Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism

Question

In Hinduism, there are many philosophies developed regarding the concept of God and afterlife, and they all give their own interpretations. Regarding the Karmic approach, the main book that gives insight about that is the Bhagwad Gita.

• The main concept that arises from it is that no man can exist without doing any karma (Knowingly or Unknowingly) and hence krishna says that "any Karma without attachment is the right way to not get bounded by your karmic effects".
• Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether.

As a man can`t live without doing karma, and this will result in karmic debt, isn't the salvation of a person (Nirvana) infeasible by this approach? Are Buddhism and Bhagwad Gita on different pages, regarding the concept of karma?

Answer 1

In Buddhism, it is taught Kiriya Citta. That is action not create kamma.

========

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html

Answer 2

Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment.

In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts & rituals; & (iv) self-views. The view that 'war is duty' is attachment.

In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "jati". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (upadana) is the condition (paccaya) for becoming (bhava), which is the condition for birth (jati).

The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste & no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war & killing commanded by Krishna.

In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being.

The killing Krisha recommended & Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated & immediately not a monk.

This is the difference between Buddhism & Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill.

Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

Nibbedhika Sutta

Answer 3

From Bhagavad Gita 3.7-9:

But those karma yogis who control their knowledge senses with the mind, O Arjuna, and engage the working senses in working without attachment, are certainly superior. You should thus perform your prescribed Vedic duties, since action is superior to inaction. By ceasing activity, even your bodily maintenance will not be possible. Work must be done as a yajña (sacrifice) to the Supreme Lord; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties, without being attached to the results, for the satisfaction of God.

The OP's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita teachings is correct.

However, the following sounds more like the teachings of Jainism rather than Buddhism:

OP: Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether.

On the Devadaha Sutta (where the Buddha speaks to some followers of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism), the translator Ven. Thanissaro comments:

If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the suffering while not creating any new kamma leading to future suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well. Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old kamma can be burned away.

In this sutta, however, the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea. First he notes that none of the Niganthas (Jains) have ever come to the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way ...

Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now. As the Buddha points out in MN 106, equanimity plays an important role in this practice, but it can also become an object for passion and delight, which would then stand in the way of true release. Thus he notes here that, in some cases, dispassion can arise simply from on-looking equanimity directed at the causes of stress. In other cases, it can come only through exertion: the mental effort — through the fabrications of directed thought, evaluation, and perception — to develop the discernment needed to see through and abandon any and all passion.

The way to end suffering according to the Buddha is to end cravings through the Noble Eightfold Path. The way to end suffering is not through the avoiding of creating new karma.

The method stated in BG 3.7-9 is one of equanimity (performing duty without attachment to the results of actions), but it may not work according to the Aneñja-sappaya Sutta (MN 106):

When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"

"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'

"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another might not?"

"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is not totally unbound."

"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"

"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."

"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance."

"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance; for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

Also, self-defense is not wrong according to the Buddha in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta:

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

However, despite self-defense, one should not carry unskillful thoughts like hatred and anger (from the Kakacupama Sutta):

"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There, Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.

Also, in Buddhism, there is no Supreme Creator God and there is no eternal absolute soul.

Answer 4

I want to give a general answer. Hopefully you like it. I would say by deviating from the natural order or godly order, you create karma. That is, you went further away from god or bhagwan or whomsoever and your personality gets based on it. This is why you have to set your intent on "Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration" like @SarathW wrote. Because otherwise, when a similar situation arises you are unlikely to reverse it and learn from it and also, so to say, undoing your past mistake.