<p>From <a href="http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhagavad Gita 3.7-9</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But those karma yogis who control their knowledge senses with the mind,
  O Arjuna, and <strong>engage the working senses in working without
  attachment</strong>, are certainly superior. You should thus perform your
  prescribed Vedic duties, since action is superior to inaction. By
  ceasing activity, even your bodily maintenance will not be possible.
  <strong>Work must be done as a yajña (sacrifice) to the Supreme Lord</strong>; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O
  son of Kunti, <strong>perform your prescribed duties, without being attached
  to the results</strong>, for the satisfaction of God.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The OP's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita teachings is correct.</p>

<p>However, the following sounds more like the teachings of Jainism rather than Buddhism:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><strong>OP:</strong> Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any
  karma altogether.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Devadaha Sutta</a> (where the Buddha speaks to some followers of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism), the translator Ven. Thanissaro comments:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the
  past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that
  suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the
  suffering <strong>while not creating any new kamma leading to future
  suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many
  people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well.</strong>
  Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of
  purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with
  non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old
  kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old
  kamma can be burned away.</p>
  
  <p>In this sutta, however, <strong>the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea</strong>.
  First he notes that none of the Niganthas (Jains) have ever come to
  the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way ...</p>
  
  <p>Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about
  dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now. As the
  Buddha points out in MN 106, equanimity plays an important role in
  this practice, but it can also become an object for passion and
  delight, which would then stand in the way of true release. Thus he
  notes here that, in some cases, dispassion can arise simply from
  on-looking equanimity directed at the causes of stress. <strong>In other
  cases, it can come only through exertion: the mental effort — through
  the fabrications of directed thought, evaluation, and perception — to
  develop the discernment needed to see through and abandon any and all
  passion.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The way to end suffering according to the Buddha is to end cravings through the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Noble Eightfold Path</a>. The way to end suffering is not through the avoiding of creating new karma.</p>

<p>The method stated in BG 3.7-9 is one of equanimity (performing duty without attachment to the results of actions), but it may not work according to the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aneñja-sappaya Sutta (MN 106)</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the
  case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should
  not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not
  occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' —
  obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"</p>
  
  <p>"A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'</p>
  
  <p>"What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another
  might not?"</p>
  
  <p>"There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way
  — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not
  be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I
  abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes
  it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes
  it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is
  sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a
  monk is not totally unbound."</p>
  
  <p>"Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"</p>
  
  <p>"The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."</p>
  
  <p>"Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme
  sustenance."</p>
  
  <p>"Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance;
  for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is
  the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk,
  having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur
  to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come
  to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that
  equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he
  does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain
  fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not
  sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance,
  Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, self-defense is not wrong according to the Buddha in the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahaparinibbana Sutta</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
  arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
  and those who have already come might live there in peace?"</p>
  
  <p>"I have heard, Lord, that they do."</p>
  
  <p>"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
  be expected, not their decline."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>However, despite self-defense, one should not carry unskillful thoughts like hatred and anger (from the <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kakacupama Sutta</a>):</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you
  with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you
  should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There,
  Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be
  affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall
  remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not
  give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, in Buddhism, there is no Supreme Creator God and there is no eternal absolute soul.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T17:13:04.987Z
2017-08-29T02:45:45.063Z
2017-08-29T02:45:45.063Z
ruben2020
<p>I want to give a general answer. Hopefully you like it. I would say by deviating from the natural order or godly order, you create karma. That is, you went further away from god or bhagwan or whomsoever and your personality gets based on it. This is why you have to set your intent on "Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration" like @SarathW wrote. Because otherwise, when a similar situation arises you are unlikely to reverse it and learn from it and also, so to say, undoing your past mistake.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T11:34:04.983Z
2017-08-28T12:12:31.153Z
2017-08-28T12:12:31.153Z
Halloween_Udo
<p>In Buddhism, it is taught Kiriya Citta. That is action not create kamma.</p>

<p>========</p>

<p>"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T08:12:28.957Z
2017-08-28T08:12:28.957Z
SarathW
<p>Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment. </p>

<p>In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts &amp; rituals; &amp; (iv) self-views. The view that '<em>war is duty</em>' is attachment. </p>

<p>In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "<a href="https://www.britannica.com/topic/jati-Hindu-caste" rel="nofollow noreferrer">jati</a>". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (<em>upadana</em>) is the condition (<em>paccaya</em>) for becoming (<em>bhava</em>), which is the condition for birth (<em>jati</em>).</p>

<p>The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste &amp; no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war &amp; killing commanded by Krishna. </p>

<p>In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being. </p>

<p>The killing Krisha recommended &amp; Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated &amp; immediately not a monk.</p>

<p>This is the difference between Buddhism &amp; Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill. </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
  speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
  mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
  the cessation of kamma.</p>
  
