It ain’t all karma
Everything that happens is a result of karma. Well, no, actually.
One of the greatest misunderstandings of what the Buddhas taught is the idea that “everything that happens is a result of karma.” You’ll see many Buddhist teachers saying this, especially those teachers from the Tibetan traditions where this actually seems to be the accepted teaching on karma.
Karma, first of all, is just the Sanskrit word for “action” but it refers specifically to moral action. Vipaka is the word for the result of actions, which manifests as either happiness or unhappiness. The karmic status of an act depends on the underlying emotional/cognitive motivation, so that if we act on the basis of unskillful mental states such as greed, hatred, or delusion, we will experience suffering, while if we act on the basis of skillful mental states such as love, compassion, and mindfulness we’ll experience happiness. This is an example of “conditionality,” where certain causes will lead to certain results in a predictable way. It’s conditionality as it operates on the moral level.
But there are other forms of conditionality. The later Pali tradition enumerates five “niyamas”:
- The physical inorganic
- The biological
- The psychological
- The karmic
- The dharmic/transcendental
I’m not going to explain these fully because I don’t need to in order to make my point: many of the things that happen to us are a result of the other, non-karmic levels of conditionality. If a bolt on your bicycle shears and you are injured by falling on the road, that’s got little or nothing to do with karma. (Sure, if you’re the kind of person who rides recklessly or doesn’t maintain your bike then those are karmic factors, but I’m assuming these don’t apply in this particular hypothetical situation). What’s happened is that on the level of physical/inorganic matter, a piece of metal broke as a result of the physical stresses placed upon it. No karma required.
Where the karmic level of conditionality comes into play is with how you respond to that situation. If you’ve trained your mind to be mindful and equanimous, you won’t be too upset when you take the tumble. If on the other hand you’ve trained yourself (through unmindfulness) to be angry, depressed, resentful, etc, then you’ll be plunged into mental suffering as you cast around for someone to blame, see this as a sign that the universe is out to get you, start figuring out who to sue, etc.
There are many problems with the idea that everything that happens is a result of karma. One is the absence of any causal mechanisms that would, for example, bring hundreds of people into the same plane at the same time if it was their “karma” that caused them to be in a plane crash — not to mention the absence of any causal mechanism that links their moral actions to, say, an engine catching fire. Buddhists who believe such things are positing mysterious and mystical forces at work in the world which, frankly, just aren’t there. They are, I think, uncomfortable living in a world in which random crap happens. But a universe in which random crap happens is the very kind of universe we live in. Bad things happen to good people. Good things happen to bad people. We need to get used to that and not create a delusion that “everything happens for a reason. It’s uncomfortable, perhaps, to accept that we live in such a universe, but the Buddha’s teaching on karma was outlined because he thought (or saw) that it was true and helpful, not in order to comfort us.
Another problem with the idea that everything that happens is a result of karma is that we inevitably end up blaming the victim. You’re a Jew who gets gassed in the Holocaust? Sorry, it’s your fault. You must have done something bad in a past life. This inevitably entails a certain loss of compassion, although not perhaps a complete loss because we can certainly observe people doing things that cause them pain and experience compassion for them. But any level of blaming people for things they have no control over involves the non-compassionate application of judgments.
Although the teaching of the five niyamas is a later elaboration, the Buddha was quite clear that not everything that happens is a result of karma. So don’t take my word for it, here’s the Buddha himself:
Once the Blessed One dwelt at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel’s Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said:
“There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmins who have this doctrine and view: ‘Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.’ Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?”
“Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm…of wind…of (the three) combined…by change of climate…by adverse behavior…by injuries…by the results of Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true.
“Now when these ascetics and brahmins have such a doctrine and view that ‘whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,’ then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmins.”
When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: “It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!…May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts.”
Samyutta Nikaya XXXVI.21, Moliyasivaka Sutta, translated by Nyanaponika Thera
Now some Buddhists will take great exception to my contradicting their favorite Rinpoche or Lama in this way. Some get very annoyed and I’ve been called all sorts of names in the past for pointing out what the Buddha actually taught. But I think this annoyance (some) people feel is perhaps natural — when you put your faith in non-rational and unverifiable explanations for how things work in this universe, your defense of those beliefs is also likely to be non-rational. And so I’m sure someone is going to point out that I’m just not spiritual enough to appreciate that everything that happens to us is the result of our karma. Or worse.
