takes in Buddhism is the doctrine of rebirth, which plays the same role that
heaven does in theistic traditions as ultimate guarantor of justice. As it is
traditionally conceived in Asia, karma requires the metaphysical doctrine of
rebirth to support its often counter-experiential claims about the ultimate
triumph of cosmic justice for the individual.
The second question about the doctrine of karma follows from the first,
and is, in fact, the primary critique that has been leveled against the idea
since it has been introduced to the West. This is that the idea of karma may
be socially and politically disempowering in its cultural effect, that without
intending to do this, karma may in fact support social passivity or acquiescence
in the face of oppression of various kinds. This possible negative effect
derives again from the link formed between karma and rebirth in order to
posit large-scale cosmic justice over long and invisible stretches of time where
other more immediate forms of justice appear not to exist. If one assumes
that cosmic justice prevails over numerous lifetimes, and that therefore the
situations of inequality that people find themselves in are essentially of their
own making through moral effort or lack of it in previous lives, then it may
not seem either necessary or even fair to attempt to equalize opportunities
among people or to help those in desperate circumstances. For example, if
you believe that a child being severely abused by his family is now receiving
just reward for his past sins, you may find insufficient reason to intervene
even when that abuse appears to be destructive to the individual child and
to the society.
Now, of course, it is an open question, an historical and social-psychological
question, whether or to what extent the doctrines of karma and rebirth
have ever really had this effect. We know very well that Buddhist concepts
of compassion have prominent places in the various traditions, and we can
all point to Buddhist examples of compassionate social effort on behalf of the
poor and the needy. Nevertheless, we can see where the logic of this belief
easily leads, in the minds of some people at least, and we can suspect that
it may have unjustifiably diminished or undermined concern for the poor
and the suffering in all Buddhist cultures. The link between karma and
rebirth can reasonably be taken to justify nonaction in the socio-economic
and political spheres, and may help provide rational support for acquiescence
to oppressive neighbors, laws, and regimes. If and when this does occur,
then the Buddhist teaching of nonviolence can be distorted into a teaching
of nonaction and passivity, and be subject to criticism as a failure of courage
and justice.
If the truth is that the cosmos is simply indifferent to human questions
of merit and justice, that truth makes it all the more important that human