Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal: Pranks for Halloween: Is it bad karma?

"KARMA: It's everywhere you're going to be." Deeds have the power to produce resultants.

Pranks are fun to watch because they're funny and because it's not us on the receiving end. It must be terrifying, if even for the first moments, to be the pranked on. But it sure is funny, at least for males. Females may have more sense and sensibility, preferring to daydream about Darcy coming to save them. They are so fun, funny, and fascinating that a question comes up: Are they unskillful karma?

That is, will they result in unpleasant, unwished for, unwanted, even unbearable results when they come to fruition and ripen?

It seems to be a matter of degrees if one thinks about it just a little. What's "better," to kill one person or two people?

Nightmares can be silenced by a single piano chord, study shows (MSN)
But isn't karma an "imponderable" and unanswerable question in Buddhism? No, what's imponderable is the working out (vipaka-phala) of karma (deeds). What we throw out by our mental, verbal, and physical actions will come back to us, but precisely HOW they will come back, that is imponderable and would drive one to madness to keep trying to figure out.

The answer is obvious only it's hard to answer because, between only those two choices, of course it's better to killer fewer people but it cannot in any way be said that it's "good" (and certainly not "better") to kill anyone.

In exactly the same way and for the same reason, a person pranked Halloween-style is going to be scared. That fear may dissolve and resolve again as catharsis, laughter, an adrenaline rush, a moment of clarity, hiccuplessness, or whatever, but for that span of time, one was frightened, experiencing horripilation, terrified, apoplectic, having a bowel movement -- and that can't be good to do to someone just for laughs.

If one imagines a motive -- such as to teach a valuable lesson or remind someone of something or to bring about sudden relief or whatever -- that may modify the karma and attenuate, but it certainly does not erase it, absolve it, make it good, or turn it into an indulgence to be paid off. It's still bad. It's like spanking someone. Whatever the motive, it is still bad (violent, insensitive, cruel, abusive) and potentially traumatizing. One may later thank you for traumatizing him or her, such as when that person grows up, joins the military, and kills many people instead of bowing out of a mission like a smarter or less traumatized person might think to do. But that thanks does not mean it was a good or neutral deed on the part of the doer, only that it had some effect for which the victim feels a necessity to have gratitude, like when you are beaten in prison on arrival, not because you did anything wrong or deserved it but only because stronger guys were looking out for your future and wanted you to toughen up, look alert, and mind your Ps and Qs. You may thank them when you avoid getting jumped by antagonistic opponents or get jumped but were ready for it because you remained hypervigilant after the first beating. But that won't make that beating "good." At best, it might make it "mixed." Mixed means at least partially bad, negative, harmful, an therefore resulting in suffering (dukkha) for the doer.

Message in the Teachings of Karma (bps.lk)

If one beats one's child with a "good" parental motive then imagines that as a karmic result, later on, perhaps in a future life, one is beaten by one's parent with a "good" motive, how is that going to be experienced, how is it going to feel, what are going to be the negative results (whether or not there are any positive ones)? Say that, indeed, one doesn't flip off the neighbor anymore but, on account of being beaten, starts seeing beating others (being physically violent and/or scolding) as a means to an end -- as demonstrated by one's own loving parent? Will one call that a win and say that beating is not bad karma? It is clearly bad karma even if it does some good or has some positive outcome in addition to all the negative outcomes. What if the child becomes nervous, fearful, introverted, shy, full of violent outbursts, closed in, untrusting...? "But, at least, does not flip off the neighbor anymore" will be a pathetic rationalization when trying to explain that spanking was "good karma."

Would that karma were so nice and limited, but each act has exponential results.

Reduce debt, maximize profit

What are the motives for pranks? That is another way to know whether something is skillful (wholesome, good, meritorious, proper conduct, advantageous, beneficial, harmless, in line with the dhamma): find the motives motivating it. There are six motives to choose from, and it is never really going to be just one. It will tend to be a mixed bag. At one impulsion (javana), at one mind moment (citta), it may be just one motive, but there are thousands if not millions of such impulsions and mind moments in one act (karma). The most important quality of the karma (act) is the cetana (motive, ambition, intention behind it). The six motives are easy to remember because they flipsides of one another:

greed (attraction), nongreed
hatred (aversion), nonhatred
delusion (wrong view), nondelusion.

