implies something controversial. He also offers two
interpretations of karmic causality due to there being two these that can
cause explanatory obstacles in regards to sentience and karmic causation.
These two theses are, emergence of sentience was planned or
metaphysically ordained, and sentient beings are not animals, meaning, that
consciousness is not a product of the natural world due to its ontological
nature.
It seems to be that Nyanaponika Thera favors the tame interpretation of
karmic causality. This is seen in his writing entitled Karma and its fruit.
Some of his statements that lean towards the tame interpretation of karma
go as follows. In his introductory paragraph, he states that there is a double
edge quality of karmic action, affecting the doer and object of the deed at
the same time. This statement resembles Flanagans interpretation of tame

karmic causality as seen in the statement, all the actions of sentient beings,
(intentional and unintentional) have abundant effects. One could interpret
this statement to mean that actions of sentient beings affect themselves and
their immediate environment of the object in which they take action towards.
Another quote from Thera that shows his leaning towards the tame
interpretation is, a person who performs a karmic action (with a result) that
is variably experienceable, will reap its results accordingly. This means that
what all sentient beings reap, they also sow. Every action has an equal
reaction thats size or duration is dependent upon the initial action. Thera
goes on to say that in the case of varied experienceability, the possibility of a
religious life and the opportunity for ending suffering arises. Thera says that
when you observe good and bad karma, you can witness the results of good
and bad karma either be strengthened by supportive karma or weakened by
counteractive karma. To go even further, the results of good or bad karma
can also be annulled by destructive karma. The ripening of karmic fruits is
reflected by the internal conditions of the karma. A person who has a mind
rich in moral or spiritual qualities will not likely be weighed down my
negative consequences if they engage in a morally corrupt act. On the flip
side, someone who lacks spiritual and moral foundation may experience
harsh consequences for just one corrupt act as miniscule as it may be. A
good metaphor that Thera uses to illustrate this is that in human law, a first
offenders punishments will always be less intense than someone who is a
repeated offender. Every karmic action initially affects the doer of the action.

This holds true for physical and verbal deeds as well as volitional thoughts.
We can always control our response to our actions but we cant control how
other people react to our actions. Regardless of the reactions of others,
actions that are rooted in good thoughts will enrich the mind resulting in
good karma. An individuals karma whether it is good or bad will affect the
karmic result of their actions. Thera goes on to say that this still does not
negate the possibility of alterations in the realm of severity of karmic
reaction. This is seen in the example of people we know who on the surface
appear to be of good and innocent character. Interestingly, when these
individuals make a single mistake, their entire life appears to be ruined. This
seemingly disproportionate crisis one could say is caused by powerful
counteractive karma of his past. However, the chain of negative events can
also be further causes by the individuals endearing carelessness,
indecisiveness, which are in simple terms a form of unskilled karma at play.
In other terms, this is the case of a seemingly good individual being unable
to prevent the fruition of negative karma in his life. This is not to say that his
good traits will be deemed ineffective in improving his life situation, but that
the quality of his life may be weakened by presently occurring negative
character flaws or actions which can produce counteractive karma.