Is all karma collective karma?
Q&A: Is there such a thing as collective karma? Part VII
Note: These next few articles will be devoted to answering questions asked by readers. If you have questions, please submit them by clicking the button below. If you have already asked a question, I thank you for your patience as I get through the questions that have been asked.Is there such a thing as group karma or collective karma, not just the individual?
For example, the karma of a nation?
As an example, in the 1920s we went through the Great Depression. People said it felt like "getting the rug swept up under them."
Right after, the US experienced a polio wave, and the president that got us out of the Depression was FDR, who had...polio.
I feel this for a lot that is going on in the world right now…
Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah. Salutations to all the teachers.
Karma, as we have discussed, is not a sort of cosmic serendipity or a magical explanation for coincidence - although it can certainly appear this way.
Rather, it is, quite simply, the law of cause and effect applied to our actions, their motivations, and their results. The word “karma” literally translates to “action”, and can be described in several ways - most often as a cycle.
For example, karma can be see as the cycle of action → result → action.
Further, it can be seen as the cycle of action → pleasure/pain → kleshas → action, the cycle of action → impression (ie. samskaara) → mental modification (ie. vritti) → action, or, for those accustomed to Indic thought, the cycle of death and rebirth.
Additionally, there are several different ways to classify karma - based on the type of impressions created in the mind, the quality of the effect, the timing of fructification, the presence of desire, or by the gunas.
Finally, there are different methods through which actions bear their results.
You can find the articles discussing the fundamentals of karma starting here:
For the past several articles, we have been exploring the answer to this thoughtful and somewhat complex question on collective karma from various different angles. You can find the articles here:
Then, last time, we dove into an ancient thought experiment known as Chandrakirti’s Chariot, through which we uncovered that there are, in fact, no such things as “collectives” at all.
Any collective of parts - a chariot, a body, a sports team, a University, a nation, and so on, are simply conceptual constructions plastered upon a much more complex underlying reality, which defies language.
The idea of Chandrakirti’s Chariot will be necessary to understand the discussion in this article. You can find the article on it here:
Now, we will begin an exploration of the question of whether all karma is, in fact, collective karma. This will lead us into a discussion around whether such a thing as karma exists at all, and finally into the practice of Karma Yoga.
Enough preamble, let’s get into it.
Is all karma collective karma?
If there were such a thing as collective karma - the karma of a collective group - it would depend entirely on whether or not such a thing as a collective group exists at all.
Through the analysis of Chandrakirti’s Chariot, we can see that there is, in fact, no fundamental reality to any so-called “collection”, and so, fundamentally, there can be no such thing as collective karma.
We can investigate this from three different angles, using three different causal chains (or rather, loops) related to karma:
Decision → Action → Result
Primal Ignorance → Desire → Action
Tendencies → Thoughts → Actions
We will discuss the first of these in this article, and discuss the other two next time, using a similar line of reasoning.
Decision → Action → Result
One way to view the cycle of karma is that decisions lead to actions, which then lead to results. These results come in the form of thoughts and impressions in the mind, as well as external effects in the world outside the skin. These results then lead to further thoughts, which then colour future decisions, leading to further action, and so the cycle continues.
At first glance, is fairly apparent that this cycle exists at the individual level. Let us now investigate if it can exist at the collective level as well.
At the collective level
Consider an example of a collective decision. Say a national vote for the Prime Minister or President of a nation.
Where does the decision begin?
In reality, we can trace any causal chain, and so any decision, back to the beginning of the Universe. However, for the sake of argument, let us agree to begin our exploration at the moment that the first individual becomes aware of a candidate’s candidacy for the position.
In this moment, the very first person decides whether or not they would like to see the candidate in office. Depending on the nature of their decision, they may decide to vote for the candidate or not.
This same process must then be replicated across several different individuals.
Each individual must be separately convinced to cast their ballot in favour of the candidate.
P: Wait a second. Politicians don’t just go around meeting people one on one. Most of this process happens en masse. People influence each other to vote for the candidate as well - it’s not like they don’t talk about it until the vote happens.Jogi: Absolutely. People certainly influence each others’ decisions, often in ways that they are not conscious of - on either side of the equation. One may be in a family that historically has voted for the BJP, and so may have developed strong tendencies to vote in this direction. In fact, to take this further, it is quite possible that the very same person born into a different family, or surrounded by a different group of people later in their life, may vote for another party. However, the decision to cast the ballot ultimately takes place in a split second in the voting box, in the individual mind. Given this, although the influencing factors may be varied, the final decision, and the final action, is always individual.Ok, we can see that the decision and the action are individual. But what about the result?
