佛陀正覺後2458年/西元2026年
今天我們要說的是你們最關心的問題：「我這一生為甚麼會這樣？」
師父在此向你們講kamma（業）。kamma（業），它本來不是佛教的用詞，在佛教之前，印度的奧義書思潮就已經提出來。奧義書思潮起於公元前十二世紀到十世紀之間，比佛教還要早將近七百年，kamma（業）的學說則確立於公元前約八世紀。那麼，奧義書所說的Kamma 是指什麼呢？是指「宿命業報」，它主張：所有的現在遭遇的全部，都由過去的做為來決定。
但是請諸位想一想：如果現在的一切，全是由過去、或者過去世決定，它一定會變得很荒謬。舉例來說，你在這裏聽佛法，聽了內心很清淨，下了課以後，你走出去，碰到乞丐在乞討，一時看了不忍，慈悲心大發，掏出五十塊馬幣，放在他手上。噢！你做了一個好的布施了。
那麼，按照宿命論的觀點，你布施給他（乞丐），一定是前輩子註定好的。為什麼呢？時間那麼晚了，早不碰到，晚不碰到，就在那個時間碰到他；而且不是碰到其他的乞丐，就碰到這一位乞丐。按照印度傳統的kamma（業）來說，一定是註定好的。既然是註定好了，就表示什麼呢？表示這一位乞丐以前幫助過你，或者是你欠他，所以你現在需要回報、或者一定要償還。既然是一定要回報或償還，那就是應該的事了！是註定你應該償還、回報人家！那麼，這樣的報恩或者還債，有沒有功德？當然沒功德！因為「欠債還錢」是天經地義啊！報恩或者還債，應不應該？當然應該！那麼，這位乞丐需不需要向你說謝謝？當然不需要！因為還債，是應該的事！為什麼要向布施者說謝謝？反而還要對你說：「怎麼這麼久才來還？」請問，這是合理嗎？
再舉一個例子：我們走在路上，突然有一部車衝過來，撞到前面的人，早不撞、晚不撞，就在這個時候撞上。路上的行人那麼多，誰都不撞，偏偏就撞他！而走在前面的這個人，沒被別的車撞，偏偏就被這一輛車撞！按照傳統的kamma（業）來說，這一定是前輩子註定的事。如果真是這樣，撞人的是討債，被撞的是還債。那麼試問：撞人的駕駛者有罪、沒有罪？當然沒罪！因為討債怎麼會有罪呢？而還債也是應該的啊！所以被撞的可憐、不可憐？當然不可憐！這就是宿命論啊！請問：這種觀點合理嗎？
在佛陀以前，印度的kamma（業），說的就是「宿命業報論」。這種宿命論的意思是什麼呢？它認為現在都是由過去的kamma（業）決定。這種教說會造成什麼後果呢？做惡事沒有罪過，行善事沒有功德。因為你做了好事，就是表示是你欠人家，註定該由你還；你作了對不起對方的事，就是表示是他欠你，註定你應該向他討債。如此一來，世間就沒有所謂的善、惡！因為都只是討債、還債而已。諸位明白嗎？如果「宿命業報論」是真實，我們只要躺著就好，反正註定要死，就會死；註定不死，就不會死。註定這一生開悟，不用修就會開悟；註定不會開悟，再怎麼努力修也不會開悟。你何必浪費時間的認真聽法、學法，反正一切都註定好了，不用修了！這個就是宿命論。這種宿命式的kamma（業）的說法，是荒謬的理論。 佛陀不承認「宿命業報論」。
佛陀提出了另外一種kamma（業）的思想。為什麼還是講kamma 呢？因為尊重原來的傳統，用原來傳統的kamma 用詞，但是 佛陀賦予以新的解釋。這就像佛教之前的耆那教，耆那教也講nibbāna（涅槃），可是耆那教的涅槃是指「ātman（神我）獨存的永恆存在」。 釋迦佛陀不承認這種「永恆、不變的存在」，但是 佛陀也講nibbāna，是將耆那教所謂「永恆獨存」的nibbāna 涅槃，賦予全新的解釋。Kamma與nibbāna， 釋迦佛陀都延用原來傳統的用詞，用詞是傳統的，可是解釋、說明是全新的，是完全的不同。佛教講的是「因緣法」，這是佛法的核心教法，釋迦佛陀就是用「因緣法」重新的解釋kamma 跟nibbāna。
用因緣重新解釋kamma（業），是怎樣的說法呢？請大家注意聽！因緣的意思是指：在關係當中影響的一種情況。眼前的一切，是在什麼樣的關係及影響當中呢？這可分為三方面來說：一、眼前的一切正在過去（現前之前）的影響當中；二、眼前的一切，在當前個人的身、口、意作為的影響當中；三、眼前的一切，在個人以外的外在的環境及人、事、物的影響當中。是影響而不是決定！決定就變成「宿命論」。
這就像三個人抬一張桌子，每個人都在出力，其中任何的一個人抬的高、低與快、慢，都會影響另外二個人。同樣的，任何一個人抬的高、低與快、慢，也是受其他二個人的影響。諸位聽得懂嗎？在三個人抬一張桌子下，當中任何一人既影響其他二個人，也受其他二個人的影響。高或低、快或慢，或是出力的大小、輕重，既影響其他二個人，也受其他二個人的影響。所以，眼前的一切是在「過去」、「現前的個人（身、口、意作為）」、「現前外在的環境」等三方面的相互影響中呈現著。
在這三方面的影響當中，呈現出「相互的關係」：「過去」與「現前個人（身、口、意作為）」影響著「現前外在的環境」；「過去」與「現前外在的環境」也影響著「現前個人（身、口、意作為）」；特別要注意的：「現前個人（身、口、意作為）」與「現前外在的環境」的相互影響，也影響了「現在之前的一切，對於現前的影響表現」。
