Followers of the “Law of Attraction” could benefit from understanding the Buddhist principle of Karma.

The Law of Attraction, presented first in the film The Secret with a follow-up book with the same title, essentially states that thoughts influence chance. Ergo, if we think positively about our success, we will achieve success. A formula is presented for this attainment: “ask, believe, receive.” This means that one should determine the object of desire and ask the universe for it, believe (act and feel) that the object of your desire is on its way, and finally to be open (in alignment with the universe) and receive the object of desire.

As far as it goes, I don’t have a problem with this “law.” In fact, one might say in Buddhist terms that the Law of Attraction is a crude presentation of positive karma (focusing on “thoughts” as “acts” and its effects). I believe we can all understand that thinking positively can — at the very least — occasionally grant us a “placebo effect” of good returns. I believe it also stands true that a positive attitude helps inspire skillful behavior which is generally more helpful in bringing about positive outcomes than negative thinking and unskillful behavior. Furthermore, treating such a model as a “divine law” inspires belief which can — although the belief may be ultimately delusional — produce a sense of confidence that we will be successful.

Because of its simplistic and folksy understanding of Karma, however, the Law of Attraction goes off the rails. Frequently, the Law of Attraction is applied for the acquisition of material wealth with the “object of desire” being something like a new car. As such, it doesn’t necessarily have guiding ethical principles that steer the acquisition from wrongdoing that can occur, especially when the “object of desire” belongs to someone else or the means of acquisition are unethical or even criminal.

One example of a promoter of the Law of Attraction gone wrong is self-help guru James Arthur Ray. Ray, who was arrested in February, rebranded his own version of the Law of Attraction as “Harmonic Wealth” which claims to provide the “missing keys” to those having trouble using the Law of Attraction. As a means of attaining his own wealth, Ray led spiritual retreats in the form of sweat lodge ceremonies in Sedona, Arizona, charging each of the participants thousands of dollars. As reported in a February 4 New York Times article, things turned ugly when three of the participants died and others were injured:

The victims, Kirby Brown, 38, of Westtown, N.Y.; James Shore, 40, of Milwaukee; and Liz Neuman, 49, of Prior Lake, Minn., were overcome in the two-hour “spiritual warrior” ceremony, in which hot rocks were placed inside a tent so the 55 participants could sweat out whatever was ailing their souls. Twenty others suffered heat-related injuries.

Participants have said Mr. Ray ignored signs that people were falling into distress in the pitch-dark tent and said things like “it’s a good day to die” in his zeal to keep the ceremony going. Several lawsuits have alleged negligence and fraud. (New York Times).

Naturally, the actions of Ray can’t be blamed upon the Law of Attraction itself, but it is an example of how things can go terribly wrong when self-help philosophies aren’t grounded by ethical principles or even reason. In fact, one might say that this is an example of negative karma on the part of Ray. Ray either ignored or failed to take notice that the sweat lodge participants were already in serious physical distress (eyewitness accounts state that within an hour of entering the sweat lodge, participants — already dehydrated — began vomiting, gasping for air and collapsing while Ray urged everyone to stay inside the lodge).

But are the participants who died or got sick responsible for their own karmic outcome? I don’t think we can make this call. Yes, there is a line of causation (choices and actions exposed the sweat lodge participants to Ray, after all) but as the author Nagapriya points out in his book Exploring Karma & Rebirth, karma is primarily a principle of moral agency:

Karma is not a general law of causation. It is not even a general law of action. It is a practical teaching that underpins Buddhist ethics. It accounts for how our deliberate behaviour leads not only to the transformation of our moral character leads not only to the transformation of our moral character — for better or worse — but our relationships with other people, and even the world that we live in. (Nagapriya, 41)

Nagapriya explains that karma is often conflated with the Buddhist principle of dependent origination, but that Karma is limited to the sphere of human action. Therefore, dependent origination’s “meta view” of causation includes karma but is not limited to it. Equating karma with dependent origination as a general theory of causation can be dangerous, as Nagapriya explains:

This is a dangerous misunderstanding. A crude version of the Karma doctrine makes it responsible for all the triumphs and tragedies of life: if we get shipwrecked then that is somehow the working out of our karma; if a brick falls on our head as we walk down the street, that’s our karma; if we win the National Lottery, well, that’s our good karma. (Nagapriya, 30)

Nagapriya points out that this crude understanding of Karma is also out of scope with what the Buddha and early Buddhist teachers taught as well, pointing to statements such as those made by the monk Nagasena in Questions of King Milinda who said “Without a Buddha’s insight, no one can ascertain the extent of the action of kamma.” (Nagapriya, 36)

Causation is often extremely complex and Nagapriya points out that dependent origination includes five modes or niyamas, including the biological, physical, spiritual, ethical and mental modes. As such, deaths resulting from of an earthquake are better understood in terms of the physical niyama — utu-niyama — rather than the ethical niyama of Karma (kamma-niyama). Naturally, one can also imagine cases, such as wars, where more than one modal cause may come into play. Therefore, ascertaining cause (and perhaps even blame) by referring to Karma can be an inaccurate and dangerous practice. With this deeper understanding, one should not blame victims — including the sweat lodge participants — that their fate results solely from their own karma.

Similarly, returning to the “crude Karma” known as the Law of Attraction, the notion of attaining success via positive thinking alone is also unwise. In addition to our intentions, dependent origination informs us that causes include forces outside our own wishes and actions. One might indeed try to harmonize with all these forces, but it is no guarantee of success. And as the ironic morality tale of James Arthur Ray shows us, avoidance of the ethical niyama, Karma, can lead one to tragic behavior.

Karma refers to the effects of volitional tendencies — the choices that we make — and that we can change, often for the better, by breaking free of bad habits and making good ethical decisions. It would behoove followers of the Law of Attraction to take a deep look at Karma in order to recognize that positive thinking is only good when it is grounded in ethical behavior and reason.