In many Asian countries where Buddhism has profoundly shaped the social and cultural landscape for over a millennium, the concept of karma is frequently invoked in everyday conversation. However, the understanding and application of karma often diverge from its nuanced philosophical roots, leading to potential misinterpretations that can inadvertently perpetuate societal inequities. A common, yet simplistic, view equates "good karma" with fortunate occurrences and "bad karma" with misfortune, creating a dualistic framework that fails to capture the intricate nature of karmic causality and its role in personal and collective liberation.
This overly simplified understanding can have significant societal implications. Historically, karma has been misused to justify existing social hierarchies and unfavorable conditions. For instance, discrimination against women has sometimes been explained as the consequence of negative karma accumulated in past lives. Similarly, social injustices, economic exploitation, and political oppression have been rationalized by attributing the suffering of individuals to karmic debts from previous existences. This fatalistic interpretation risks making Buddhism complicit in upholding discrimination based on sex, race, class, or systemic structures by providing a veneer of justification for injustice, thereby hindering efforts to challenge and transform these deeply rooted problems. This perspective stands in stark contrast to core Buddhist teachings that emphasize the inherent equality and interconnectedness of all beings.
Reinterpreting Karma: From Fatalism to Agency
Over the past century, both within Asia and in the West, this deterministic and often fatalistic view of karma has increasingly been recognized as inadequate and, at times, contradictory to fundamental Buddhist principles. In response, various movements have emerged, seeking to counter karmic fatalism by reframing Buddhist practice as an active, engaged process of transforming the world and one’s place within it.
A pivotal figure in this shift was Thich Nhat Hanh, the Vietnamese Zen master who coined the term "engaged Buddhism." His assertion that "all Buddhism is engaged Buddhism" underscored the imperative for practitioners to actively address the suffering and injustices present in the world. This philosophy calls for a conscious integration of spiritual practice with social action, recognizing that liberation is not solely an internal pursuit but is deeply intertwined with the well-being of others and the transformation of societal structures.
In South Korea, the "minjung Buddhism" movement, translating to "Buddhism for the masses," emerged in the late 20th century as a powerful response to political oppression, economic exploitation, and social discrimination. Minjung Buddhists urged their communities to confront and actively resist these systemic forms of suffering. Within this context, the concept of collective karma became a vital framework, empowering communities to recognize their shared responsibility and to unite in their efforts to challenge oppressive conditions. These developments placed questions of agency, responsibility, and relationality at the forefront of Buddhist ethical life, shifting the focus from passive acceptance to active engagement.
The Nuances of Karmic Causality: Agency and Non-Temporality
To truly understand karma’s transformative potential, two key aspects warrant closer examination: agency and non-temporality. The literal meaning of karma is "action," and Buddhist theory posits that every deed has consequences that shape future experiences and actions. However, karmic causality does not operate on a simple, arithmetic logic as is often assumed. Instead, it is far more intricate and largely beyond ordinary comprehension, a complexity that becomes evident when viewed through the lens of Buddhist teachings on radical interconnectedness. The same action can yield vastly different outcomes depending on the specific conditions under which it is performed. As Buddhist scholar Jay Garfield notes, while Buddhist texts may sometimes present generalizations about causes and effects, karma is not a straightforward calculus of utility or merit points.
The common perception of karma as a system of reward and punishment often stems from viewing it through a linear temporal framework that rigidly divides time into past, present, and future. This perspective can inadvertently confine individuals within a deterministic model of moral causality, suggesting that present circumstances are irrevocably predetermined by past actions. An alternative and more empowering approach involves shifting the focus from linear temporality to non-temporality and emphasizing agency. This perspective highlights the inherent capacity to act meaningfully in the present moment, with a profound awareness of how each action is shaped by, and in turn contributes to, a vast network of interconnected conditions.
Agency as the Engine of Transformation
In many Buddhist traditions, awakening is often envisioned as a future goal to be achieved after prolonged practice. However, certain Buddhist traditions propose that awakening must occur moment by moment. This means that each decision, each action, should be undertaken with full attention to its causes, conditions, and potential consequences. This emphasis on present-moment awareness and intentional action is crucial for cultivating agency.
The teachings of Korean Buddhist nuns offer compelling examples of karma understood as a call to exercise agency for authentic living. Kim Iryŏp (1897–1961), a prominent feminist activist before entering monastic life, deeply emphasized agency and the overcoming of self-imposed and socially constructed limitations as central to Buddhist practice. She advocated for breaking free from what she termed the "small self"—the self constrained by socially imposed norms and limited in its capacity for freedom.
Iryŏp defined the true nature of the self as freedom, which she understood as the capacity to exercise agency and transcend constraints imposed by external conditions, thereby becoming the creator of one’s own existence. She referred to this liberated self as "the great self," characterizing its actions as expressions of "creativity." In this view, action is the very foundation of existence. Liberated action, or creativity, is valuable not for accumulating moral points over time, but because each action is a full expression of one’s freedom. Such actions, unbound by linear temporality, help alleviate suffering for oneself and others by dismantling the grip of various attachments and conditioning.