Actions motivated by any degree of greed, hatred, or delusion we can put in the unskillful, unwholesome, harmful, producing dukkha pile.

Actions motivated by any degree of nongreed (letting go, giving up, sharing, generosity, nonstinginess, charity, compassion, caring, loving-kindness, harmlessness) we can put in the skillful pile, which produces (when it finally comes to fruition, which is whenever it meets the necessary and sufficient conditions to come to frution, much more likely later rather than sooner.

Actions motivated by aversion (FEAR, annoyance, disliking, revulsion, hatred) we can put in the unskillful pile.

Actions motviated by nonaversion (tolerance, sympathy, mercy, compassion, loving kindness, fairness, enlightened self-interest) we can put in the skillful pile.

Actions motivated by delusion (ignorance, confusion, wrong view, misplaced or blind faith, fanaticism) we can put in the unskillful pile, which produces unwelcome, unwanted results when they (those impulsions and mind moments) come to fruition and ripen.

Actions motivated by nondelusion (wisdom, direct knowing and seeing, understanding, clarity) we can put in the skillful pile.

Spite, not your boyfriend, is karma.

One thing that should be clear although it is probably not is that there is no such thing as greed or hatred without delusion. Delusion gives rise to greed. It gives rise to hatred. There could be greed without hatred, and hatred without greed, or delusion without either, but otherwise they are usually mixed up, supporting one another, producing unskillful karma.

All that one might say in condemnation of the first three mentioned might can be turned around to praise the other three, but one must understand these terms are translated from a more sophisticated and subtle language with more nuances than English. Pali, which comes from Sanskrit, has many multivalent terms, with each word having a RANGE of meanings. That's why it sounds "negative," non-this and non-that. But according to Bhikkhu Bodhi and other scholars, this is just a convention. Nondelusion (whatever it might mean in English) really does mean "wisdom" in the original languages of the Buddha (Gandhari, Magadhi, Pali, Prakrit, Sanskrit). And nonhatred (adosa) is not merely the absence of hatred but the positive aspects of loving kindness. Our English ears have trouble hearing this and we see negativity where it is not.

Another way to have looked at this question, "Is it (pranks or anything else) bad karma?" would have been to compare life to the Disciplinary Code or Rules and Regulations the Buddha set down for monastics. Bothering others, no matter the motive, is bad because it bothers them. So thoughtlessly, unmindfully, neglectfully, carelessly, inadvertently making noise that is disruptive to others is labeled "wrong" and "not to be done" in the Vinaya. One trivial example that comes to mind is that, while eating, which in olden times was done with the hand, one is not to scrape the bottom of the bowl with one's nails such as to make noise that bothers others who are eating.

There was no intention to bother them and, nevertheless, it is wrong and should be avoided. If done with the motive to disturb others, then it is clearly bad however minor it may seem or however many rationalizations we may give. So following the example of the Monastic Sangha, who are models of good behavior for Buddhists (not that they always are), we can clearly see that pranking, joking, teasing, or even unintentionally disturbing others by our walking loudly, coughing, twitches, scratching, snoring, carelessly passing wind, and so on can be deemed violations of the Code, which applies to monastics and not us but is an example to us of what the Buddha taught for the longevity of Buddhism (the Dharma in the world), the respect of others for Buddhism and the Buddha as a teacher, for the comfort of the peaceful, and for the taming of the disturbed. The Vinaya explains why each rule or regulation was set down in the first place, with a backstory to explain its necessity. Some rules are as general as just for making it comfortable to be around or for the calming of those who are not calm. Big time pranks would never be in line with this. Little teases maybe, but even that is walking the line as we never know how someone is going to take something. We might be able to know our motives, innocent or not, but they are not likely to know those motives so may grow resentful, angry, vengeful, disturbed, or motivated to strike back. For peace's sake, keep the peace. Pranks are anti-peaceful.