舉一個例子來說：眼前這罐牛奶，是你昨天買回家。現在這罐牛奶你已經打開了，不能退貨。表示「過去」不能改變、重來或消除了，這就是現實。現在把牛奶倒出來喝，你發現味道不好，但是你已經買了、打開了、不能退貨了，不能消除昨天已買這罐「味道不好的牛奶」的事實，這是「現在」的事實。雖然這罐牛奶不能退，是不是決定：你現在一定要喝這種味道的牛奶呢？有沒有「決定性」呢？事實上沒有「決定性」！我們既然發現味道不好，現在可以做些什麼呢？我們可以動手加點柳橙汁！這可改變什麼呢？可以「影響昨天買回的牛奶的味道」。這個柳橙是從外面買回來的，是外面生產的，是外在環境形成出來的。我們以用柳橙汁（外在環境）影響昨天買來的牛奶的味道，可是柳橙汁不是你作的，而是從外面買回來，是現在的。所以，「現在的你（現前身、口、意作為）」把「現前外在環境的柳橙汁」倒入「過去買的牛奶」中，就可以影響「牛奶在現在的味道」。請問：在現在，你喝的這杯牛奶，味道是什麼呢？它受昨天買的那罐牛奶的影響，受現在外面拿來的柳橙味道的影響，受現在你加柳橙汁多或少的影響，才形成現前這杯「柳橙牛奶的味道」，這個就是現在的業報，這就是「因緣性的業報」，而不是宿命決定的業報。
因此，佛教雖然講Kamma，卻不是印度宿命論的Kamma。宿命論的Kamma，佛教不承認，那是沒有的事！ 釋迦佛陀講的Kamma是因緣性的，是「過去」、「現前的個人（身、口、意作為）」、「現前外在的環境」等影響中的呈現，是「影響」，不是「決定」。從因緣性的觀點來看Kamma，才是佛教可以承認的Kamma，宿命式的Kamma（業），我們不能接受！
現在請問諸位，如果是「過去」、「現前的個人（身、口、意作為）」、「現前外在的環境」，三方面的影響，才形成的現在的狀況。請問現在的狀況是「自生」，還是「緣生」？是緣生！所以稱為「緣生法」。請問「緣生」的現在狀況是固定呢？還是變動？是不定、轉變！這就稱為「無常」。因為是因緣性，因緣性的Kamma（業）則無常（不定）。沒有確定性！
因緣性的現起（緣生法paṭiccasamuppannadhamma），是不是由過去「決定」現在？或是現在的個人「決定」現在？或是現前外在的環境「決定」現在？沒有「決定性」！所以佛說「緣生法（因緣性的現起）」則「非我」，這就稱為「無我」。沒有能夠決定的力量！能決定就像一神教的God！沒有！所以佛教說因緣性的現起（緣生法），則為無常、無我（破除永恆、確定、決定等妄見）。這種因緣性的現起，我們才稱為「因緣所生法」。如果是宿命式的業報，就不是因緣所生法了。諸位明白了嗎？
佛陀講因緣性的現起（緣生法），還有印度宿命式的Kamma 業報，對人們的生活來說，有什麼影響和差別呢？如果是宿命式的業報觀，人們就會覺得：現在所發生的一切的痛苦，都要逆來順受，只能全部的忍耐下來，並且要服從所有現在的一切遭遇，需要obey，既不可以也不能抵抗，因為理所當然的應該要這樣。這種生活的態度，會讓人們面對現實的困境時，缺乏改變的意願及動力，會讓人不自覺的變得非常的消極、頹廢，以致一事無成。誰最喜歡這種宿命論呢？自古以來就是社會上一些用不正當的手段取得利益的人，最喜歡這種宿命論。為什麼呢？這表示採用不當的手段，讓你痛苦而得到利益，卻可以告訴你，這是命中註定的事，你需要接受，不能反抗。聽得懂嗎？這是過去封建時代的帝王、貴族，或社會動盪不安時代的強豪、土霸，最喜歡的信仰，因為善良的民眾被不公義壓在底下，卻一心的相信：「這是我命中註定的」。
宿命論是誰的信仰呢？是奴隸的信仰！因為這種信仰會把正常人變成奴隸。人們受制於宿命論的想法、情感及面對生活的態度，當面對困難、面對種種不公不義的事情時，不僅不會提出異議及反思，還會像奴隸一樣的服從跟接受。更可悲的是，人們在承受「不公不義」及「迫害」時，還會告訴自己：「這是應該的！我不應該抵抗，因為是命中註定。我應該作得更好，才能讓來生更好。」請問這像不像奴隸？因此，當年印度民族在雅利安人統治的種姓制度下，激起反婆羅門教及雅利安至上的奧義書思潮，就是適應了被雅利安種姓所奴役的印度民族。
佛陀告訴我們因緣法，用因緣性的kamma，修正宿命式的kamma，絕不是讓我們做奴隸。 佛陀教導我們的是：現在之前，我們沒有辦法否定或消除（delete），我們不能否定或消除發生於現在以前的事，但是我們可以在現在好好的努力，並且關心社會及環境，透過現前身、口、意的改變，還有現在外在環境的改變，就可以影響我們「無法否定的過去」對現在的影響。所以，我們可以透過個人現在的努力、對外在環境的關心與改變，然後改變現在的遭遇。我們可以向不當的事情（包括現前不當的身、口、意，以及外在不當的環境、不義的對待）說NO！雖然過去做錯的事情，現在可以對自己說：「我可以改變！我可以變得更好！」這是智慧的、勇敢的、前進的、進步的表現！絕不是奴隸。
諸位朋友！你要的是宿命式的業報，或者是因緣性的業報呢？你認為哪一種符合事實？哪一種只是信仰而已？你認為呢？這裡有一個重點，我們深信：過去不能否定，但是可以經由現在個人的努力，以及現在外在環境的改變，來改變過去對現在的影響，讓我們現前的人生及生活的環境，就在現前可以更好。我們深信這件事，這是勇敢的、這是積極的、這是奮進的，並且也是智慧的人生。
