Vows, Oaths and Karma

Last Thursday I listened to a program on BBC Radio4 chaired by Melvyn Bragg about the role, significance and importance of oaths in ancient societies (essentially Mediterranean societies).

It is a particularly interesting subject for a Buddhist because of the central role of the vow in Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism. You might say that the defining characteristics of the Mahayana is the Bodhisattva Vow - the personal commitment to work towards the liberation of all beings. Vows of various kinds occur throughout Mahayana Buddhism and especially in relation to Arya-Bodhisattvas who's vows can be invoked to assist in the completion of some undertaking. (For instance, calling on the Medicine Buddha in the case of illness to help bring about healing is calling on his vow to bring about healing).

In the Ancient world a vow was sacred and was the root of legality. So when a vow was taken in the name of a god (thus an oath was sworn) it was the most serious matter and all parties accepted that it would not be broken by except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course, one man's extreme is not another. The classic case from Roman history was that of the Roman general Regulus who was captured by the Carthaginians and sent as an envoy to Rome to sue for a deal between Rome and Carthage after having Regulus swear that he would return. Regulus was supposed to encourage the Romans to accept the deal in order to secure his own freedom. As a loyal Roman citizen he told the Romans to have nothing to do with the Carthaginians. He then return to Carthage to fulfill his vow in the certain knowledge of a brutal death at their hands. In the eyes of the Romans he was a hero, the sort of man of honour and duty that every mother wanted her son to grow into. (There was later debate about whether this was the right interpretation of Regulus' action and whether it was possible to make a valid vow to people so base - from a Roman point of view - as the Carthaginians).

In the British Parliament the term 'honourable' as in 'the honorable gentleman for xxxx' is supposed to imply that MPs when speaking in the House cannot have their word questioned because they are acting on their honour. Their word should be taken as an oath. It thus becomes a grave offense (in fact an issue of which ministers resign) if they knowingly lie to parliament. By the same understanding it is considered 'unparliamentary' to accuse a fellow MP of lying in the house and Winston Churchill famously invented the phrase 'terminological inexactitudinarian' as a way of calling a fellow parliamentarian a liar but not in so many words.

Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth of Athens by questioning the existence of the gods. Since oaths were taken in the names of the various gods, to question the gods was to undermine the basis of Athenian law. Oaths would become meaningless and contracts and obligations, baseless.

And there is the famous 'swearing' in court to tell the truth, mostly still done in the name of God. Certain non-conformist/puritans object to all forms of oath because a man's (and woman's word) should be sufficient in itself: 'let thy "aye" be aye and they "nay" be nay'. I believe their objection rests on the foundation that it is taking the name of God in vain.

What separates the ancients and all members of theistic religions from Buddhists when it comes to the taking of vows is this: by what power is the vow taken. In the ancient world a broken vow would exact the fury of one or other of the gods - sometimes not just on the vow breaker but his family and as-yet unborn generations. To break a vow was to bring down a curse on the family so that their every move would result in misfortune. To break a vow taken in the name of one supreme being would be something that the person would have to answer for in eternity. The responsibility would be that of the individual, but could have eternal consequences.

But a Buddhist vow is taken with the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas as witnesses - not as avenging powers. I must admit I couldn't see the ontological significance of vows in Buddhism for a long time. Obviously they have psychological significance - making a promise in the name of your most cherished and closely held beliefs doesn't require much explanation. However, it seemed to go well beyond that. A broken Tantric vow has such karmic repercussions as to be beyond considering - it is a gateway to the deepest and most demented hells for an unimaginable space of time. The clue to this puzzle is in the nature of daemons who come to terrify the mind-stream of the recently dead ('bardo of death' experiences). These daemons appear real to the mind, but are constructions of the mind itself. They are the deeper tormented layers of the mind taking on a form which has emotional immediacy. Since these hell-beings are mental constructions, but of such apparent reality that they are almost impossible to deny, then their root is also found in mental constructions. So this suggests that the Buddhist vow has its nature in the mind shaping the universe. All karmic action shapes the universe and the mind-stream, but a vow is a sort of 'complete action', a specially deep karma. The person is fully mindful of what they are doing, and draws on the psychological well-springs to give the vow power. So the breaking of the vow is really throwing a spanner into the very heart of the 'works'. The vow is not in the words but in the mind that shapes the words and in so doing shapes the future of existence.