I’d suggest that it’s always useful to check back to the closest we can come to what the Buddha taught, which is the Pali scriptures. I don’t want to imply that we need accept everything in the Pali scriptures absolutely literally, and we certainly don’t know that everything they claim the Buddha to have said was actually uttered by him, but we have to have a really good reason for deciding that something in the earliest teachings is a mistake — and the fact that some Buddhists in a later tradition have different ideas is not, in my view, a sufficient reason, especially when that view is fraught with as many difficulties as is the idea that “everything that happens is a result of karma.”
17 Responses to “It ain’t all karma”
About this entry
You’re currently reading “It ain’t all karma,” an entry on Bodhipaksa's blog, bodhi tree swaying
Published: Apr 24 2009
“And they lived arguing, quarreling, and disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth, saying,’The Dhamma is like this, it’s not like that. The Dhamma’s not like that, it’s like this.’” – Ud 6.4, Tittha Sutta, translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu
Virtually every sutta in the Pali canon involves the Buddha saying, in effect, “The Dhamma’s not like that, it’s like this.” I presume what you’re pointing out is that the important thing to to discuss doctrinal differences in a friendly way and not resort to “arguing, quarreling, and disputing, wounding one another with weapons of the mouth.”
As I reflect on my own practice there are somethings that just don’t seem to fit in. Then some one asks about them. They say “Yes but what about…” and I try and put my personal, modern, imperfect Dharmic interpretation on what they mention. The classic is reincarnation which has to be explained as rebirth which links to impermanence and time and the nature of self. Another is karma and I don’t have a good explanation for this other than the broad “you reap what you sew” which links to the moral obligation to cultivate the Dharma within oneself. The truth is I feel a little miffed at having to explain things that don’t seem relevant to my spiritual experience yet people seem equally miffed if I say that what they mention is just irrelevant – never a good way to start a positive dialogue. What about ghosts and ESP and chakras and aliens and… They all seem irrelevant to the little understanding I have gained through my practice. I find I just go blank.
I sometimes wonder if the Buddha would also have felt miffed (in a very compassionate way probably more amused) with all these people coming up to him with ideas from the predominant religions and philosophies of the time and saying “What about …”. He would probably have taken each one as an opportunity to expound the Dharma but that doesn’t make the thing the questioner brought up actually part of the Dharma! My hunch is that this is the case with karma. It had to be accounted for because it was part of the prevalent thought patterns of the time but in the west today trying to account for it just muddies the waters.
I often have the same kinds of thoughts about rebirth and the afterlife generally. Sometimes the Buddha talked as if we were either going to heaven or hell after this life, and sometimes he talked in terms of rebirth into this world. And maybe this was because he was talking to people (perhaps in different areas) who had different religious beliefs and he was just using the models that those people related to. It might be interesting to correlate place-names with different models the Buddha used.
But I don’t have that sense with karma, which I see as integral to the Buddha’s teaching. Saramati (Prof. Alan Sponberg) points out that the three main terms that you find in all the major religions at the time of the Buddha were samsara, moksha, and karma, which denote suffering, freedom from suffering, and how to get from one to the other. Karma of course just means “action” but in this case it’s specifically action that helps or hinders the project of moving from a life where we’re largely motivated by grasping to a life free from grasping.
I see the mechanism for karma being that we end up choosing particular kinds of experiences, either purely internally (when we fantasize, for example, about something we can’t have we make ourselves unhappy) or in terms of how other people will respond to us (e.g. we’re unpleasant to others and this creates loneliness). I don’t see any need to involve mysterious forces at work.
The Buddha’s said to have given teachings on karma that I don’t and can’t take at face value — for example that if someone is ugly it’s because of unskillful deeds in a past life. Maybe these we popular teachings that were later incorporated into the canon because they were “part of the prevalent thought patterns of the time,” or maybe he did sometimes give extremely basic teachings that were designed for particularly unsophisticated people — and again these might be examples of him using popular religious idioms.
But I think the core teaching of karma is actually very relevant to our day-t-day living. It’s basically that we have ethical choices and the choices we make matter, even when the choices are very subtle and purely internal.