反之，如果我們相信宿命的業報，認為一切都是「註定」。那麼，相信的人就會變得很軟弱，碰到困難，或碰到別人用不當的方式對待我們，就會不自覺的退縮，會將自己的懦弱，隱藏在「噢！是前輩子註定」的不當信仰底下，既欺騙自己，也不敢勇敢的面對問題。
諸位朋友！面對現實人生，你們需要正確的、健康的生活智慧，並且更要記得一件事：我們現在的作為必會影響外在的環境，現在的外在環境也必會影響我們現在的處境。所以一個人不要只關心自己，也要關心環境。因為關心環境就能幫助自己。如此，自己會更好，環境也會更好，而過去的影響也能轉向好的一面。這才是一個正常的、健全的現代公民應該有的認識及生活。
諸位朋友！ 釋迦佛陀關心的，不是人們有沒有相信他；佛法要告訴諸位的，也不是讓你成為佛教徒。真正的重點是要讓你在人生當中能夠更好，能更健全的活在人生的道路上。諸位朋友！現在不是「由過去決定」的發生，過去並沒有「決定」現在；現在也沒有「決定」未來，過去只是「影響」現在，只是「影響」而已！現在也只是「影響」未來而已！其他的，還要看現在我們的努力，以及在努力的當中，環境與個人作為的相互影響、變化，所以「緣生法」則無常。
釋迦佛陀教導因緣法，讓我們明白：現在的修行，並不會「決定」：將來會是在什麼時候開悟或解脫；不會有任何人知道、或確定：我們將在什麼時候、什麼地方開悟或解脫，即使是 釋迦佛陀也不會知道。這不是 釋迦佛陀智慧不及，所以不知道未來確定發生的事，而是因為現實是「因緣生」，緣生的現實就是如此，無有人們妄想的確定及決定，所以說無常（不定）。世間是因緣影響的呈現，不可能百分之百的確定「現在之後會發生什麼事」。「百分之百的確定」是不可能的事，最多也只能說「有可能怎麼樣！」但是絕對不可能是「一定會怎麼樣！」這是不可能。 釋迦佛陀就是因為有因緣智慧，所以不會告訴我們：「你將會在什麼時候、什麼地方開悟、解脫、證菩提。」我再說一遍， 釋迦佛陀就是因為具有因緣智慧，所以告訴我們，沒有人會知道你將在什麼時候、什麼地方開悟、解脫、證菩提。沒有人知道這件事情，是因為世間緣生，因為這是事實！
佛教有一個美麗的傳說，說 釋迦佛陀在尚未成佛的過去世，曾經被某一個佛授記，預先告知：在往後的多久多久時間以後，將會在什麼地方成佛，稱為何等名號。這個故事原本是講給相信宿命論的印度人聽，向相信宿命論的印度人講解因緣法，多數聽不懂，也不容易信受，講解宿命式的故事，容易相信。這樣的說法，會讓相信宿命的印度人覺得 釋迦佛陀很偉大，因為他在很久很久以前，就已經被確定會成佛，並且在何時、何處成佛。這是後世佛教的佈教師，為了讓相信宿命論的印度人崇拜 釋迦佛陀，編造出來的故事寓言，只是傳教的技巧而已。這就好像化妝術，在臉上塗粉、畫腮紅，看起來氣色會比較好，穿上高跟鞋看起來會比較高，就好像鄰家小女孩化妝以後，變得像個大明星一樣！只是這樣而已。因為一般人崇拜偉人，相信宿命的印度人，就是崇拜理想型、神化型的聖人，那是古時印度社會的現況。因此，在 釋迦佛陀滅後的百年內，後世佛弟子替 釋迦佛陀編了許多「宿命式的過去生故事」，但這些都不是 釋迦佛陀的親說，只是出自後世佈教師的編造而附於佛說罷了！
我們不需要反對這些美麗的故事，因為即使在現在的時代，世界上還有很多人需要美麗的、理想的聖人，要不然他們不會相信Buddha。在這個世界上，有很多普普通通的人，這是因為這些人的智慧不夠，所以佛教需要一點關於 釋迦佛陀的神話。但是社會上還有許多有智慧的人，為了利益引化有智的人，當然更需要智慧的佛法。現在的重點是：你是需要神化、明星的佛陀呢？或者你重視真正有智慧的佛法呢？這由你判斷及抉擇！在師父的內心是這樣看： 釋迦佛陀的智慧比長相更光明、更莊嚴！
最後借用幾分鐘時間，向大家做一個簡單的介紹： 釋迦佛陀入滅二個月後，佛教舉行第一次的經典結集，歷時三個月，時間是公元前約387 年。「第一次結集」的時候，阿難陀代表大眾集出了「經法」，優波離代表大眾集出了「律戒」。
「第一次結集」以後，佛教的僧團就分成兩大師承的系統：一、以「經法」為重心的阿難系，二、以「律戒」為主的優波離系。阿難系與優波離系的發展，到了佛滅百一十六年之後，因為優波離系的毘舍離僧團提出「五惡見事」，阿難系僧團與優波離系僧團為此而對立、分裂。從此以後，佛教的僧團分裂了。在公元一世紀前後，佛教在印度分裂成為十八派。雖然有十八派，可是還是兩大師承系統：阿難系與優波離系。優波離系又包含兩大部系，一派是大眾部，另一派稱為分別說部，分別說部就是現在的南傳佛教系統。維持正統經法的阿難系僧團，在公元前二世紀末葉分裂、變質，公元後六世紀初破滅、隱沒於世。
阿難系、優波離系分裂以後，兩系的思想、信仰、教法有很大的不同，彼此對立不能和合。尤其是分派以後，佛教流傳的說法變得更亂，彼此各說各話。造成後世的佛弟子，聽了這麼多「對立不能和合」的法，也不知道誰對、誰錯。很多人還認為說的都對，根基如此就學這個，根基那樣就學那個，大家都對！事實上，這些派別教說，彼此都是不合，怎麼會都對呢？
