|
|
|
|
Karma in Hinduism
|
| |
|
| |
Karma is a concept in Hinduism which explains causality through a system where beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions throughout a person's reincarnated lives.
The doctrine of transmigration of the soul, or fateful retribution for acts committed, does not appear in the Rig Veda. The concept of karma appeared in Hindu thought during the period 800-200 BC and became widespread during the period considered as "Classical Hinduism" 200 BC - 1100 AD.
Axel Michaels, in his interpretation, believes that codification of these ideas appeared only in late texts, and then as only one of many explanations for why things happen as they do:
With the early , diverse and incoherent speculations about the transmigration of the soul appeared, which were expanded into a ramified system in the legal texts and .
Discussion
Ask a question about 'Karma in Hinduism' Start a new discussion about 'Karma in Hinduism' Answer questions from other users |
Encyclopedia
Karma is a concept in Hinduism which explains causality through a system where beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions throughout a person's reincarnated lives.
The doctrine of transmigration of the soul, or fateful retribution for acts committed, does not appear in the Rig Veda. The concept of karma appeared in Hindu thought during the period 800-200 BC and became widespread during the period considered as "Classical Hinduism" 200 BC - 1100 AD.
Axel Michaels, in his interpretation, believes that codification of these ideas appeared only in late texts, and then as only one of many explanations for why things happen as they do:
With the early , diverse and incoherent speculations about the transmigration of the soul appeared, which were expanded into a ramified system in the legal texts and . Only with these texts do we find the concept of the repeated transmigration linked with desires for deliverance from the eternal cycle of rebirth... and a continuous ethicization of retribution for acts in the form of catalogues of new existences. Thus, the doctrine of Karma is a theodicy, and explanation of the suffering and unjust earthly world as a result of previous acts, and an eschatology, a doctrine of liberation. Both doctrines do not belong together in every case, and countless other explanations for fate exist alongside them.
The view by Axel Michaels is contrary to views of respected Hindu scholars. For example,
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Siva, that karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny and explains that the Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil. "According as one acts, so does he become. One becomes virtuous by virtuous action, bad by bad action." Yajur Veda, Brihadaranya ka Upanishad 4.4.5
Definitions
"Karma" literally means "deed" or "act", and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, which Hindus believe governs all consciousness. It is believed that only beings that can distinguish right from wrong, such as adult humans, can accumulate Karma. Animals and young children are not responsible to accumulate Karma as they are incapable of discriminating between right and wrong. However, all sentient beings can feel the effects of Karma, which are pleasure and pain. Karma is not fate; humans are believed to act with free will, creating their own destinies. According to the Vedas, if an individual sows goodness, he or she will reap goodness; if one sows evil, he or she will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of mankind's actions and their concommitant reactions in current and previous lives, all of which determine the future. However, many karmas do not have an immediate effect; some accumulate and return unexpectedly in an individual's later lives. The conquest of karma is believed to lie in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction. In contrast to Axel Michaels' personal opinion, statements in both Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita provide overwhelming evidence of established and conclusive doctrines of karma and transmigration of soul.
Karma, according to a scholar, Edwin Bryant, a professor at Rutgers University, New Jersey, is derived from the Sanskrit root, kr, meaning "to do," or "to make." Karma refers to an initial act, but also to the reaction that generates from it, even though this may come to fruition at some later time. In accordance with their karma, or pious and impious activities in this life, souls are awarded a good or bad body and a set of circumstances in their next life.
Unkindness yields spoiled fruits, called paap, and good deeds bring forth sweet fruits, called punya. As one acts, so does he become: one becomes virtuous by virtuous action, and evil by evil action.
There are three types of karma in Hinduism:
- sanchita karma, the sum total of past karmas yet to be resolved;
- prarabdha karma, that portion of sanchita karma that is to be experienced in this life; and
- kriyamana karma, the karma that humans are currently creating, which will bear fruit in future.
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami explains in the lexicon section of his book, Dancing with Siva, that karma literally means "deed or act" and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction which governs all life. As he explains it, karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny. The Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil. Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami further notes that karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determine our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction. Not all karmas rebound immediately. Some accumulate and return unexpectedly in this or other births.
The role of divine forces
Several different views exist in Hinduism regarding the role of divine beings. In Hinduism, many see the devas as playing some kind of role. Still others such as followers of Vedanta consider Ishvara, a personal supreme God, as playing that role. In these theistic schools, karma is not seen merely as a law of cause and effect, a view espoused by Buddhism, for example, but dependent on the will of a personal supreme God. Examples of a personal supreme God include Shiva in Shaivism or Vishnu in Vaishnavism. A good summary of this theistic view of karma is expressed by the following: "God does not make one suffer for no reason nor does He make one happy for no reason. God is very fair and gives you exactly what you deserve."