  <p><a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nibbedhika Sutta</a></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T10:12:29.947Z
As in case of Arjuna, Krishna advised him to pick up weapons against the wrongdoings done to his family. Krishna said, even if he chooses  not to fight his brothers, Duryodhana was adamant to annihilate pandavas in any case. What does Buddha says in this scenario? Does fighting in an act of self defense considered as hurting/accumulation of karma?
Himanshu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T12:14:31.607Z
Hi. The question of good & bad kamma is not really relevant because in Buddhism good kamma includes attachment thus the doer of self-defense kamma is bound. For example, the Buddha taught his monks to not do violence if violence is done to them. Regards
Dhamma Dhatu
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T08:57:03.617Z
2017-08-28T19:12:16.333Z
2017-08-28T19:12:16.333Z
Dhamma Dhatu
<p>In Hinduism, there are many philosophies developed regarding the concept of God and afterlife, and they all give their own interpretations. Regarding the Karmic approach, the main book that gives insight about that is the Bhagwad Gita.</p>

<ul>
<li>The main concept that arises from it is that no man can exist without doing any karma <strong>(Knowingly or Unknowingly)</strong> and hence krishna says that "any Karma without attachment is the right way to not get bounded by your karmic effects".</li>
<li>Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether. </li>
</ul>

<p>As a man can`t live without doing karma, and this will result in karmic debt, isn't the salvation of a person (Nirvana) infeasible by this approach? Are Buddhism and Bhagwad Gita on different pages, regarding the concept of karma?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-28T08:05:40.163Z
You say that "man can`t live without doing karma" -- perhaps it's possible to answer this question by explaining how it can be that, according to Buddhism, a liberated person creates no new karma.
ChrisW
<karma><comparative-religion>
Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism
# Concept of Karma in Bhagwad Gita and Buddhism

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-28)

In Hinduism, there are many philosophies developed regarding the concept of God and afterlife, and they all give their own interpretations. Regarding the Karmic approach, the main book that gives insight about that is the Bhagwad Gita.

* The main concept that arises from it is that no man can exist without doing any karma **(Knowingly or Unknowingly)** and hence krishna says that "any Karma without attachment is the right way to not get bounded by your karmic effects".
* Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any karma altogether.

As a man can`t live without doing karma, and this will result in karmic debt, isn't the salvation of a person (Nirvana) infeasible by this approach? Are Buddhism and Bhagwad Gita on different pages, regarding the concept of karma?

**Tags:** karma, comparative-religion

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You say that "man can`t live without doing karma" -- perhaps it's possible to answer this question by explaining how it can be that, according to Buddhism, a liberated person creates no new karma.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2017-08-28. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

In Buddhism, it is taught Kiriya Citta. That is action not create kamma.

========

"And what is kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is called kamma that is neither dark nor bright with neither dark nor bright result, leading to the ending of kamma.

<http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.235.than.html>


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2017-08-28. Score: 3

Bhagavad Gita is different to Buddhism because Bhagavad Gita teaches a person can kill in war without attachment. Buddhism does not teach this because any view that believes war is duty is attachment.

In Buddhism, there are four types of attachment: (i) sensuality; (ii) views; (iii) precepts & rituals; & (iv) self-views. The view that '*war is duty*' is attachment.

In Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna had the view or idea of "my family" or "[jati](https://www.britannica.com/topic/jati-Hindu-caste)". 'Jati' (self-identity; social-identity; caste) is attachment in Buddhism. Buddha taught attachment (*upadana*) is the condition (*paccaya*) for becoming (*bhava*), which is the condition for birth (*jati*).

The Buddha ended 'jati' ('birth') therefore had no caste & no caste duty. The Buddha renounced his warrior caste, unlike Arjuna, who did his warrior duty of war & killing commanded by Krishna.

In Buddhism, the noble eightfold path is the ending of kamma. By following the noble eightfold path, an arahant (Buddha) cannot kill a human being.

The killing Krisha recommended & Arjuna performed is a crime in Buddhism. If a Buddhist monk recommends to a person to kill another person, this monk is defeated & immediately not a monk.

This is the difference between Buddhism & Bhagavad Gita. In Buddhism, a Buddha/arahant cannot kill or teach another to kill.

> Just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right
> speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right
> mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to
> the cessation of kamma.
>
> [Nibbedhika Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: As in case of Arjuna, Krishna advised him to pick up weapons against the wrongdoings done to his family. Krishna said, even if he chooses  not to fight his brothers, Duryodhana was adamant to annihilate pandavas in any case. What does Buddha says in this scenario? Does fighting in an act of self defense considered as hurting/accumulation of karma?  
> **username_5**: Hi. The question of good & bad kamma is not really relevant because in Buddhism good kamma includes attachment thus the doer of self-defense kamma is bound. For example, the Buddha taught his monks to not do violence if violence is done to them. Regards  

---

### Answer by username_2 on 2017-08-28. Score: 1

From [Bhagavad Gita 3.7-9](http://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/3):

> But those karma yogis who control their knowledge senses with the mind,
> O Arjuna, and **engage the working senses in working without
> attachment**, are certainly superior. You should thus perform your
> prescribed Vedic duties, since action is superior to inaction. By
> ceasing activity, even your bodily maintenance will not be possible.
> **Work must be done as a yajña (sacrifice) to the Supreme Lord**; otherwise, work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O
> son of Kunti, **perform your prescribed duties, without being attached
> to the results**, for the satisfaction of God.

