Q&A: Is there such a thing as collective karma?: Part I

Investigating from first principles

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.

---

Om Sri Gurubhyo Namah. Salutations to all the teachers.

Is there such a thing as group karma or collective karma, not just [for] 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…

Thank you for your question 🙏🏽

I must admit, this question has been a difficult one to grapple with.

Over the past few weeks, I have been diving into a number of texts from various traditions trying to find a good answer to your question.

Throughout this period, it has made me appreciate the depth of meaning behind the word गहना (gahanaa, pronounced guh-huh-naah) in the following quote from the Bhagavad Gita:

गहना कर्मणो गति:।

Gahanaa karmano gatih

The truth about karma is difficult to understand.

- Bhagavad Gita, 4.17

In most translations, the word gahanaa is simply translated as “difficult to understand.”

However, if you recall, Sanskrit is a polysemic language, and so each word has several meanings. Other meanings of the word are “labyrinth”, “maze”, “deep”, “thicket”, “dense”, “distressing”, “impervious”, “inexplicable”, and even “impenetrable darkness.”

Over the past several weeks of diving into this topic, I have found these meanings to be deeply true.

Now on to the topic at hand.

As far as my search over the past few weeks has led me, the idea of collective karma does not seem to appear in any traditional sources (although if you find something, please do share). However, it did pop up in a couple of non-traditional writings.

The earliest mention of the concept I could find was in the writings of Madame Blavatsky - one of the founders of the Theosophical Society - in the late 19th century, where she describes the idea variously as “National Karma”, “Relative Karma”, and “Distributive Karma.”¹

Additionally, there has been some discussion on the topic of “Shared Karma” by Lati Rinpoche - Buddhist monk and spiritual advisor to the Dalai Lama, but this is pretty sparingly documented apart from some quotations from his former students.

From the standpoint of Yoga, however, this is only a matter of curiosity. After all, the Yogi’s goal is not to simply follow authoritative teachings, but to seek for Truth. Nor is the goal of Yoga to understand karma, but rather to break free of it altogether.

However, since the question has been asked, we will approach the question from first principles, investigating using reason, to see if we can arrive at an understanding of collective karma, if at all there is such a thing.

Like all teachings on karma, this is a complex and detailed line of inquiry. Given this, we will split this up into a few different articles before we continue on to the highest teaching on karma, as well as addressing some questions on Karma Yoga.

Some of the points we will touch on during this investigation include:

1. The concept of collective karma at face value

2. Collective tendencies

3. Group dynamics and group experiences as shared karma

4. The utility of the idea of collective karma

5. Whether, in fact, all karma is collective karma

I hope this set of articles will serve to answer your question, and as always, please feel free to reach out with further questions that may arise as we discuss this topic.

Collective Karma: At face value

Before we begin to investigate collective karma, let us first recap what regular, individual karma is.

Recap: Individual Karma

Karma, as we have discussed, can be taught at many levels. Fundamentally, it is the principle of cause and effect, applied to our actions and their reactions. Simply said, “good” actions lead to pleasant results, while “bad” actions lead to unpleasant results.

While this is the general view, it is somewhat simplistic, and so we discussed a deeper level of the teaching. That is, when we dig deeper, we see that karma is not a form of cosmic tit-for-tat, nor some sort of faith-based explanation for coincidental or otherwise serendipitous events - although its effects may appear to have some of these characteristics upon first glance.

“Good” actions are defined as those actions which weaken the divide between “self” and “other” in the mind of the agent, while “bad” actions are those that strengthen this divide further. Said another way, any action that violates the first Yama - ahimsa, or non-violence - generates bad action.

P: How?

This boundary between “self” and “other” is also known as avidya, or the Primal Ignorance, and is the root of all the kleshas - mental colourings or afflictions that generate suffering in the mind. Apart from avidya, the kleshas are asmitaa (I am-ness), raag (attraction), dvesha (aversion), and abhinivesha (fear of discontinuity).

For more on the kleshas, you can take a look at the article here.

Mental Colourings

Karma functions through mental tendencies.

When we experience anything - including our own actions - we leave impressions on the mind. These impressions - known as samskaaras - are like seeds, which sprout when the conditions are just right.

Specifically, these impressions sprout in the form of thoughts, words, and actions, which then leave further impressions in the mind, leaving the individual stuck in an infinite cycle.

All actions lead to impressions, which generate further actions.

These impressions also colour the world of experience - Ishvar-srishti - with the kleshas, resulting in feelings of pleasure or pain (aka jiva-srishti), depending on the nature of the actions that generated those tendencies in the first place. That is, these tendencies or impressions create a sort of veil or lens through which we see the world around us.

In this way, good actions, which weaken the kleshas, generate pleasant experience, while bad actions, which strengthen the kleshas, generate unpleasant experience.

For more on how karma works, starting from the basic teaching, you can read the articles starting with the one linked below, and clicking the “next” button at the bottom of the page until you arrive back here, at this article:

Q&A: What is Karma? Part I

Note: In case you haven’t read these yet, the foundation set in these articles will likely be helpful in understanding this article as well as the next few.