Other Hindus,such as the Mimamsakas, reject such notions of divinity being responsible and see karma as acting independently, considering the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma.
These differing views are explicitly noted in a series of passes in the Brahma Sutras (III.2.38-40), an important text in Vedanta, the major school of Hinduism, which endorses the concept of i.e., a personal supreme God, as the source of fruits of karma, but note opposing views in order to refute them. For example, Swami Sivananda's commentary on verse III.2.38 from the Brahma Sutras refers to the role of (the Lord) as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. A commentary by Swami Vireswarananda on the same verse says that the purpose of this verse is specifically to refute the views of the Mimamsakas, who say that karma (work) and not , gives the fruits of one's actions. According to the Mimamsakas it is useless to set up an for that purpose, since Karma itself can give the result at a future time.
Some interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita suggest an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees.
Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.
Mitigation of bad karma
According to a theistic view, the effects of one's bad karma may be mitigated. Examples of how bad karma can be mitigated include following dharma, or living virtuously; performing good deeds, such as helping others; bhakti yoga, or worshiping God in order to receive grace; and conducting pilgrimages to sacred places, such as Chidambaram Temple or Rameswaram to get grace of God. Examples of getting God's grace are further illustrated below.
Puranas
The story of Markandeya, who was saved from death by Siva, illustrates that God's grace can overcome Karma and death for His beloved devotee.
The story of Ajamila in the Bhagavata Purana also illustrates the same point. Ajamila had committed many evil deeds during his life such as stealing, abandoning his wife and children, and marrying a prostitute. But at the moment of death, he involuntarily chanted the name of Narayana and therefore received Moksha or union with God, and was saved from the messengers of Yama. Ajamila was actually thinking of his youngest son, whose name was also Narayana. But the name of God has powerful effects, and Ajamila was forgiven for his great sins and attained salvation, despite his bad Karma.
Bad karma means violence and no good deeds. Good karma is ahisma, non-violence. Hindus believe karma will have you reincarnated.
Gita interpretations and role of Guru
Some interpretations of certain verses in the Bhagavad Gita suggests an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.
Views of Hindu traditions
Scriptures divide Karma into three kinds: Sanchita (accumulated), Prarabdha (fruit-bearing) and Kriyamana (current) karma. All kriyamana karmas become sanchita karma upon completion. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being enjoyed and not otherwise, is known as prarabdha karma. In this way, so long as the stock of sanchita karma lasts, a part of it continues to be taken out as prarabdha karma for being enjoyed in one lifetime, leading to the cycles of birth and death. A jiva cannot attain Moksha until the accumulated sanchita karmas are completely exhausted.
Vedanta and other theistic schools
Theistic schools of Hinduism such as Vedanta disagree with the Buddhist views, Jain views and other Hindu views that karma is merely a law of cause and effect but instead additionally hold that karma is mediated by the will of a personal supreme God.
Swami Sivananda, an Advaita scholar, reiterates the same views in his commentary synthesising Vedanta views on the Brahma Sutras, a Vedantic text. In his commentary on Chapter 3 of the Brahma Sutras, Sivananda notes that karma is insentient and short-lived, and ceases to exist as soon as a deed is executed. Hence, karma cannot bestow the fruits of actions at a future date according to one's merit. Furthermore, one cannot argue that karma generates apurva or punya, which gives fruit. Since apurva is non-sentient, it cannot act unless moved by an intelligent being such as God. It cannot independently bestow reward or punishment.
There is a passage from Swami Sivananda's translation of the Svetasvatara Upanishad (4:6) illustrating this concept:
- Two birds of beautiful plumage — inseparable friends — live on the same tree. Of these two one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating.
In his commentary, the first bird represents the individual soul, while the second represents Brahman or God. The soul is essentially a reflection of Brahman. The tree represents the body. The soul identifies itself with the body, reaps the fruits of its actions, and undergoes rebirth. The Lord alone stands as an eternal witness, ever contented, and does not eat, for he is the director of both the eater and the eaten.
Swami Sivananda also notes that God is free from charges of partiality and cruelty which are brought against him because of social inequality, fate, and universal suffering in the world. According to the Brahma Sutras, individual souls are responsible for their own fate; God is merely the dispenser and witness with reference to the merit and demerit of souls.
In his commentary on Chapter 2 of the Brahma Sutras, Sivananda further notes that the position of God with respect to karma can be explained through the analogy of rain. Although rain can be said to bring about the growth of rice, barley and other plants, the differences in various species is due to the diverse potentalities lying hidden in the respective seeds. Thus, Sivananda explains that differences between classes of beings are due to different merits belonging to individual souls. He concludes that God metes rewards and punishments only in consideration of the specific actions of beings.
