This post is dedicated to Kathleen Hanafan.
Good luck!
The Law of Karma
In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only
this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow
another event whose existence was caused by the first,
and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant
according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.' A
skillful event is one that is not accompanied by
craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event
is one that is accompanied by any one of those things.
(Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so
called only in virtue of the mental events that occur
with them.)
Therefore, the law of Karma teaches that
responsibility for unskillful actions is born by the
person who commits them.
Let's take an example of a sequence of events. An
unpleasant sensation occurs. A thought arises that the
source of the unpleasantness was a person. (This
thought is a delusion; any decisions based upon it
will therefore be unskillful.) A thought arises that
some past sensations of unpleasantness issued from
this same person. (This thought is a further
delusion.) This is followed by a willful decision to
speak words that will produce an unpleasant sensation
in that which is perceived as a person. (This decision
is an act of hostility. Of all the events described so
far, only this is called a karma.) Words are carefully
chosen in the hopes that when heard they will cause
pain. The words are pronounced aloud. (This is the
execution of the decision to be hostile. It may also
be classed as a kind of karma, although technically it
is an after-karma.) There is a visual sensation of a
furrowed brow and downturned mouth. The thought arises
that the other person's face is frowning. The thought
arises that the other person's feelings were hurt.
There is a fleeting joyful feeling of success in
knowing that one has scored a damaging verbal blow.
Eventually (perhaps much later) there is an unpleasant
sensation of regret, perhaps taking the form of a
sensation of fear that the perceived enemy may
retaliate, or perhaps taking the form of remorse on
having acted impetuously, like an immature child, and
hping that no one will remember this childish action.
(This regret or fear is the unpleasant ripening of the
karma, the unskillful decision to inflict pain through
words.)
If there are no persons at all, then there is no self
and no other. There is no distinction between pain of
which there is direct sensual awareness (which is
conventionally called one's own pain) and pain that is
known through inference (conventionally called another
person's pain). Whether pain is known directly or
indirectly, there is either an urge to quell it or an
urge to cultivate it. Whether joy is known directly or
indirectly, there is either an urge to nourish it or
to quell it. In the conventional language of speaking
of events personally, the urge to quell all pain and
to nourish all joy is known as being ethical or
skillful or (if you like) good. The urge to nourish
pain and quell joy is known as being unskillful,
unethical or bad.
Being fully ethical is said to be impossible for those
who make a distinction between self and other and show
preference for the perceived self over the perceived
other, for such perceptions inhibit being fully
responsive. Being fully ethical is possible only for
those who realize that all persons are empty, that is,
devoid of personhood.