諸位法友內心一定很納悶―師父要向大家介紹的，是依那一派為主呢？不！都不是！我不依那一派為主，我向大家介紹的不是十八派中任何一派的說法。我們不講部派！向大家介紹的是依阿難系及優波離系傳誦的經典中，屬於最古老部份的經法，也即是「第一次結集」集成的經法。師父是將兩邊共傳的最古老的經法，加以對照異、同。在對照當中，發現有一部分是相同的說法，但有一部分是不同的立場。這些不同的部份，是分派以後各自傳出來的傳誦；而相同的部份，多數就是還沒有分派以前共同的說法，少數是後世部派間共融的「部義」。可確定的是，這些還沒有分派以前共同的說法，就是「第一次經典結集」的說法，代表了 釋迦佛陀在世的說法。
現在向大家介紹的禪觀、禪定、經法及菩提道次第，就是「第一次經典結集」的說法，這是各部派的經典都有的、共通的說法。這個古老的說法，會不同於分派以後各部派的主張，是因為分派以後，各派祖師有自己的意見和說法。換句話說，當各派都有不同的意見時，「派」的想法一定跟古老的說法有很大的差別，要不然怎麼會分十八派，派派都不同呢？現在所謂的南傳分別說部佛教（Theravāda，自稱長老部、上座部），或者自稱是大乘（Mahāyāna），其實這些都是「部派」，彼此不同，相互對立。那這些部派自己對不對呢？也不見得是對。我說你錯、你說我錯、我們兩個說他錯、他說我們兩個錯！到底誰對？可能三個都錯了！
所以現在要向大家介紹的是，佛教還沒有分派以前，各派間共同的說法，並且是ORIGINAL 最古老的部份，而最古老的經法，就是代表 釋迦佛陀在世的說法，「部派」的說法我們都不講、不依、不信。向諸位宣說的經法內容，既不完全等同是Theravāda（南傳分別說部佛教），更不是Mahāyāna（大乘），也不是Tibet（西藏）的密乘佛教。不是部派式的佛教！現在講的是ORIGINAL BUDDHISM。我們需要了解、學習的法，是古老的傳誦，也就是 釋迦佛陀在世時的說法。
註：業kamma（巴利）karma（梵語、英文）
What are we going to talk about today? I bet it’s something that will cause you great concern. How have I become what I am now? I’m going to talk about Karma.
The word Karma was originally not a Buddhist term. It dates back between the twelfth and tenth century B.C. in The Upanishads. It was composed seven hundred years before Buddhist scriptures. The concept of karma in The Upanishads refers to determinism, which claims that whatever happens now is predestined by what you have done before.
It’s quite absurd if the present situation is prefixed by whatever was done in the past or in previous lives only. For example, if you came across a beggar on the way out of this class and under a generous impulse, you shell out fifty Malaysian Ringgits, would it be too much? Yes? Maybe it’s because your mind is filled up with dharma teaching from being here and is full of compassion at the moment. Anyway, you give away the fifty dollars and it sure is a very charitable move.