Another influential Korean Buddhist nun, Daehaeng (1927–2012), embodied the activation of agency through her signature teaching of chuin’gong, meaning "the master of one’s life that is empty." This phrase encapsulates a dual insight: individuals must take responsibility for their lives, but this responsibility should not lead to egocentrism, as the self is fundamentally empty. While affirming the traditional Buddhist notion of emptiness—that nothing possesses an independent, enduring essence—Daehaeng nonetheless powerfully emphasized the self’s agency.
Precisely because the self is empty, it is not fixed or bound by attributes imposed by external conditions such as gender or social class. Emptiness, in this framework, does not negate agency; rather, it enables it, echoing Iryŏp’s concept of the great self. Freed from rigid identity and conditioned constraints, the self is empowered to act with wisdom and compassion amidst the ever-changing conditions of life. In both these profound examples, karma—or action—is not about accumulating karmic residue but about activating and expressing one’s inherent capacity to act. Rather than framing karma within a simplistic moral dualism of good and bad, which risks fostering conformity to questionable moral codes or unjust social structures, karma becomes a dynamic force for critical engagement and personal transformation.
Action as the Genesis of Change and Resistance
The German American political thinker Hannah Arendt provided a valuable framework for understanding the nature of human action. She distinguished between labor, work, and action. Labor, for Arendt, sustains life by producing necessities; work creates durable artifacts; but action, she argued, "means to take an initiative, to begin… to set something into motion." For Arendt, the capacity to begin is synonymous with the capacity for change and freedom. While one might be able to avoid labor or even work in life, she insisted that without action, one is not truly alive.
In light of Arendt’s emphasis on action and the argument for the centrality of agency in the theory of karma, it is crucial to acknowledge that not all actions represent creative or constructive agency. Buddhism offers a vital caution through the concept of "ignorance"—a technical term for a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of existence. Acting in ignorance generates suffering for oneself and others. Conversely, when karma is understood as intentional action aimed at eliminating suffering, action becomes a potent form of resistance against whatever constrains individuals and keeps them trapped in a state of ignorance.
Political philosopher José Medina further illuminates this concept through his emphasis on the epistemic dimension of resistance. What Buddhism refers to as ignorance, Medina describes as "insensitivity," "numbness," or "blindness" toward the suffering and injustice experienced by oppressed groups. The effort to overcome such insensitivity is what he terms "epistemic resistance." While Medina’s discussion primarily addresses the social and political dimensions of resistance, Buddhist practice—particularly in Chan/Sŏn/Zen traditions—is deeply resonant with this idea. These traditions are often interpreted as teachings aimed at awakening individuals from habituated, unreflective patterns of thought and perception.
Karma, when understood as active resistance, is thus closely tied to attentiveness—not only to one’s actions but also to the conditions in which those actions unfold. Resistance is often associated with protest against visible social or political injustices. However, it also involves confronting subtler habits of mind, such as fear, anger, attachment, or greed, which impede liberation. As Medina discusses, the internal and external dimensions of resistance are inextricably intertwined. The socially engaged Buddhism previously mentioned directly addresses this interrelation by highlighting the social dimension of action and emphasizing structural violence and its role in producing suffering. To conceive of karma as active resistance, therefore, is to cultivate awareness and agency in ways that challenge both structural and internalized forms of domination.
Socially Engaged Buddhism and the Political Power of Transformation
Despite its long and rich history, Buddhism is sometimes perceived as lacking a robust social and political philosophy. Many observers and students frequently comment that Buddhism appears to be an individualistic religion, an assessment that often assumes practices such as meditation and self-cultivation belong solely to the private realm. However, as Buddhist scholar Leah Kalmanson argues, even solitary meditation can constitute a political act within a Buddhist worldview grounded in the principle of interconnectedness. This perspective suggests that internal transformation can have profound external implications, influencing one’s engagement with the world.
Similarly, Medina contends that epistemic resistance at the personal level is central to protest in its broader social and political dimensions. He defines protest not merely as a tool for delivering a message but as a "transformative learning process." In this view, individual mental transformation is deeply interconnected with broader social change. This cyclical relationship underscores the potential for individual awakening to catalyze collective progress.
This nuanced understanding of karma, as active resistance rooted in awareness and agency, is perhaps more urgently needed today than ever. In an era where powerful institutions increasingly fail to fulfill their responsibilities to protect and support their populations, the concept of karma offers a framework for empowerment. If karmic action involves an individual’s exercise of agency and resistance to the ignorance that constrains them, then social movements can organically emerge from the actions of individuals and grassroots communities who challenge the status quo. Reframing karma as meaningful action grounded in awareness and agency offers profound new insights into the possibilities of both personal and collective transformation. For Hannah Arendt, the potential that arises through such action marks the very beginning of hope.
Adapted from "Karma as Active Resistance" by Jin K. Park, published in The Immanent Frame: Secularism, Religion, and the Public Sphere, August 20, 2025. Published under the Creative Commons license and reprinted with permission.