Collective Karma

On the face of it, we may imagine collective karma to be a set of actions done by a group of individuals, for which the results are borne by that same group of individuals.

That is, if a group of people do a particular bad thing, then that same group will - sooner or later - experience the results of doing that bad thing, together.

This last piece (ie. the experiencing of the results together, as a group) is critical - otherwise there would be no material distinction between individual and collective karma, at least on the face of it.

To clarify this further, here is a quote Lati Rinpoche,

“All groups have karma that is more than just the collection of the karma of the individuals in the group. For example, a group of people may decide collectively to start a war. If they act on that decision, then the group as a whole will experience the hardships of being at war. Karma is the result of making a decision to act in a certain way. decisions to act may be made by individuals or groups. If the decision is made by a group, then the whole group will experience the collective consequences of their decision.”

- Lati Rinpoche, quoted in a lecture by Richard Hayes presented at Leiden University in Autumn 2009.

To be clear, we are not jumping to the conclusion that such a thing as collective karma exists. We are simply investigating it.

The mechanics of karma involve two aspects - the hetu (the cause), and the phala (the fruit).

Furthermore, with any karma, there is an entity that is the doer of the action (kartaa), and the experiencer of the fruit (bhoktaa).

Let us begin with what the mechanics of karma at the collective level might look like.

The cause - hetu - can be further broken down into the decision to act and the action itself.

The fruit can further be broken down into the result, as well as the tendency generated, which in the future bears fruit once again as the decision to act.

To summarize, the four aspects of the mechanics of karma can be broken down as:

1. The decision

2. The action

3. The result

4. The tendency

We know that these exist at the individual level, but let us see if each of these can occur at the collective level as well, in this conversation between our good friends Jogi and Purvapaksha (aka P).²

Can the decision to act be taken at the group level?

P: Yes, certainly.

Jogi: How so?

P: Democracy, for example, is a form of a group decision. Any voting system works like this.

Jogi: Who decides to vote? The individual or the group?

P: The group, no?

Jogi: And how does that happen? How does it begin? Is it a spontaneous arising of a decision in the collective, or does it begin at the individual level and then grow to the group?

P: It begins at the individual level. Someone must initially propose the vote, or the system of voting.

Jogi: Exactly so. It must begin with an individual.

P: But once that is set up, isn’t the ultimate decision - say the decision to vote in a leader - the decision of the entire group?

Jogi: Who decides to honour the count of the votes? Does the decision arise somewhere in the collective consciousness? Or does it arise within individual minds, which then communicate and influence each other?

P: The latter.

Jogi: Exactly so. Here too, the decision to honor the votes begins at level of the individual mind.

P: But then what about the voting itself? Isn’t that a group decision?

Jogi: What is the mechanism of voting?

P: Each individual casts their ballot.

Jogi: Exactly so. Here also, each individual makes their own decision to vote for a candidate of their choice. They may be influenced by others, but they will always claim that the decision is their own.

P: Then why do we use the phrase “we decided” or “the nation voted”?

Jogi: It is simply a figure of speech, for the sake of convenience. If we dig into the facts, we quickly find that all the decisions actually took place at the individual level, and were later aggregated and given authority - again within individual minds.

In this way, we must conclude that any decision to act is taken by individuals, not by the group as a whole.

We may say, for ease of communication, that “the group decided”, but if we look closely, we find that it is always a collection of individual decisions.

Can an action happen the group level?

P: Yes, certainly.

Jogi: How so?

P: When a nation goes to war, isn’t that entire nation acting?

Jogi: Ok. How do you define the action “goes to war”?

P: The act of war - fighting on the battlefield, killing others, and so on.

Jogi: Ok. And how do you define the “nation”?

P: The collective of every citizen of the nation.

Jogi: Ok. When the nation goes to war, is every citizen in the nation on the battlefield, fighting, killing others?

P: No.

Jogi: Then if not all citizens are fighting, how can you correctly say the the “nation” is at war?

P: But even those citizens who are sitting at home are acting in favour of the war. They are enabling the warfare by virtue of their cooperation with the status quo.

Jogi: What if those people are in the streets, protesting the war?

P: Then they are not counted as “at war.”

Jogi: So then they are not citizens of the nation?

P: No, they are.

Jogi: I see. Then it must be that the nation is not at war.

P: How so?

Jogi: You defined “the nation” as “all the citizens.” You also affirmed that “protesting citizens” are included within “the nation.” However, you said that “protesting citizens” are not counted among those at war. These statements cannot all be true. Either the protesting citizens are not counted among “the nation”, or “the nation” cannot be correctly said to be at war.

P: Ok, that is fair. Then let me rephrase. The nation is not at war. The army is at war. This action can happen at the group level, right?

Jogi: Ok, can you define the collective - the army?

P: Yes, the group of all soldiers at war.