However, from the point of view of determinism, it was something that was destined to happen. It was the right moment and the right person. It was so late yet that particular beggar was still loitering, waiting for you. It was meant to be. That is the idea of determinism or fatalism. If it is so, then it means that he must have helped you before. In other words, you owe him some kind of favor and now it is time to return that favor. If it’s just about returning a favor, it’s your liability. In that case, will it generate any merit if you’re just returning a favor to pay back your debt? Shouldn’t that be a responsibility that you are expected to fulfill? Yes, you ought to pay back. Let me ask you then will there be any merit at all? Of course not. If it’s destined that your time is up, it’s the universal law to pay. Does he need to say thank you for the donation? Probably not. He may even feel entitled to complain that why it took so long to pay him back.
Here is another example: While you’re walking down the street, a man walking in front of you is hit by a car. It may be explained again that the timing, the place, and the persons were all pre-set. There must be some connections between the hitter and victim! The victim might be hurt or even owe the hitter a life in previous lives. Now they’re even. In that case would the hitter be guilty of the crime? It then seems so justified to hit and run.
That’s determinism or fatalism in India, not Buddhism. The hitter is not guilty at all. The determinism or fatalism emphasizes that the present situation is predestined by the past actions only. It could cause great damage when the unknown past is used as the excuse to justify wrongdoing and waive off merits of decent behaviors. All the charitable good deeds might be just an incident to pay off the debt. All the wrongdoings can be forgiven because you never know who has a right to claim a share that he deserves. The law and order of right and wrong is this thus lost. Do you understand? Why do we bother to put any effort at all? If I’m destined to drop dead, let it be. If I’m destined to survive, I’ll live. To put it in a more simple way, if you’re destined to be enlightened, you will be enlightened. If not, why bother to sit here and pay so much attention to this? You don’t need to practice anymore. Therefore, this kind of argument is really a heretic doctrine in India. It’s absurd and denied by the Buddha.