Hey Bodi, finally found your, or one it seems, sites. I have to say, great article but, I see all things as karmic like. I see it as the residual of thought influences action, and the residual is derived from past action. I’m noticing a lot of people, including my past actions, are largely subconscious habits. even when we make a conscious decision it is based in the genre of past thought/actions, ever of it is in the “opposite direction”. Keep up the great work though, diversity is the beauty of life.
Hi Dana,
Well there are a gazillion interpretations of karma around, and everyone’s welcome to speculate, but what I was writing about it what was the Buddha‘s take on karma, as opposed to what some Buddhists say karma is.
But the quote you give from the Buddha doesn’t actually say there IS karma he says that bad things happen naturally and that the brahmins are wrong to assume that everything is caused by ones actions. “they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world”.
To have karma (in the sense of willed action rather than involuntary action) one needs a separate self to will the action upon something that isn’t the self (even the example you give of imagining something makes you separate from your thoughts). One has to set up all these constructs to start talking about karma. I assume an enlightened person doesn’t really take this view of the world. They act with pure compassion.
I am by no means denying that in the mundane world we have moral choices to make and that they have consequences and that this provides wonderful opportunities for spiritual growth. Actions create the world we can or can not awaken in.
I just think karma is a ‘loaded term’ that doesn’t help too much.
You’re correct in saying that the Buddha didn’t, in that particular quotation, assert that there was such a thing as karma. But he did so in many other places, according to the Pali canon. For example, one of the “five reflections” is, “I am the owner of my kamma, heir to my kamma, born of my kamma, related through my kamma, and have my kamma as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.” That’s just one example, but there are many others.
I don’t think we need to have a “separate self” in order to will actions. Within the boundaryless and ever-changing complex system that we call a self there is the possibility for “self-monitoring” and “self re-alignment” (and I put those terms in quotes because they’ve not to be taken as positing a separate self. Quite how this all happens is something I’d say “isn’t relevant.” The thing is to make use of the possibility of change in order to lessen the suffering we experience (and cause others).
Eventually we’re supposed to be able to get to a point where we end karma, but I I find that idea rather confusing. Everything to do with the goal in Buddhism seems confusing!
The term “karma” is certainly “loaded” — I just pointed out in response to another comment that everyone seems to have their own understanding of karma — but the thing is that the Buddha used the term, and I think it’s important to try to understand what he meant by it so that we can “un-load” it, at least in our own minds. I don’t think we can totally do this because the scriptures seem contradictory, but I think we can at least rule out some of the more egregious misunderstandings, which is what I was trying to do in this post.
Is too. (re: “It ain’t all karma”)
Except for dhamma-niyama, all niyamas lie within the kamma-niyama (read that out loud and you’ll think you’ve entered a Dr. Seuss book). Though I have found lists of the niyamas where citta is listed last…
The ‘levels’ or sets of lawfulness, are, I propose, nested much as psychological and biological laws are nested within physical laws in Western thought.
To give a quantum mechanical explanation of my headache would be nutty (as explaining it with Karma seem to be), but it’s still the case that the headache is a result of physical laws.
Random crap doesn’t happen.
If you choose to wander around a bird sanctuary for long enough, you’ll get crapped on. It’s your karma (choice). Perhaps you were *ignorant* of what might happen, it was still your choice. In Buddhism, If you wander into a human rebirth and fall off your (poorly maintained) bicycle, you discover dukkha. It’s your karma. It might look random, depending on the level of your ignorance, but it’s not.
If we get caught up in blame or just WHO’s karma that really is, we’re missing the point of no-self and dependent-coarising. While karma is the ‘vertical’ dimension, these factors bring in the ‘horizontal’ dimension of Buddhist practice: previous karmic seeds can only come to fruition in appropriate settings. All things and events arise based on causes (karma) and conditions.
It’s all very complex, complex beyond what I myself know
. And it’s made more complex by the lack of substantial ‘selves’ generating and carrying around all the karma out there. But it definitely ain’t random.
That’s an interesting theory, Justin, but it doesn’t seem to fit with the quotation from the Moliyasivaka Sutta, where the Buddha is making the point that we have experiences that arise outside of our individual actions. The example he gave is of a painful feeling arising from the bija-niyama, or from biochemical upsets.
