18th September, 2005

SHANE VARCOE

“My karma ran over your dogma!”

What a cute, witty catchcry for the uninformed. A single one liner that some think dismisses the understanding, and thus validity, of one of the most misused and misunderstood ‘truth’ imperatives; dogma!

Ah! But that’s the issue is it not; the negating of truth so that it would appear this catchcry of a ‘pop-philosophy’ idea naively believes it has ‘trumped’ truth?

What is really important to do from the outset of any discussion or debate, is to clearly define terms and words before we glibly dismiss them. Let’s look at ‘dogma’.

A CASE OF BAD KARMA? According to Varcoe, in Australia the idea of karma is commonly interpreted as being "what you give you get returned" but rarely, he says, do the proponents of this consider the downside of such a philosophy - that bad things, like the accident pictured here, happen to bad people. PICTURE: Kenn Kiser (www.sxc.hu)

According to the Collins Concise Dictionary Australian Edition, it is:
“A doctrine or systems of doctrine claimed, by ecclesiastical authorities, to be true.”

Now let’s break this down - a doctrine is simply a body of principles or teachings presented by a religious, political or philosophical body for acceptance or belief as being ‘true’.

So for starters, anyone involved in philosophy, politics or ‘religion’ that has a statement of beliefs, a creed or principles, has, therefore, a doctrine. Fine so far.

To have those doctrines presented as ‘true’ is then labeled dogma. Again, I see no problem  - Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and Christian all do this, unless of course the parties sharing their ideas don’t believe the principles presented to actually be true. If this is so, then one, by definition, cannot be dogmatic. One is merely offering an opinion. One must at least assert that the claims are true for ‘dogma’ to present. If the person positing their creed or belief system doesn’t believe them to true, then it begs the question - ‘Why believe it’?

It is, however, the key word in all this epistemological exchange that needs to be defined before any sense or clarity can be found and for a fruitful search for knowledge to ensue. That key word is ‘truth’.

I believe it was the great theologian Dr John Stott who said: “We must be dogmatic about what we do know and agnostic about what we don’t know, not the other way around.” But that’s just it, isn’t it? We want to have it the other way around.

So what is ‘truth’ and how do we know it, so that our dogma is legitimate and not merely a bigoted and myopic existential trip?

The best definition of ‘truth’ I have seen was coined by Ravi Zacharias in his book Jesus Among Other Gods: “Truth is a property, assigned to an assertion that corresponds with reality as it is.”

Explained - truth is a distinct and unique attribute appointed to a positive affirmation that is consistent with reality as it objectively is.

This is an excellent working definition of truth as it allows us to explore the ultimate absolute or subjective nature of a position to determine if it is indeed true or simply a passionately adhered to opinion. I want to state here that we, being in a ‘free’ culture, can believe whatever we like. We can adhere to any opinion, idea, philosophy, or deity we choose, but we cannot, from any objective perspective, say it is true without having that which is necessary to establish such. Now some souls have attempted to get around this by using ambiguous and spurious terms like ‘relative truth’, by attaching the word truth to a subjective term or claim and couching it the murky sea of the ‘politically correct’ (if not ill-defined) virtue of 'tolerance' we have a so-called new pseudo-legitimate turn of phrase. Opinions can be relative. Truth, by proper definition, cannot. As the early Twentieth century Wall Street financier and presidential advisor, Bernard Baruch, stated: “Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but no one is entitled to be wrong about the facts.”

The following statement is an example for clarification - monotheistic religions claim there is only one god, polytheistic religions claim there are many. Only one of these can be true - there is either one or many. Relativity doesn’t come into it.

Roadtesting karma
So, what about karma or kamma? What about karma and the question of suffering and evil compared to say, the dogma of Christian view of suffering and evil?

I love the Aussie pop-culture definition of karma, the one I consistently run into when talking with people endeavouring to find some transcendent anchor that satisfies the egoism in all of us. It goes something like this: “What you give is what you get returned - good, bad or ugly”. Sounds good, doesn’t it? In my experience the subtext from the people using this term is that they don’t really consider the down-side of this philosophy. They love to focus on the up-side, that is: “I did a good thing and I am basically a ‘good’ person, so ‘good’ will come to me”. From my encounters with people, they really don’t see any ‘bad karma’ coming their way, because they are basically ‘good’ people. Jesus Christ had a disturbing thing to say about our concept of ‘good’ when He was labeled by a young ruler as such. Jesus response was: “There is no-one good but God alone”. Ouch! For me, that puts to rest any idea that I’m a ‘good bloke’. So, assuming for a moment ‘good’ is a standard we are unable to attain, were does that leave us with karma?

With that question in mind let’s have a look at karma and its foundational ideas in attempt to address the issue of suffering and evil.

Zacharias writes: "(P)antheistic religions have attempted extensive answers, and sometimes those answers are terribly confusing. The difficulty with Hinduism is that it has no monolithic answer to the problem of suffering. By declaring everything in the physical world to the non-real, illusory, changing, transitory, it ends up with philosophical problems beyond measure. And, of course, one is compelled to ask, what has brought on this ‘illusion’ of evil, if everything is part and parcel of the divine reality?

"There is a humorous story told of India’s leading philosopher, Shankara. He had just finished lecturing the king on the deception of the mind and its delusion of material reality. The next day, the king let loose an elephant that went on a rampage, and Shankara ran up a tree to find safety. When the kind asked him why he ran if the elephant was non real, Shankara, not to be outdone, said: 'What the king actually saw was a non-real me climbing a non-real tree!' (a  non-real answer)."