But the Buddha proposed a different kind of concept of karma. If the concept of karma in Buddhism is different, then why do we still use the same term? It’s out of respect towards tradition, but the connotation is completely new. It’s the same as how the term nibbana was already in the Jainism before Buddhism. However in Jainism, nibbana means an existence that will last forever, which was also rejected by the Buddha. It’s the same term with a different meaning in Buddhism. Therefore when we refer to karma or nibbana, we have to keep in mind that these traditional terms have already developed a new connotation in Buddhism. The core of the Buddha’s teaching is correlative conditioning. When it comes to the interpretation of karma and nibbana, it’s based on the concept of correlative conditioning, too.
Now how do you explain karma with this idea of correlative conditioning? Now you must pay attention to what I’m going to say. Correlative conditioning refers to any occurrence that comes to change because of the interrelated influence within its related conditions. Take a look at what’s under your nose. What’s the relation among them? Obviously what is there at the present moment is influenced by what happened before. Notice that it’s influence, but it’s not solely decided by the past. If it’s decided by the past only, then it’s determinism.
Whatever happens now is not only influenced by the past but also goes along with the intentions and behaviors of the body, speech, and mind at the present moment. Again these elements only have certain impacts on the present moment; they cannot control everything. There are other factors: people you deal with, situations that arise with all kinds of shifting conditions surround you. All of these could play an important role in your present moment without your permission.
It’s like three guys who are trying to lift a table. All of them contribute. Each of them may have his own pace and strength, but when they work together, each one is influenced by the other two so that they may keep the table at the same level and stride at the same pace. Do you get it? It’s an interrelationship that continuously makes adjustments of how high they keep the table, how fast they walk, and how much strength they should use. The body, speech, and mind that formed your past actions interrelate with your present body, speech, and mind which go along with the present conditions that are formed by others.
All of these have a mutual influence on one another. Your past and present mental state and behavior would and will change your surroundings. It’s the same the other way around. What I like to point out is that no matter what situation that you’re in right now could also change the way that you developed from the past. Get it?
For instance, let’s say you bought a bottle of milk yesterday. So this bottle of milk is the result of your action from yesterday. However, you open it, have a sip, and don’t like the taste of it. You can’t return it anymore. It’s like how you can’t remove what you’ve done and start all over. All you can deal with are the facts at the present moment. Let’s see: you bought a bottle of milk that you don’t like. It is irritating. It’s a fact that you cannot remove now. It is an irritating influence, but that doesn’t mean you have to drink it. So the past does have certain impact on the present but not crucial enough to dominate the situation. Is the taste of this bottle of milk a determinant factor in your life? No, it’s not. What can we do in a situation like this? We can mix it up with some orange juice. Understand? We can change the situation by pouring in some orange juice. This idea, this move will change the taste of milk that was bought yesterday. It will change the influence from the past. On the other hand, this orange juice, which was made from oranges that were farmed by others, becomes another factor in your life journey. The act of mixing milk with juice is done by you, but the oranges were supported by others. So what’s the taste now? The milk is affected by the juice. What’s the taste of milk now? It’s affected by the milk you bought yesterday, by the taste of orange juice, and also by the amount of juice that you pour in. That’s the taste of this orange milk. This is karma. This is the karma of present correlative conditioning, not the karma of fatalism.
This is the interpretation of karma in Buddhism. It’s different from the karma theory in the Upanishads, which was rejected by the Buddha. Karma in Buddhism lies on the factors from the past, the manifestation of the present moment, and the influence other than oneself. All these three aspects influence each other mutually; none of them is solely in control to determine the fate. This is the karma of correlative conditioning, not the fatalistic karma. We will not accept the fatalistic karma. There is no such karma. Understand?
Now, let me ask you, if the present situation depends upon what happened in the past and upon the state of body and mind at the present moment and upon what’s going on in the general environment, would the present situation always be the same or changing all the time? Yes, it’s changing all the time. That’s why it’s impermanent. Correlative conditions are changing all the time.
Is there a dominant force that forms what’s going on now? Is it something that you’ve done in the past? Is it your intention and behavior at the moment or is it something initialized from others? Can any of these factors decide your fate? No, the answer is none of the above. That’s why there is non-self. If anyone can claim that he’s fully in charge of everything in this world, then we call him God. But none is really in charge of everything. That’s why we say impermanence and non-self. This kind of karma is referred to as correlative conditioning. If it’s the fatalistic karma, which is solely determined by the past, then it has nothing to do with the correlative conditioning.