Jogi: And what is the minimum definition of “at war”? Is it signing up to join the army? Is it standing on the battlefield? Is it holding a weapon? Using the weapon against the enemy?

P: It cannot be signing up, because many people who signed up may not be at war. It cannot be standing on the battlefield, because a farmer who is not a part of either army may be standing there, and is not at war. It cannot be simply holding a weapon, since anyone can hold a weapon and not be at war. Maybe it is the last one? Using the weapon against the enemy?

Jogi: Ok, that makes sense. But then all those soldiers who are not using their weapons against the enemy at any given point are not at war?

P: No, they are.

Jogi: Ok, so let us define “at war” as if a soldier has used their weapon against the enemy at least once. Then if a new soldier is shipped off to the battlefield, at what point are they now “at war”?

P: I suppose they are at war the moment they are shipped off?

Jogi: But we already established that just being shipped off is not considered “at war”.

P: It may be when a person is shipped off to war under the assumption that they will use their weapons against the enemy, whether or not they have done so yet?

Jogi: Ok, so if a new soldier joins the army, they are at war, and when a soldier leaves the army - when they are shipped back home - they are no longer at war?

P: Yes, that’s correct.

Jogi: But isn’t “the army” at war?

P: Yes, that was the initial statement.

Jogi: I ask because you defined the army as the collection of all soldiers, but now you say that not all the soldiers are at war. Therefore “the army” is not at war.

P: Well, a part of the army is at war.

Jogi: What is a part of the army?

P: Some soldiers, who meet the criteria of being “at war” as per this definition.

Jogi: Exactly so. The action of being “at war” can only correctly be applied to individuals. It is only a matter of convenience - a figure of speech - to apply actions to a collective.

In this way, we must conclude that any actions are done only by individuals, not by the group as a whole.

We may say, for ease of communication, that “the group acted”, but it is always a collection of individual actions.

What about the result and the tendency?

This same line of reasoning can also be applied to the result and the tendency.

Although there may be some similarity in results, the result of the action ultimately applies to each individual, separately.

For example, every citizen of Hiroshima during the end of World War II experienced the dropping of the Atomic Bomb. However, each individual had their own specific experience, which we collectively group for the sake of convenience.

All results - all experiences - are at the individual level. Even what we call “group experiences” - a concert, a movie, a party, a war, a pandemic, and so on - are simply a similarity of object, time, and space, amongst individual experiences.

These experiences may be similar, but they can never be absolutely identical, since every mind is different, and the mind is itself an inherent part of the experience.

The mental tendency generated from the action and the experience is also at the individual level.

Each person takes something slightly different away from each experience. Every individual mind is affected differently, even when the object of experience is the same.

For example, while one person may suffer from severe trauma after experiencing warfare, another may not. While one person may experience extreme happiness at watching a movie, another may find it boring. In each case, the experience leaves a different trace in the individual mind of the experiencer.

These traces - samskaaras - reside in each individual mind, colouring their individual experiences - their jiva-srishti - and so result in different levels of happiness or suffering in each mind.

TL;DR

Through this investigation, we see that while we often use language as though a group acts collectively, when we dig in further, we find that all aspects of the karma - the decision, the action, the result, and the tendency - all actually appear at the individual level, and later expand to the group level.

Alternatively, even if they do not actually expand to the group level, we have found that they are often ascribed to or superimposed upon the group (e.g. if not all citizens voted for a particular Presidential candidate, those citizens will still be included in the “nation” in the sentence “the country voted for the President”).

Note: This idea of the aspects of karma being ascribed or superimposed upon the collective will come in handy in a later article on collective karma.

P: What does this mean? Could you say it in a different way?

Said another way, we have found here that “collective karma” - on the face of it - is just a figure of speech. Karma actually occurs at the individual level, and any talk of a group doing something or bearing a result is just a figure of speech, not actual fact.

However, this does not mean that the idea of collective karma does not exist at all.

Over the next few articles, we will continue the discussion, investigating the remaining four points mentioned at the top of this article:

1. Collective tendencies

2. Group dynamics and group experiences as shared karma

3. The utility of the idea of collective karma

4. Whether, in fact, all karma is collective karma

Once again, if you have any additional questions that crop up, please click the button below. All questions of all levels are welcome - I will try to get to as many as possible before continuing on to the final article on karma, discussing The Highest Teaching.

1. The Theosophical Society, and its philosophy, known as Theosophy, has its basis in a number of Eastern philosophies, including Buddhism, Vedanta, Islam, as well as a some European philosophical traditions. One of the society’s stated goals was to prepare the world for the coming of the Maitreya, or the World Teacher - a highly spiritually advanced entity who periodically appears on Earth to direct humanity’s spiritual evolution. Incidentally, the World Teacher identified by the Theosophical Society was none other than Jiddu Krishnamurti - often quoted throughout this newsletter - who, upon coming of age, promptly dissolved the organization - the Order of the Star in the East - that he was meant to lead.

2. For more on why our friend is named P, take a look at the Wikipedia entry here.