Time and space here will not permit us to explore this more fully, but this initial probe is enough to raise a multitude of philosophical red flags. Although the physical world and its attachments are illusory - including evil and suffering - karma still insists on ‘paying for’ that illusory wickedness that was done in the illusory world. Here’s where reincarnation comes in.

According to central teachings of Hinduism, reincarnation is a given. Zacharias quoting from the Upanishads writes: “'Accordingly, those who are of pleasant conduct here - the prospect is, indeed, that they will enter a pleasant womb, either the womb of a Brahman (priestly class), of the womb of a Kshatriya (warrior or royal class), or the womb of a Vaisya (the working or professional class). But those who are of stinking conduct here - the prospect is, indeed, that they will enter a stinking womb or a dog, or the womb of a swine, or the womb of an outcast.'

"Hinduism conveys here an inherited sense of wrong, which is lived out in the next life..." writes Zacharias. "This doctrine is un-negotiable in Hinduism."

How do we end suffering? According to the Buddhist teaching, if we can obliterate desire we will obliterate evil. In fact, the very word ‘nirvana’ means the negation of the jungle of desire to which our rebirths have condemned us. But, above all, Buddhism faces a truly insurmountable problem. If life is cyclical and there is not beginning to the incarnations, why is there an end? How does one have an infinite regress of causes, if there is a final incarnation? As Christian philosopher and theologian Dr. William Lane Craig has keenly asked - and which neither Buddhism and Hinduism cannot answer is - how does one jump, in the words of Zacharias - "out of a bottomless pit?"

No escape - or is there?
There is no escaping karma, it is endless and without mercy. Your mistakes lead you into the next cycle and hound you to seek perfection. The only ‘chance’ possible is to revisit pain and suffering again and again in various illusory forms, like plant, animal or lower class humanity. You are imprisoned. Remember - you can’t jump out of a bottomless pit.

The great teacher Mahatma Gandhi was perpetually plagued by the question - “Can Hinduism atone for my sin?”. Drawing on all the evidences and teachings posited by both philosophies, the answer is ultimately, no!

So what are our options? How do we break this karmic cycle?

Grace - remarkable teaching and incomparable gift - birthed in dogma and given by the ultimate non-illusory Absolute. A gift so incredible, so marvelous it defies all that would deny it - the bottom of, and a rope into, that ‘bottomless pit’. A poor but meaningful definition of grace is "undeserved or unmerited favour; a favour that cannot be earned or deserved”. For the soul caught in the clutches of karma and its cyclic partner reincarnation, this is a breath of life - the chance at real freedom.

Heaven's dogma showed us from where evil has come. Dogma gave us the demarcation line for what and why, and dogma gave us the answer. The reality of suffering, wickedness and evil are problems all men seek answers to. The Law of God was given in dogma to show us not only what is evil and causes suffering, but also our utter helplessness at reaching the standard set for alleviating evil and suffering. We, in our sin, have no way to pay for it. But the God of creation also made a way to escape not just the punishment of sin, but the stifling imprisonment of ‘the self’ it puts us in. God did not only show us our need, but in His incredible love gave the grace to meet that need through His Son, Jesus Christ - Immanuel, God with us. God Himself, died on a cross in our place, for our sins, to intervene in the cycle of sin, consequence and judgment, but through his perfect holy sinless shed blood washed away the guilt and made the atonement that Gandhi so longed for.

Again, we turn to Zacharias: “What becomes evident is that the pantheistic ship comes apart on the reef of evil. One cannot affirm the absence of a self while individualizing nirvana, and one cannot talk about the cessation of suffering without also giving the origin of the first wrong thought. Buddhism has an intricate set of rules and regulations because it needs them. As a non-theistic path, it is a road strewn with kamma. It recognises evil and then, fatalistically, shuts its eyes to it, seeking escape.”

In the recent book Bono: In conversation with Michka Assayas, Bono of rock band U2 shared his thoughts on this incredible God-given gift of grace: “It’s a mind-blowing concept that the God who created the universe might be looking for company, a real relationship with people, but the thing that keeps me on my knees is the difference between grace and karma. Saying that the idea of karma is central to all religions, what you put in comes back to you: an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, or in physics - in physical laws - every action is met by an equal or an opposite one. It’s clear to me that karma is at the very heart of the universe. I’m absolutely sure of it. And yet, along comes this idea called grace to upend all that ‘as you reap, so you will sow' stuff. Grace defies reason and logic. Love interrupts, if you like, the consequences of our actions, which in my case is very good news indeed, because I’ve done a lot of stupid stuff…It doesn’t excuse my mistakes, but I’m holding out for grace. I’m holding out that Jesus Christ took my sins onto the cross, because I know who I am, and I hope I don’t have to depend on my own religiosity.”

Can I encourage you; no, plead with you, to open your heart and then your mouth? Come to God Almighty in Jesus' wonderful name and acknowledge we are stuck in sin and no amount of self-effort and reincarnation are going to get us out. Acknowledge that we are sorry, so very sorry, for our error (don’t let pride prevent you admitting you are wrong, that you have sinned and forget anybody else - it’s not about them) Turn and accept Jesus sacrifice for you, bend your knee and ask Him to come into your life and be Lord. Then, in that place, grace takes on another level of wonderful giving in redemption. But that is another journey.

Shane Varcoe has 25 years experience in youth and young adult ministry; author of "Help I need a real quiet time" and is currently manager of Values For Life School Seminars - Education unit (Part of Concern Australia). Shane is married to Carolyn and has three wonderful teenagers.