The OP's interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita teachings is correct.

However, the following sounds more like the teachings of Jainism rather than Buddhism:

> **OP:** Whereas Buddhism says, any act of Karma whether good or bad is bound to create attachment so the best way is to not indulge in any
> karma altogether.

On the [Devadaha Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.101.than.html) (where the Buddha speaks to some followers of Mahavira, the founder of Jainism), the translator Ven. Thanissaro comments:

> If the cause of present suffering were located exclusively in the
> past, no one could do anything in the present moment to stop that
> suffering; the most that could be done would be to endure the
> suffering **while not creating any new kamma leading to future
> suffering. Although this was the Jain approach to practice, many
> people at present believe that it is the Buddhist approach as well.**
> Meditation, according to this understanding, is the process of
> purifying the mind of old kamma by training it to look on with
> non-reactive equanimity as pain arises. The pain is the result of old
> kamma, the equanimity adds no new kamma, and thus over time all old
> kamma can be burned away.
>
> In this sutta, however, **the Buddha heaps ridicule on this idea**.
> First he notes that none of the Niganthas (Jains) have ever come to
> the end of pain by trying to burn it away in this way ...
>
> Thus the practice must focus on ways to understand and bring about
> dispassion for the causes of stress and pain here and now. As the
> Buddha points out in MN 106, equanimity plays an important role in
> this practice, but it can also become an object for passion and
> delight, which would then stand in the way of true release. Thus he
> notes here that, in some cases, dispassion can arise simply from
> on-looking equanimity directed at the causes of stress. **In other
> cases, it can come only through exertion: the mental effort — through
> the fabrications of directed thought, evaluation, and perception — to
> develop the discernment needed to see through and abandon any and all
> passion.**

The way to end suffering according to the Buddha is to end cravings through the [Noble Eightfold Path](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html). The way to end suffering is not through the avoiding of creating new karma.

The method stated in BG 3.7-9 is one of equanimity (performing duty without attachment to the results of actions), but it may not work according to the [Aneñja-sappaya Sutta (MN 106)](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.106.than.html):

> When this was said, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One: "There is the
> case, lord, where a monk, having practiced in this way — 'It should
> not be, it should not occur to me; it will not be, it will not
> occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I abandon' —
> obtains equanimity. Now, would this monk be totally unbound, or not?"
>
> "A certain such monk might, Ananda, and another might not.'
>
> "What is the cause, what is the reason, whereby one might and another
> might not?"
>
> "There is the case, Ananda, where a monk, having practiced in this way
> — (thinking) 'It should not be, it should not occur to me; it will not
> be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come to be, that I
> abandon' — obtains equanimity. He relishes that equanimity, welcomes
> it, remains fastened to it. As he relishes that equanimity, welcomes
> it, remains fastened to it, his consciousness is dependent on it, is
> sustained by it (clings to it). With clinging/sustenance, Ananda, a
> monk is not totally unbound."
>
> "Being sustained, where is that monk sustained?"
>
> "The dimension of neither perception nor non-perception."
>
> "Then, indeed, being sustained, he is sustained by the supreme
> sustenance."
>
> "Being sustained, Ananda, he is sustained by the supreme sustenance;
> for this — the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception — is
> the supreme sustenance. There is [however] the case where a monk,
> having practiced in this way — 'It should not be, it should not occur
> to me; it will not be, it will not occur to me. What is, what has come
> to be, that I abandon' — obtains equanimity. He does not relish that
> equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain fastened to it. As he
> does not relish that equanimity, does not welcome it, does not remain
> fastened to it, his consciousness is not dependent on it, is not
> sustained by it (does not cling to it). Without clinging/sustenance,
> Ananda, a monk is totally unbound."

Also, self-defense is not wrong according to the Buddha in the [Mahaparinibbana Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html):

> "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the
> arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so,
> and those who have already come might live there in peace?"
>
> "I have heard, Lord, that they do."
>
> "So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to
> be expected, not their decline."

However, despite self-defense, one should not carry unskillful thoughts like hatred and anger (from the [Kakacupama Sutta](http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.budd.html)):

> "Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you
> with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you
> should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There,
> Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be
> affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall
> remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not
> give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.

Also, in Buddhism, there is no Supreme Creator God and there is no eternal absolute soul.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-08-28. Score: 0

I want to give a general answer. Hopefully you like it. I would say by deviating from the natural order or godly order, you create karma. That is, you went further away from god or bhagwan or whomsoever and your personality gets based on it. This is why you have to set your intent on "Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration" like @username_4 wrote. Because otherwise, when a similar situation arises you are unlikely to reverse it and learn from it and also, so to say, undoing your past mistake.


---