Certainly you can undertake actions, as in your example of deliberately putting yourself below pooping birds, that will increase your chances of certain results happening. But merely being outdoors is enough to create a chance that a poop will land on your head, and while going outdoors may be a choice, it’s not a karmic choice because karmic choices are those that involve ethical actions. The ethical status of your decision to go outdoors isn’t conceivably going to affect your chances of being a “poopee” (neologism of the day!) and a Buddha is as likely to have his head popped upon as a moral reprobate is, all other things (amount of time spent outside, proximity to birds, etc) being equal. The kind of situation you describe is just not what the Buddha seemed to have in mind when he was talking about karma, a least in his more technical utterances. The more popular teachings, which I don’t think we should take so seriously, might allow for that sort of thing. (I know, I’m picking and choosing, but that’s what you have to do to make sense of some of the Buddha’s teachings).
I’d be interested to see any scriptural references that support the notion that all the other niyamas are contained within the karma-niyama. I’d have suggested that the nesting is the other way around. There are whole planets where there is no life, let alone consciousness, and in those places only the utu-niyama applies. There are almost certainly only a small percentage of planets that host life, and within that subset there is presumably a tinier sub-subset that contains self-conscious life that is capable of functioning within the karma-niyama. With the dhamma-niyama it depends on how you interpret what that actually is.
Just to be clear, incidentally, by random I didn’t mean “causeless” — just that some events happen to us by accident, without reference to our mental states. How we respond to those events is karmic, however.
Thanks for the response, Bodhipaksa. As always I’m groping for understanding and hopefully not making too much of a pest of myself.
In any case, this kind of threw me off: “… it’s not a karmic choice because karmic choices are those that involve ethical actions.” I’ve learned to see roughly all choices as karmic, insofar as they are not obscured by delusion (which itself is traceable to karma).
Cetan?ha? bhikkhave kamma? vad?mi… A?guttara Nik?ya III, 415.
Borrowing from a recent Peter Harvey paper (p.19 2007, JBE) we find a canonical text agreeing with you that the Buddha might be equally likely to be a “poopee.” But, according to this text, Apad?na ( Ud.A. 263-266), this would be due to “remnants (pilotik?ni)” of the his past bad karma. These remnants, which remained until Paranirvana, included: physical difficulties: a bad headache; a backache; diarrhea; attacks from Devadatta, etc.
If the text says that the Buddha’s diarrhea and hurt foot (from Devadatta) are based on residual karma, then I find it okay to say my bike accident is at least similarly related to my karma. But then this too is a bit of picking and choosing of texts and we could probably cite one after another suggesting opposite conclusions about the extent of karma.
For me, the (nearly) all-encompassing theory of karma remains appealing though. Perhaps I just *want* a more lawful universe and find it in certain early Buddhist texts. This isn’t to argue for fatalism or determinism, both of which the Buddha rejected. But rather it is to say that all good comes to us from our skillful mental-actions and harm from our unskillful acts (cf. Dhammapada 1-2).
In the simplest of terms, a human rebirth itself only occurs due to some unskillful mind-states, right? It is our birth that puts us in touch with the other levels of lawfulness, utu, bija, and citta. So it makes sense that all of the human suffering we experience is related to the mind/karma that got us here in the first place.
Enough of my rambling for now
I need to get out for a run!
Everything does happen for a reason. It’s called interdependent co-arising. There is nothing ‘random’ about it.
There are actually very few things in the world that are truly random. There are events where we cannot determine the result because the process is so complex or cosmic or atomic that we cannot comprehend the principles at work, but that does not mean it is random.
And a full comprehension and acceptance of karma would stop us from blaming people and ourselves. The next step being compassion, entrance into the dharma.
Hi Ned,
The word random doesn’t mean “happening without cause” but “happening without reference to a pattern, purpose, or objective.” Everything arises in dependence upon conditions, but many things happen randomly, from your happening to bump into a friend because you happen (randomly) to have chosen journeys that intersect, to cosmic rays smashing our DNA and causing cancer. These things don’t happen according to some kind of cosmic plan, but happen randomly.