Now that you understand the difference of these two kinds of interpretation of karma, what has it to do with us? If we believed in the fatalistic karma, then we’d have to accept whatever is happening now. Whether it’s good or bad, we’d just have to take it. We’d obey the rules without any resistance because that’s what we are supposed to do. This kind of attitude will discourage people from changing and pursuing a better situation when they come across any kind of difficulties in life. It will lead to pessimistic futility and end with a bunch of losers. Who are the advocates of this kind of karma theory? People who like to take advantages of others with inappropriate schemes often embrace this kind of theory to justify their evil doings. They behave badly yet expect you to tolerate it because it’s your karma. Do you understand? It’s all about political tricks that the ruling class used to abuse the people in a feudal society. In the old times, ordinary people were trodden yet they accept it without complaint because they believed that it was their karma.
Fatalism is for slavery. Understand? It will turn you into a slave. Your mind and attitude will be brainwashed and put up with any kind of unfair treatments like a slave. Not only that, while taking in all these difficulties, you probably will tell yourself, I should totally surrender and do my best so that I may have a chance to have a better life next time. The point is that when facing an unfair treatment, instead of improving the situation, those karma believers sheepishly indulge the evil doings by acting like a slave.
That’s not what the Buddha taught us. The Buddha’s teaching is that we cannot start over again. However, by putting in more efforts and care for people and our society, we may change the present moment from the residual of the past. We can say “no” to any inappropriate treatments. We can face the mistakes that have been made in the past and try to correct them. That’s a courageous attitude to embrace life. That’s also a wise, sincere and modern positive attitude. That’s definitely not an attitude of a slave.
Ladies and gentlemen, which one would you choose? A Fatalistic karma or a karma based on correlative conditioning? Which one do you think is closer to the truth? Which one is the doctrine to believe? What do you think? Here is the point: We do believe that bygones can never be changed. However it’s never too late to do something now to change the momentum of the past behaviors. Does this make sense to you? We can never change the past but we can change what’s left over from the past and make it a better present. This is what we believe. It’s a much more positive, wise, brave, and diligent way of living.
If we Buddhists mix the meaning of karma with a fatalistic view, we are doomed to be weak whenever there is difficulty. Or whenever we get unfair treatment, we’ll tend to cover our cowardice with karma as a convenient excuse, pretending that everything is fine by cheating ourselves.
My younger friends, you really need wisdom to lead you on a positive road in life journey. You have to keep in mind that whatever you do will change the environment that you live in and, just as well, that your environment has a great impact on you too. You need the wisdom to see through this. A man cannot survive without any connection toward the environment he lives in. So don’t just think about yourself, pay more attention to your environment too. When you become a better person, your environment should also improve. That’s a normal and healthy attitude and way of living. A civilized human being is expected to know this.
My dharma friends, what the Buddha was concerned about was not that he should have a group of earnest followers to believe what he said. The purpose of dharma teaching is not to attract more Buddhists to propagate the religion. What the Buddha was concerned about was to make a better person, a wiser person who goes through life journey in a more wholesome way. My friends, right now, this moment is not decided by the past. What’s happening now cannot decide your future either. There is only influence. Other than that, it’s still up to how much effort you put in and the interrelationship among the people and environment that you deal with. That’s why it’s impermanent.
What we practice now does not guarantee that we will be enlightened and liberated at a certain point in the future. No, it doesn’t work that way. No one can be sure that at certain time and place, Tom will get enlightened or Harry will be liberated. Even the Buddha himself would not predict this. It’s not that the Buddha does not have the wisdom to see this. It’s just how life is. Everything is changing constantly based on correlative conditions. Nothing is permanent. Therefore, it’s impossible to foretell a hundred percent of anything. What we can say at most is to put the possibility on a scale and make a reasonable inference. But no one can be really sure until it happens. It’s just impossible to know. That’s why the Buddha never told anyone that he or she would be enlightened at certain time or place. He had the wisdom not to make such a prediction. Let me repeat this. It is because of his wisdom that the Buddha would never make such a prophecy. He would only tell you that it’s hard to say. That is a fact.
