Karma and the Self

How can karma be attached to no-self, especially from life to life? And in no-self, what actually gets transferred from life to life? These nagging little threads have always bothered me. E.M.— Buddhist Chaplain, and master furniture crafstman

Thank you for this awesome question. Let me preface my response by noting that clearly this question within the Buddhist paradigm of thought, and not everyone will be familiar with this teaching.  The Buddhist world-view incorporates the idea of karma which affirms that the effects of our actions ripple through time, including future lifetimes, which arise through a process of rebirth.  But the Buddha also taught a doctrine of “no-self” (anatman in Sanskrit) as a remedy for the suffering associated with the notion of self.  The question here is how can karma affect us, be “attached to” us, if there is no self for it to be attached to?  And if there is no self, what is reborn in future lives?

Before I respond directly to these questions, I have one more perspective to offer.  Whenever we are dealing with philosophical ideas expressed in words, these worded expressions should not be considered to be the definitive ultimate truth.  The Buddha himself declared that his entire focus was suffering and how to end suffering, not to be stuck on specific teachings.  He urged his followers to think for themselves, to “be a light unto themselves”.  Similarly the great Zen master Hui Neng affirmed that any teaching that can be expressed in words is simply a pointer towards the truth (which is reality itself), like a finger pointing to the moon. So what is being pointed to by the teachings of no-self, and of karma, and how can they be both true?

Let me begin with an analogy. When Buddha taught the principle of no-self, he was denying that we have some kind of fixed permanent object — our self — that moves with us through time. But this doesn’t mean that we do not have subjective experience or unique qualities. A good analogy is to think of the self as like a river. We might conveniently give the river a name — Mississippi, or Genyo or Eric — but it doesn’t have a fixed self. Even so, if you dump toxins in the river up stream, the river will be more polluted downstream. Conversely, if you clean the river up stream, it will be cleaner downstream.  Karma is like this.  As it says in the Bible, we reap what we sow.  When we engage in harmful actions, this has hurtful consequences, not only for those we harm, but for ourselves.  Conversely, when we engage in beneficial, meritorious actions this creates positive future consequences. This is not because we have a self, in the sense of a fixed permanent identity to which these consequences occur to. Nor do we need to think of this occurring because a supernatural being decides that we deserve punishment or reward. Rather it is simply the natural way that things occur.  Actions have consequences.  Creating harm brings more harm into the world, and we live in that world.  Beneficial, compassionate actions bring love and ease into the world in which we live.  The consequences inevitably come around.

But what about the notion of rebirth, of reincarnation and future lives?  Many will deny this as scientifically impossible. Indeed I don’t think it necessary to believe in reincarnation.  However, we cannot deny that humans lived before we came into being. The actions of previous humans have created the world we live in, and therefore have an effect on us, on who we are, and the quality of the life we are living.  Similarly there will be future humans whose quality of life is directly affected by what we do today. These future humans are our future selves, if you will, like the river downstream from us. The functioning of the “law of karma” does not depend on having a self to be true.  It is simply the natural “law” that actions have consequences.  Putting toxins into a river, or the ocean, yields more toxic water for everyone.  Cleaning the river, engaging in beneficial actions, inevitably creates a better life experience for all beings, including for oneself, ones own personal experience.  That’s why I always say “the good of all is best for me.”