The result, just like the decision and the action, is experienced at the individual level.
P: Wait a minute. Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister of India - is this not a result that is collectively experienced?
Let us take a group of three friends who voted in the election. While they influenced each other, ultimately, they each individually decided who they would vote for, and each of them individually cast their ballot. Then, they got together over some chai and snacks to watch the inauguration ceremony on TV.
Are they all watching the same thing?
At first glance, it may seem so. After all, we often use phrases like “we watched the movie together”, “we listened to a song together”, “we ate food together”, and so on.
However, if we really dig into it, each individual experience is different.
The first friend, for example, may have left their AC on at home, and due to their past conditioning and current financial situation, they may be worried about their electricity bill climbing while they are sitting here at their friend’s house. This stream of thought is a very real part of this person’s experience, as they are watching the inauguration ceremony.
The second friend may have a ringing in their ears from the concert that they attended the night before. They had been standing very close to the speakers, since they had bought tickets to be in the front row, because it was their favourite musician. This ringing in the ears is a part of their experience as they are watching the inauguration ceremony.
The third friend may be experiencing a sense of nostalgia as they drink their chai and eat their snacks. They live in the US, and so don’t get to drink chai and eat snacks like this very often, and sitting at their friend’s house is reviving childhood memories, which they are experiencing at the very same moment.
Furthermore, the first friend may have wanted Modi to lose the election, and so may be experiencing unpleasant mental sensations, the second may have wanted Modi to win, and so for them, this is a moment of celebration, while for the third, they may be indifferent altogether and just want to hang out with their friends and enjoy the snacks.
In addition to the layer of thought, the physical sensations themselves are different.
One person may be wearing thick glasses, while another should be wearing glasses but isn’t while the third doesn’t need glasses at all. The first person may be very tall, while the second is very short, and the third is of middling height. Furthermore, even if they were all the exact same height, and didn’t wear or need glasses, they are sitting at slightly different angles to the TV, and so are experiencing slightly different things.1
Ultimately, while the various people in a group play a strong part in each individual decision, the decisions, actions, and results happen at the individual level, and not at the collective level.
We can only loosely ascribe decisions, actions, and results to the collective. We can’t actually say that they happen at the collective level, without some degree of fabrication.
Said another way, using phrases like “collective decision”, “collective action”, or “collective result” are simply a conventional figure of speech, not a fundamental reality.
P: Ok cool, so there is no such thing as collective karma when it comes to decisions, actions, and results, and all karma (as decisions, actions, and results) happens at the individual level, right?
Jogi: Are you sure?
At the individual level
We saw with the example above that there is no such thing as collective karma when we consider karma to be the cycle of decision, action, and result.
We also explored, in the previous article, that there are, in fact, no such things as collectives in general, with the example of Chandrakirti’s Chariot.
If we have read even a little bit about karma, we are likely to take for granted that there is such a thing as karma at the individual level.
However, if we consider Chandrakirti’s Chariot, we may ask a further question - just as a group of friends is a collection of individuals, can the individual itself not be considered a collective of parts?
If this is the case, then there should be no such thing as individual karma either.
Let us explore this possibility through the lens of the “decision, action, result” view of karma.
The decision itself is ascribed to the individual.
For example, friend number one made the decision to vote for the candidate from the Aam Aadmi Party. But where did this decision occur? Did it happen in the leg? In the knee? In the stomach?
Digging into it using the principles of Yoga pyschology, we find that the decision to vote for the Aam Aadmi Party appeared as a vritti - a mental movement - in the buddhi. It was then carried through the manas, and then through to the karmendriyas where it turned from decision into action.
The decision itself - from its inception to its fruition as an action - is composed of parts. It has a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Now which of these parts is the real “decision”? Where is the decision in the midst of its parts?
Just like with Chandrakirti’s Chariot, we cannot isolate the location of the decision in the midst of its parts - not because it is difficult to do so, but because there is in fact no “decision” as such.
What we call the “decision” is a collection of individual psychological movements, which are each further collections, and so on, ad infinitum.
Said another way, the “decision” is itself a collection of smaller movements, in much the same way as the “decision” at the collective level is a (so-called) collection of individual decisions.
This “decision” is then ascribed, not just to the buddhi, but to other non-buddhi parts, just as we say “India voted for Modi” although there are several hundred million individuals in India who did not decide to vote for Modi.
This is also similarly true for the action.