Shaivism
Thirugana Sambanthar
Thirugnana Sambanthar of the Shaiva Siddhanta school, in the 7th century C.E., writes about karma in his outline of Saivism. He explains the concept of karma in Hinduism by distinguishing it from that of Buddhism and Jainism, which do not require the existence of an external being like God. In their beliefs, just as a calf among a large number of cows can find its mother at suckling time, so also does karma find the specific individual it needs to attach to and come to fruition. However Hindus posit that karma, unlike the calf, is an unintelligent entity. Hence, karma cannot locate the appropriate person by itself. Shri Sambantha concludes that an intelligent Supreme Being with perfect wisdom and power (Shiva, for example) is necessary to make karma attach to the appropriate individual. In such sense, God is the Divine Accountant.
Appaya Dikshita
Appaya Dikshita, a Saivite theologian and proponent of Siva Advaita, states that Siva (God) only awards happiness and misery in accordance with the law of karma. Thus persons themselves perform good or evil actions according to their own inclinations as acquired in past creations, and in accordance with those deeds, a new creation is made for the fulfilment of the law of karma. Shaivas believe that there are cycles of creations in which souls gravitate to specific bodies in accordance with karma, which as an unintelligent object depends on the will of Siva alone. Thus, many interpret the caste system in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are born into a highly spiritual family (probably the brahmana caste).
Srikantha
Srikantha, another Saivite theologian and proponent of Siva Advaita, believes that individual souls themselves do things which may be regarded as the cause of their particular actions, or desisting from particular actions, in accordance with the nature of the fruition of their past deeds. Srikantha further believes that Siva only helps a person when he wishes to act in a particular way or to desist from a particular action. Regarding the view that karma produce their own effects directly, Srikantha holds that karma being without any intelligence cannot be expected to produce manifold effects through various births and various bodies; rather fruits of one's karma can be performed only by the will of God operating in consonance with man's free will, or as determined in later stages by man's own karma so the prints of all karma are distributed in the proper order by the grace of God Shiva). . In this way, God is ultimately responsible on one hand for our actions, and on the other for enjoyment and suffering in accordance with our karmas, without any prejudice to humans' moral responsibility as expressed through free will or as determined later by our own deeds. A good summary of his view is that "man is responsible, free to act as he wills to, for Siva only fulfills needs according to the soul's karma."
Vaishnavism
Vishnu Sahasranama
Many names in the Vishnu Sahasranama, the thousand names of Vishnu allude to the power of God in controlling karma. For example, the 135th name of Vishnu, Dharmadhyaksha, in the Advaita philosopher Sankara's interpretation means, "One who directly sees the merits (Dharma) and demerits (Adharma), of beings by bestowing their due rewards on them."
Other names of Vishnu alluding to this nature of God are Bhavanah, the 32nd name, Vidhata, the 44th name, Apramattah, the 325th name, and Sthanadah, the 387th name. Bhavanah, according to Sankara's interpretation, means "One who generates the fruits of Karmas of all Jivas (souls) for them to enjoy." The Brahma Sutra (3.2.28) "Phalmatah upapatteh" speaks of the Lord's function as the bestower of the fruits of all actions of the jivas.
Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita)
Ramanuja of the Vishishtadvaita school, addresses the problem of evil by attributing all evil things in life to the accumulation of evil karma of jivas (human souls) and maintains that God is amala, or without any stain of evil.
In Sri Bhasya, Ramanuja's interpretation of the Brahma sutras from a Vaishnavite theistic view, he agrees with the Advaitan school that Brahman, whom he conceives as Vishnu, arranges the diversity of creation in accordance with the different karma of individual souls.
Furthermore, similarly like Srikantha, the Saivite theologian, Ramanuja believes that Vishnu wishing to do a favour to those who are resolved on acting so as fully to please Him, engenders in their minds a tendency towards highly virtuous actions, such as means to attain to Him; while on the other hand, in order to punish those who are resolved on lines of action altogether displeasing to Him, He engenders in their minds a delight in such actions as have a downward tendency and are obstacles in the way of the attainment of God.
Madhva (Dvaita)
Madhva, the founder of the Dvaita school, on the other hand, believes that there must be a root cause for variations in karma even if karma is accepted as having no beginning and being the cause of the problem of evil. Since jivas have different kinds of karma, from good to bad, all must not have started with same type of karma from the beginning of time. Thus, Madhva concludes that the jivas are not God's creation as in the Christian doctrine, but are rather entities co-existent with Vishnu, although under His absolute control. Souls are thus dependent on Him in their pristine nature and in all transformations that they may undergo.