Karmic results

What will be the result of any intentional action? We may imagine that it is commensurate with the act, and it is, but we all fail to understand "the act." The typical misconception, based more on a popular understanding of Hinduism than what the Buddha taught, is that if we do one thing, that one thing will happen to us in return.

This is wrong for at least two reasons. One, we don't realize what constitutes "the act" (the deed, action, intention). The Abhidhamma (the "Dharma in Ultimate Terms") as a treatise of Buddhist psychology goes into extreme detail about what "consciousness" is. We may think it's a thing, but in fact it's a process, a stream of mind-moments (cittas). These are not really "thoughts" but components or "particles" of awareness. Mental formations -- such as feelings, perceptions, volitions, and 50 others -- give us "consciousness." Among these are javanas or "impulsions." If there are countless cittas streaming, there are an exponential number of javanas for each. Each of these might lay down a track, a seed, that later manifests as a karmic result. If this understanding is correct, one "deed" (with uncountable cittas and javanas) will result in an exponential number of results. The is for the good, the bad, and the neutral resulting in welcome, unwelcome, and neither welcome-nor-unwelcome results. Results are of two kinds, resultants (vipakas) and fruit (phala). It's not clear what the distinction is, but it used to be said that one referred to mental resultants and the other to physical circumstances. Thus, one can see that mental resultants might be immediate (regret, remorse, sadness, mental pain, delight, passion, joy, elation, etc.) whereas as life circumstances might be the fruit, our situation, where we are born, how our body is, our looks, health, longevity or lack of these.

Two, since ancient times, for whatever reason, people have made the mistake of thinking that if we do something in a certain way, that deed will produce the same thing for us in the same way. This is completely wrong. When the Buddha was asked about it, he said that such a view was the negation of his teachings on karma. For example, if we slap someone in public, we may worry that our deed (our karma of slapping that person in public) will result in us being slapped in public. This is so common a view that there's no convincing even most Buddhists that this is wrong. This is what sutras and stories, the media and our own thinking tell us is "fair" and proportionate. It's incorrect. The Buddha teaches a variable result of karma. For example, if someone kills, the result will not be that one is killed. That could be the result. It may even be likely that that is the result. Oh, if only it were we might learn something. The results are actually much worse. That act, that deed, because so many things led up to it, because it was motivated by so many cittas and so many more impulsions, will yield unwelcome results over and over, again and again for a long, long time. Even if the negative results are avoided in this life (we are not caught, we are not punished, we experience no remorse, regret, sadness, misgivings, worries about retribution, coarseness, insensitivity, drunkenness to try to drown the guilt or bolster the rationalizations), they will not be avoided forever.

So "live by the sword, die by the sword" is not necessarily true. It is self-evidently untrue in the way we understand it and true in another way we do not understand. We think that because this killer who killed with a sword, who killed many people because he lived "by the sword" as a soldier, cop, or criminal must die by getting stabbed or beheaded, but he died of a heart attack or disease or old age surrounded by his loved ones. How could this be? Doesn't make the famous utterer of that adage wrong? That utterer will be vindicated because there are many lives, not just this one. So what if he doesn't "die by the sword" this time? He likely will in the future, many times over, but even if he doesn't, even if that is avoided, he will reap what he has sown and it will produce many unwelcome results (resultants and fruits, multiplying, maturing and ripening). In hell realms, one may be killed with a sword many times. And, still, having been killed many times over, having had many lives shortened by this act, incurring animosity and fear from others, bad looks, an angry disposition, aversion, fear, worry, and so on, that deed is not exhausted. It keeps producing unwelcome results when it gets the opportunity.

