Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Buddhism, at its core, revolves around the understanding of reality as impermanent (anicca) and devoid of a permanent self (anatta). The doctrine of momentariness, a radical expression of anicca, posits that all phenomena arise and cease instantaneously, existing only for a single moment. Simultaneously, the law of Karma dictates that intentional actions create consequences, shaping future experiences. These two doctrines, seemingly disparate, form the bedrock of Buddhist ethics and cosmology. The question of their compatibility has been a subject of debate within and outside Buddhist philosophical circles, with critics questioning how accountability can exist in a world of fleeting phenomena. This answer will explore this compatibility, outlining Buddhist responses to common objections.
Understanding Momentariness (Anicca) and Karma
Momentariness (Anicca): This doctrine asserts that all conditioned phenomena – physical and mental – are subject to arising and passing away in every instant. It’s not merely change over time, but a continuous flux where nothing endures even for two consecutive moments. This is often explained through the concept of ‘vithi’ – a thought-moment, which is the smallest unit of consciousness. Each vithi arises and ceases, replaced by another. Different schools of Buddhism (Theravada, Sarvastivada, Yogacara) interpret momentariness with varying degrees of emphasis.
Karma: Karma, literally ‘action’, is the principle of cause and effect. Intentional actions (volition or cetana) create karmic seeds (samskaras) that ripen into future experiences. It’s not fatalistic determinism, but a complex system where present actions influence future possibilities. Karma operates across lifetimes (rebirth) and is governed by ethical principles – wholesome actions lead to pleasant results, unwholesome actions to unpleasant ones. The emphasis is on moral responsibility and the power of intentionality.
Compatibility of Momentariness and Karma
The apparent incompatibility arises from the question: if everything is constantly changing, how can actions have lasting consequences? Buddhists address this through several key arguments:
- Causal Continuity: While individual moments are impermanent, there is a causal continuity between them. Each moment arises *dependent* on the preceding moment, creating a chain of cause and effect. Karma isn’t a substance that travels through time, but a causal process.
- Stream of Consciousness (Vijnana-santara): The concept of a ‘stream of consciousness’ explains how karmic imprints are carried forward despite the impermanence of individual moments. This stream isn’t a permanent self, but a continuous flow of mental events influenced by past actions.
- Karmic Force as a Natural Law: Karma is not seen as a divine judgment or external force, but as a natural law operating within the universe, similar to gravity. Just as a ball thrown upwards will inevitably fall, actions will inevitably produce consequences.
- The Role of Intention: The emphasis on intention (cetana) is crucial. It’s the intentionality behind the action, not the action itself, that generates karmic consequences. This intention leaves an imprint on the stream of consciousness, influencing future moments.
Objections and Buddhist Responses
Opponents, particularly those holding substantialist views (believing in a permanent self or substance), raise several objections:
| Objection | Buddhist Response |
|---|---|
| If there’s no enduring self, who experiences the consequences of Karma? | Buddhists argue that the experience of consequences isn’t tied to a permanent self, but to the continuity of the stream of consciousness. It’s a process, not a person, that experiences. |
| How can past actions affect the present if the past no longer exists due to momentariness? | The past doesn’t ‘exist’ as a static entity, but its effects are present as causal conditions influencing the present moment. The karmic imprint is a causal potentiality, not a material substance. |
| If everything is constantly changing, how can there be moral responsibility? | Moral responsibility arises from the capacity for intentional action. Even in a world of impermanence, individuals can choose to act with wholesome or unwholesome intentions, and are therefore accountable for their choices. |
The Yogacara school, in particular, offers a sophisticated response through the concept of ‘store consciousness’ (alayavijnana), which acts as a repository for karmic seeds. While the alayavijnana itself is impermanent, it provides a mechanism for the transmission of karmic effects across moments.
Different Schools and Interpretations
It’s important to note that different Buddhist schools interpret the relationship between momentariness and Karma differently. The Sarvastivada school, for example, believed in the ‘reality of all moments’ (sarva-astitva), attempting to reconcile momentariness with a degree of permanence. The Theravada school emphasizes the direct experience of impermanence as a path to liberation, while the Mahayana schools, like Yogacara and Madhyamaka, offer more nuanced philosophical frameworks for understanding the interplay of causality and impermanence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the doctrines of momentariness and Karma initially appear contradictory, Buddhist philosophy provides a coherent framework for understanding their compatibility. By emphasizing causal continuity, the stream of consciousness, and the role of intention, Buddhists demonstrate that accountability and moral responsibility can exist even in a world of constant flux. The various responses to objections highlight the sophisticated philosophical reasoning employed by Buddhist thinkers to address fundamental questions about existence, causality, and ethics. The differing interpretations across schools demonstrate the richness and complexity of Buddhist thought.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.