An action is ascribed to an individual, but in reality, any action happens as a collection of various perfectly coordinated movements throughout the body-mind complex. Muscles, sinews, cartilage, circulation, the nervous system, and so many other parts come together in a dance far more complex than we can ever hope to control. Yet, in our ignorance we take credit for actions saying “I” did it, like a child taking credit for steering a car when they are sitting in a car seat with a plastic steering wheel in their hand.
Said another way, there is no “action” as such.
What we call the “action” is a collection of smaller movements, which each have their parts, and so on. This idea of an “action” is then ascribed to the entire individual, and we say “the individual acted”, even if there are parts of the individual that had no part to play in it, in much the same way as there are several hundred million individuals in India who did not vote at all.
Similarly, this is true for results.
Colloquially, we ascribe results to individuals as a whole. We say “that person suffers” or “this person has good fortune”. However, any “result” is itself a collection of various parts.
Let us consider an example of the second friend, who wanted Modi to win the election, and is now experiencing the pleasant sensation of watching the inauguration ceremony. We will call this pleasant sensation the “result.”
This entire process of experiencing the result involves the eyes, the ears, the manas, the ahamkaar, the buddhi, and so on, in addition to the sights and sounds of the inauguration ceremony itself, as well as the smriti-vritti of the election result and the vikalp-vrittis involving the future of India.
Furthermore, the feeling of pleasure requires the presence of the desire for Modi to win the election in the mind, which includes the samskaaras which led to this desire in the first place. Any one of these by itself does not produce the result of pleasure in the mind. Nor do any two of these parts together produce the sensation, nor three, nor four, and so on. Using the same logic as Chandrakirti’s Chariot, we find that there is, in actual fact, no such thing as the “result.” We have simply superimposed a conceptual creation upon a much more complex underlying reality, and given it a name. Then, we ascribe this so-called “result” on to the entire person, including the components which had no part in the experience of the result (e.g. the legs, toes, the feet, stomach, etc.).
To make this clear, consider the following:
Are the legs are a part of the person? Yes.
Is the person experiencing happiness? Yes.
Are the legs experiencing happiness? How silly.
The reason this logic breaks down is that we are incorrectly ascribing the sensation to a collective which does not have any substantial reality.
P: What about the brain? If I interchanged “legs” with “brain”, the answer would be yes, correct?Jogi: Yes - isn’t that interesting? Even within the brain, we can break it down further to individual neurons, and even further to molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, and so on. Can the brain exist without the protons and neutrons within it?P: No, it is made of these.Jogi: So then can I say that a given proton is experiencing happiness?P: No that would be silly.Jogi: Exactly so.P: Can this be because happiness only exists at the level of the brain? Like certain concepts only exist at certain levels of abstraction?Jogi: Exactly right. The key terms here are “concepts” and “abstraction.” Additionally, each level of abstraction - proton, atom, molecule, neuron, brain, individual, collective - are simply concepts. That is, we are ascribing one concept (e.g. happiness) onto another concept (e.g. brain), and acting as though there is a fundamental reality to our statements.In this way, just like we can only loosely ascribe decisions, actions, and results to the collective, we can only loosely ascribe decisions, actions, and results to the individual. We can’t actually say that they happen at the individual level, without some degree of fabrication.
Said another way, using phrases like “decision”, “action”, or “result” are simply a conventional figure of speech, not a fundamental reality.
Given that decision, action, and result - the very components of karma - are mental fabrications, karma itself is also simply a conceptual construction with no fundamental reality.
P: Wait, so are you saying there is no such thing as karma?
Jogi: As long as there is the individual, there is karma.
P: Huh?
The “individual” and “karma” are at the same level of reality. Both exist relative to each other, and both are conceptual constructions. If the individual exists, karma exists too. In Reality, there is neither the individual, nor karma.
So what should I do about it?
Be honest with yourself. Do you feel like an individual, separate from the couch you are sitting on, and from the device you are reading this on? Do you feel like you decide, act, and suffer? If so, then karma exists from your point of view. However, the line of questioning here can point you in the direction of how to become free from karma.
The method to become free from karma is not to do anything new - a special ritual, meditative practice, etc - but rather to realize that you, the individual, are a conceptual construction of your own creation, and therefore within your own power to dissolve. Freedom from the bind of karma comes not from removing the bound, but from realizing that no one was bound in the first place.
Next time, we continue this line of reasoning, exploring whether collective and individual karma can be found to exist when viewing karma from the lens of ignorance → desire → action and/or tendencies → thoughts → actions.
Until then, please submit your questions, objections, or clarifications by clicking the button below.