The Buddha’s understanding of pratitya-samutpada was apparently that the ethical actions that our minds put into effect will lead either to our happiness or suffering depending on the degree to which our motivations are skillful or unskillful, but that this karmic level of conditionality was not the only kind of conditionality. Much that happens to us is random, although how we respond to those events is both conditioned by our past karma and an opportunity for us to change our karma.
It may, for example, be random chance that I happen to catch swine flu from a passing stranger. Whether I bear with the symptoms with patience or with depression and anxiety are the results of my past karmic habits. The disease is also an opportunity for me to practice patience, kindness, etc.
This isn’t to say that the different kinds of conditionality (the utu, bija, citta, and karma niyamas, to go only thus far) are independent from each other. Having a positive emotional state (developed karmically) can have the effect of bolstering my immune system (which operates mainly on the level of the bija-niyama) although even the most emotionally positive person, I am sure, is still going to get sick because the body is also affected by other niyamas.
I think it’s narcissistic to assume that everything that happens to us is the result of our actions (“It’s all about ME!”) I also think it’s too easy to trot out the idea of compassion to balance out the idea that people are responsible for everything that happens to them. There’s inevitably something uncompassionate about assuming that people are responsible for things that are actually outside their control. These things are also plain delusion, and Buddhism’s about moving away from delusion, not embracing it in the form of what we could call “cosmic conspiracy theories.” [edit: I just remembered I came across this fine post the other day. It's relevant.]
Things may not happen according to a cosmic plan, but they do happen according to some cosmic order. That order is karmic. In other words, the whole thing is deterministic, there is no room for free will at all. When a person can fully accept this, they are liberated from it.
Free will can either be established by the existence of a non-determined agent (like a soul) or by arguing that there is randomness (i.e. probability) in the universe that allows some “elbow room” for choice.
You deny the first argument, as did the Buddha; the self is not the source agent of change. But you uphold the second argument. If there is randomness in the universe, then there is phenomena that works without meaning or principle. There doesn’t have to be an end result or objective for something to have purpose. The universe works in a closed loop.
An event, such as catching the pig flu or meeting a friend, is not an example of randomness. You can determine a causal chain of events that exist entirely in arising, sustaining and falling. It is still a closed loop, however many derivatives it may have. Furthermore, an event is an arbitrary point of phenomena that doesn’t exist outside of our conceptions about it.
The word “niyama” means “restraint”. In light of that, it makes sense why the Buddha would say that some results are not the product of actions; some results are the product of not acting. That doesn’t contradict the doctrine of karma. Restraining from action is an action itself.
Where the Buddha differs from other viewpoints on karma is that karma to him is not a linear system. Much of his argument is in reference to the Jains who believed that through certain actions the result would be non-action (akarma). The Buddha pointed out that there was no such example of a conditioned action creating a conditionless state. Or as one of my teachers used to say, “Chains of gold or chains of iron; either way, they are still chains.” All karma is bad karma.
I can understand why some Mahayana Buddhists have argued with you about this… you are implying that they are eternalists. But the only way you can maintain that argument is by ignoring the varying viewpoints about karma. The Secret isn’t Mahayana.
“Things may not happen according to a cosmic plan, but they do happen according to some cosmic order. That order is karmic.”
Sorry, Ned, but asserting something does not make it so, and asserting it without any supportive evidence does nothing to persuade (me, at least). The first part I can agree with — that things happen according to observable laws. The second is something that a moment’s thought will, I think, show to be false. Here’s one such thought — the universe existed for a long, long time before sentient beings rose, therefore other levels of conditionality were in operation before there were any beings to generate karma.
Additionally, your statement contradicts the Buddha’s teaching. See the quote from the Moliyasivaka Sutta, above.
“In other words, the whole thing is deterministic, there is no room for free will at all. When a person can fully accept this, they are liberated from it.”
This is even further from the Buddha’s teaching, and in fact it’s a doctrine that he specifically condemned. It’s known as pubbekatahetu, and is the idea that our pleasant and painful experiences are entirely caused by our past karma.
