In early Buddhism, karma was defined as volitional intention (cetanā), where the moral weight of an action lay in the psychological impulse behind it. Intentional acts of body, speech, and mind functioned as seeds that ‘ripened’ into specific results within the cycle of suffering and rebirth (saṃsāra). Rather than being a system of divine judgment, karma was viewed as a natural law of cause and effect that allowed individuals the agency to change their spiritual trajectory through ethical living. The ultimate aim was not to generate or collect ‘good’ karma, but to purify the mind and to quench the ‘three fires’ of greed, hatred, and delusion, so that karmic forces would become exhausted altogether, leading to nirvana.

Modern minds often struggle with the idea that karma can span lifetimes, except as the continuing practical consequences of previous actions. Critics – from ancient materialists to secular Buddhists – point out that there is no measurable medium for transferring ‘intentional energy’ after death. Without a soul, they argue that the doctrine relies on circular logic, in which rebirth is used to explain current suffering, and current suffering is used as proof of a past life.

Ethically, karma can inadvertently rationalise inequality. By suggesting that poverty or disability results from past bad actions, it may justify a lack of social compassion. Furthermore, if there is no permanent self (anattā), the person born into suffering is functionally a different being. Critics argue this makes the system look more like arbitrary vengeance than moral reform.

The Buddha claimed to understand karma through direct experience, not logic. He offered it as a teaching to be verified through practice, yet warned that its full complexity would lead the ordinary mind to madness. To the skeptic, this ‘awakened mind’ requirement represents a philosophical impasse.

At first glance, this doctrine fails the test set out in the Kālāma Sutta (an early scripture), which encourages individuals to investigate and examine the teachings for themselves before accepting them. However, the same scripture offers a pragmatic argument, often called the ‘Four Assurances’. The proposition (which predates Pascal’s ‘wager’ by two thousand years) suggests that even if there is no afterlife or karmic retribution, a person who lives with a pure, loving mind remains happy and safe from self-reproach in the present. Of course, the wager presupposes that denying karma would necessarily lead to an unethical life, which does little to dispel the philosophical impasse.

Alternatively, we can view rebirth as a metaphor rather than a metaphysical claim. The principle of impermanence (anicca) teaches that we change at every instant. Thoughts are ephemeral, but they shape us; a person disposed to anger becomes an angry person. Moment by moment, we are ‘reborn’ as iterations of our previous intentions. This is cause and effect at work on the mind, and it soon manifests as actions. To look upon this aspect of karma (which is perfectly orthodox), as also being the limit of its reach seems not only reasonable, but its effects are clearly demonstrable.

In the end, the value of karma doesn’t depend on metaphysics. Intentions shape character, and character shapes action. That stream of cause and effect is enough. If the sutta’s wager offers a safety net, it also risks shifting the focus, as if intention needed another motive; the work is unchanged, whether it spans lifetimes or only the next moment.

Three – The Human Condition

1. Five Remembrances (20 May)
   • Reflecting on Thich Nhat Hanh’s paraphrase of the Five Remembrances, you explore ageing, illness, death and change – not as bleak certainties but as honest facts that free us from denial. The fifth Remembrance shifts the ground: our actions are the only thing we truly own. Acceptance softens fear, reveals ethical responsibility, and turns impermanence into a reason to live more clearly and more kindly.
2. Karma (3 Jun)
   • A clear, demystified look at karma: not cosmic bookkeeping or moral reward, but cause and effect in real time. Actions shape habits, habits shape character, and character shapes experience. No metaphysics needed – just the simple truth that what you do becomes who you are, and who you are shapes how life feels.
3. Ethical Responsibility (17 Jun)
   • Ethics as training rather than purity: noticing where behaviour contradicts what you already know, and easing that gap. Small choices – in consumption, speech, daily habit – shape the mind that makes them. Responsibility isn’t about being blameless; it’s about reducing unnecessary suffering in proportionate, sustainable ways, letting intention and action quietly align.