There is a very beautiful legend in Buddhism. It is said that before Shakyamuni Buddha became the awakened one, he was predicted as the future Buddha by another Buddha. The time and place was specified too. It’s a very romantic and beautiful story. But the story was told to those who believed in determinism or fatalism in India. They could not understand correlative conditioning. It was much easier for them to take in fatalism. That prediction certainly made the Buddha a sublime figure in the eyes of these fatalists. The Buddha was destined to be the great one. However, that kind of propagation was only a skillful mean to spread the religion. That’s all. It’s just like the make-up that you put on your face. The powder, the blush, and the lipstick all add up to the healthy glowing look. If you put on high heels, you’ll certainly look taller and slimmer. That’s all. It’s like the girl next door turning into a big movie star after a makeover. It’s really no big deal. But people adore movie stars. The fatalists in the ancient India worshiped these god-like omnipotent holy figures. That was Buddhism at the time. That’s why some of the followers started to making up anecdotes about the Buddha after the Parinibbana. These stories were not told by the Buddha himself at all. We are not against these romantic stories. It cannot be denied that even now in this world there are people who do have a need to rely on these holy figures. They won’t believe in the Buddha unless the Buddha was a God-like holy man. It’s sad that their wisdom could not be further enhanced to appreciate the truth, the true treasure of the sage. A man of wisdom will not care about the appearance of the Buddha. It’s the standard of a movie star fan.
There are a few wise men and a lot more ordinary people in this world. That’s why we do need some beautiful stories, yet we need more dharma teachings of wisdom for the wise men too. Now the point is, do you need a Buddha who looks like a movie star? Or do you need his true wisdom? It’s all up to you. In my mind I would say the Buddha’s wisdom is more refined than those descriptions of his features. It’s much more bright and ornamented, much more brilliant and glorious.
At last, I’d like to spend a couple of minutes to brief a short history of Buddhism. Three months after the Buddha’s Parinibbana, the First Buddhist Council was held. It was 387 years B.C., the same year that the Buddha passed away. During the First Buddhist Council, it was Rev. Ananda who recited all the teachings that Buddha had given. Rev. Upali was the one who collected all the Vinaya (discipline codes).
After the First Buddhist Council, Buddhism was split into two schools or teaching traditions. The lineage of Rev. Ananda mainly focused on the teaching while the lineage of Rev. Upali strictly observes the Vinaya codes. One hundred and sixteen years after the Buddha’s Parinibbana, these two schools no longer see eye to eye. After that, the Sangha community kept spinning off and developed into eighteen sects by the first century B.C. Still we can divide them up as two lineages: lineage of Rev. Ananada and lineage of Rev. Upali. Within the lineage of Rev. Upali, there are two divisions, the Mahāsānghika School and the Vibhajjavāda School, which is the Theravada Buddhism at the current time.
There is a lot of difference between their doctrines and teachings, and they just couldn’t find a common ground to be unified. The schism of all of these schools really left the Buddhists of later generations in great perplexity. Who is teaching the right path? Or maybe everyone is right, and we just need to find the one that fits our level of understanding? Yet how could it be that everyone is right, when most of their theories contradict one another? Obviously this is just an excuse to cover up all the differences since the great schism took place around 271 years B.C. That was the time when the Buddha had already passed away for about one hundred years.
Then which lineage are our teachings based on? It’s none of these schools. What I introduce here is based on the oldest sutras passed on by both lineages of Rev. Ananda and Rev. Upali. I have made a careful comparison between the classics of these two lineages and found the common teachings from both sides. There are differences that were added on by each school which we don’t really need to learn. The common ground is the part that was collected in the First Buddhist Council, which means they are the authentic teachings from the Buddha.
Therefore, the teachings on meditation or dharma that we’ve discussed here are purely from the original teachings before the great schism, and they were preserved almost in all schools. Many of these teachings are different from the doctrines composed by adepts or patriarchs of later generations. All of these patriarchs have their own ideas of practice, which is different from one another and contradicts the original teachings of the Buddha most of the time too. Otherwise how could there be eighteen different schools? The current terms of Mahayana or Theravada are actually just different sects in Buddhism. Can anyone of them claim to be the right one? It’s really hard to say. Every school has its own ideas of practice and they all claim that they are on the right path. It’s unavoidable to deny or even criticize other schools when there is a difference. The truth is: none of these schools is completely right.
That’s why what I like to introduce the original teachings from before the schism. It’s something that is recognized by every school. It’s the oldest teaching passed down from the Buddha. We are not going to discuss doctrines from any specific school, so that you may hear the dharma in its original sense. It’s neither Mahayana nor Tibetan Buddhism. It’s not Theravada either. There is difference between the original Buddhism and the Theravada tradition too. There are lots of mix-ups and add-ons in the Theravada tradition. Those are the points that we like to leave behind. We’ll only pick up the oldest and the most original one. This you’ll have to keep in mind. That will be all for today.