The Buddha quite clearly believed that we have the ability to make choices. This is not necessarily the same thing as “free will” — which is a concept coming from a different culture with different cultural baggage. In my experience, my will is not entirely free, but it is not entirely constrained either. I can choose my actions, but from a limited menu that’s determined by my past actions. But that’s another discussion. The Pali canon is full of statements such as “By oneself is evil done, by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone, by oneself is one purified.”
It’s impossible to understand statements such as the following from a deterministic viewpoint:
Lastly (although I could say more I’m off to Ethiopia in a couple of days and my time is short) the word “niyama” can mean “restraint” or “contract” — but that’s not what it means when it refers to conditionality. The original sense seems to have expanded from the sense of a binding rule, to the idea of a “natural law.” Interestingly, in both English and Pali, the word “law” refers to a man-made rule and a description of conditionality if the natural world. Niyama in this sense means “a cosmic order,” which was understood to have five different levels of operation, of which karma was just one.
You’re free of course to disagree with the Buddha’s teaching. I do myself in some instances, but let’s be clear that what you’re teaching is not only in disagreement to what it’s understood that he taught, but in some cases represents views that he specifically mentioned as being “micchaditthis,” or views that hinder spiritual progress.
I have been thinking about this myself since beginning formal practice. My understanding, limited as it is, would be to view kamma as a condition among other conditions which treats all intent. For example, going into the examples you provided, perhaps it’s true that it’s not Kamma itself (yours) that a plane crashes, however, the pilot has his kamma too, and so do the mechanics to who worked on the plane and perhaps chose to take 5 minutes longer on their lunch then under a crunch forgot some minor detail, and voila plane crash. Perhaps it wasn’t that the plane crashed because of YOUR kamma specifically, but you are faced wtih the situation of everyone else’s kamma as well when you get on that plane.
Random things are not random. I’m not implying there is a will behind the occurrences, but for sure, scientifically and in buddhism there is a cause for every effect. Therefore, under that perspective, everything happens because of a cause. That cause may or may not be related to your presence, however, if it happens WITH you present, it still doesnt’ change that it wasn’t random, but a result of very combinations of causes. The many minds and intents of the many people involved would create many more causes/effects which may or may not be visible to your view. Just because you don’t see the connection does not make the cause/effect an less objective, therefore kamma seems to have everything to do with everything.
I think in order to grasp kamma’s essence you have to master your understanding of dependent origination, which I do not understand but barely, but I’m sure many others grasp it much better than I which can elaborate more on my chop suey comprehension of these ideas.
Metta,
Daphne
Hi Daphne,
I appreciate your thoughts. If it’s chop suey then I wouldn’t mind dining at your restaurant more often.
First, though, the word “random” doesn’t mean “without a cause,” and that’s not the way I used or meant it. Everything, according to Buddhism, happens for a reason, although those reasons may be unaffected by karma. “Random,” as I mentioned in another comment, means something like “happening without reference to a pattern, purpose, or objective.” Some things are simply random and are not generated by or connected to human actions. The universe got by quite well without us for many billions of years, after all.
But yes, karma is inextricably linked with other levels of conditionality. It’s interwoven in so complex a way, in fact, that, that the Buddha said we could go mad trying to work out what’s the result of karma and what isn’t. It may be tempting to say therefore that everything is the result of karma, in order to have nice tidy answers for uncomfortable situations, but we’re supposed to be seeking the truth, not finding pat answers.
And yes, other people’s karmic actions will impact us, often much more directly than with the example you gave of an inattentive maintenance crew. When someone loses their temper and hurts another person, or someone is texting and driving, those things can cause very immediate and undeniable harm. The chain of causality is very obvious. And there will be chains of events much more tenuous and hard to establish as well.
But the teaching of karma is not an attempt to explain how everything works. We can’t control how other people act, and there are all those “random” events that we’re subjected to as well. The teaching of karma is intended to show us how our acts lead to our suffering. The only thing we can truly control is our own actions. That’s why we’re told to reflect, “I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.”
The teaching of karma is about how we act in response to the things that happen to us, irrespective of how those things came to be. If you’re on a plane and it’s going to crash, it doesn’t much matter karmically whether it was a lightning strike or a lazy maintenance worker that was the ultimate cause. The thing is, how do you handle your mental states. Do you give in to panic or do you attempt to control yourself and have compassion for others. How you respond will affect the amount of suffering you experience.