Even if the negative results are avoided in the very next life, which is unlikely since it is a heavy karma (course of action with the power to drag us down to the downfall or niraya and condition our rebirth in an unfortunate plane of existence, among animals, ghosts, demons, or hellions), going from brightness to darkness or darkness to darkness, there is still the probability of that deed bearing its result in subsequent lives when it gets the opportunity to produce results. When it finally catches up with us, the result will not be someone kills us and that's that. It is far more likely that it will result in sickliness, a shortened lifespan wherever one is born, ugliness, and other problems, to say nothing of the possibility that the person we killed will seek revenge life after life, in a cycle of retribution because we will strike back and get in more trouble. But, say, no bad result ever came about until one life far in the future, a fortunate rebirth on a good plane of existence on or above the human plane. And there the result was that it caused a shortened life and we died prematurely: That karma is in no way exhausted by that having happened. We are likely to have many lifespans shortened, have much sickliness, much pain, many lives in the downfall (a collective term for subhuman lives which have much suffering and very little hope of escape). When we add up what happened as a result of that "one" deed of killing, we will certainly understand that it was not worth it. Conversely, a skillful deed was more than worth it. If we give, share, help others, we will be helped many times over before that karma of giving that one time, even a small amount, is exhausted. (It depends to whom and how we give, but giving is good, which is not to say that it can't be made bad or soured or used as a pivot point for negativity. Imagine if we give to shame someone, outdo someone, belittle someone, or simply to gain more for ourselves. It looks like giving and sharing from the outside, but inside we can see a negative motive for a "good" deed. So it can bear its mixed results, perhaps ironically. What if as a result of giving, we get a fortune BUT we are limited to distributing it not enjoying it ourselves? We are made the head of a trust fund for others with a pittance of a stipend for serving on the board of its distribution. So the Buddha many times advised, for the nondoing of the unskillful and the doing of the skillful, this is what a buddha teaches. Why he teaches is that we and others around us might benefit. He wished for the whole world, far beyond this human plane, to benefit.

Kar Krashes and Karens (instant karma?)

This is the strange and seemingly "unfair" thing about karma. We only killed that one time, yet we are experiencing the unwanted, unwelcome, unbearable results over and over again. Similarly with skillful or good deeds, with merit. Though we only give a little, it comes back manifold. (Cast your bread upon the water).

Finally, what is the ultimate wisdom? It is enlightenment (bodhi, satori, kensho, vipassana, insight, epiphany, dawning, knowledge, sight, knowing-and-seeing, liberating-wisdom, awakening). Why? It is because ignorance (avijja, avidya, moha, miccha-ditthi, maya) is the root of all our problems in samsara (the cycle of rebirth, "again becoming," reappearance) which is inseparable from dukkha so long as we're trapped in it. Liberation (moksha) is no longer being trapped even when we still might be in it as in nirvana-with-remainder, the living arhat or buddha who still experiences pain (dukkhata) but has overcome all that can upset (dukkha) -- a response to pain rooted in aversion or frustration in wanting something to be other than the way it is.

Less is more. We should have said far less (words) and it would have been much more (useful). But for readers who read all the way through, comment. Is there any sense in what the Buddha taught? It's not so different than our Christian, Hindu, Jain, and even Jewish teachings, only the Buddha tweaked those misunderstandings and made them so clear that in his day, he was never called a "Buddhist" but frequently called a "Karmavadin," a teacher of the efficacy of deeds.

You may think I'm "hot," but I'm d*ad cold, so the joke's on you (Ariana Viera, RIP).

There's great hope in what he taught because in all but five situations (regarding five heinous deeds), all karma is modifiable and may even be compensated for so that it does not ruin us. Even in the case of those five deeds, and we can look at the example of Devadatta for evidence of this, karma does not rule everything. Karma is not the cause of everything. Those five have the unfortunate power to bear the result in the very next (immediate) rebirth, and it will not be good. But what else we do now will also condition the future, even if other deeds are not powerful enough to expunge or avoid this powerful result of immediate next rebirth experience. The evidence is in what the Buddha said would happen to Devadatta, the Judas figure in Buddhism. He might have much suffering ahead of him, much explaining and accounting for his horrific misdeeds, yet he would eventually become an arhat perhaps even a silent buddha.