According to Madhva, God, although He has control, does not interfere with Man's free will; although He is omnipotent, that does not mean that He engages in extraordinary feats. Rather, God enforces a rule of law and, in accordance with the just deserts of jivas, gives them freedom to follow their own nature. Thus, God functions as the sanctioner or as the divine accountant, and accordingly jivas are free to work according to their innate nature and their accumulated karma, good and bad. Since God acts as the sanctioner, the ultimate power for everything comes from God and the jiva only utilizes that power, according to his/her innate nature. However, like Shankara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras as mentioned earlier, Madhva, agrees that the rewards and punishments bestowed by God are regulated by Him in accordance with the good and sinful deeds performed by them, and He does so of out of His own will to keep himself firm in justice and he cannot be controlled in His actions by karma of human beings nor can He be accused of partiality or cruelty to anyone.
Swami Tapasyananda further explains the Madhva view by illustrating the doctrine with this analogy: the power in a factory comes from the powerhouse (God), but the various cogs (jivas) move in a direction in which they are set. Thus he concludes that no charge of partiality and cruelty can be brought against God. The jiva is the actor and also the enjoyer of the fruits of his/her own actions.
Madhva differed significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs, owing to his concept of eternal damnation. For example, he divides souls into three classes: one class of souls which qualify for liberation (Mukti-yogyas), another subject to eternal rebirth or eternal transmigration (Nitya-samsarins), and a third class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas (Tamo-yogyas). No other Hindu philosopher or school of Hinduism holds such beliefs. In contrast, most Hindus believe in universal salvation: that all souls will eventually obtain moksha, even if it is after millions of rebirths.
Nyaya
The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma:
Adrishtat (lit., from the unforeseen): It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of Karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent. There ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God. This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.
Relation with caste
As stated earlier, there are cycles of creations in which souls gravitate to specific bodies in accordance with karma, which as an unintelligent object depends on the will of God alone. Thus, many interpret the caste system in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are born into a spiritual family, which is synonymous with the brahmana caste. However, Krishna said in the Gita that characteristics of a brahmin are determined by behavior, not by birth. A verse from the Gita illustrates this point: "The duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, are distributed according to the gunas (behavior) born of their own nature." (Bhagavad Gita 18.41)
Karma in the Dharmasastras
In Hinduism, more particularly the dharmasastras, Karma is a principle in which “cause and effect are as inseparably linked in the moral sphere as assumed in the physical sphere by science. A good action has its reward and a bad action leads to retribution. If the bad actions do not yield their consequences in this life, the soul begins another existence and in the new environment undergoes suffering for its past deeds”. Thus it is important to understand that karma does not go away, one must either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of his past actions. The Brahdaranyakopanisad states, “According as a man acts and according as he believes so will he be; a man of meritorious acts will be meritorious, a man of evil deeds sinful. He becomes pure by pure deeds and evil by evil deeds. And here they say that person consists of desires. An as is his desire so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deeds he does that he will reap”. The doctrine of karma dates from ancient times and besides the above author is mentioned in the Gautama dharma-sutra, Satapatha Brahmana, Kathaaka-grhya-sutra, Chandogyopanisad, Markandeya-purana and many others.
The sastras written about karma go into some detail about possible consequences of karma. There is often talk about coming back as a variety of different object when it comes to reincarnation and pasts lives. In this case, it holds true, or at least insofar as the texts state. The Kathaaka-grhya-sutra states, “some human beings enter the womb in order to have an embodied existence; others go into inorganic matter (the stump of a tree and the like) according to their deeds and according to their knowledge”.
More extensively discussed is the consequences of karma in relation to sin. “Karmavipaka means the ripening (or fruition) of evil actions or sins. This fruition takes three forms, as stated in the Yogasutra II. 3, viz jati (birth as a worm or animal), ayuh (life i.e. living for a short period such as five or ten years) and bhoga (experiencing the torments of Hell”. There are long lists of birth of lower animals and the diseases and deformities from which sinners suffer. Some authors offer specific ramifications for specific sins. For example, in “the Haritasamhita it is said the killer of a brahmana suffers from white leprosy and the killer of a cow from black leprosy.” While the list is extensive for ways of reducing sin and therefore reducing bad karma, some authors, such as Mitaksara, a commentator on the Yarjnavalkya, believe karma is, “not to be taken literally, but is meant to induce sinner to undergo such prayaschittas as Prajapatya which entail great worry and trouble and which no one might willingly undertake.” Further the Karmavipaka states, “that no soul need be without hope provided it is prepared to wait and undergo torments for its misdeeds, that it need not be appalled by the numerous existences foreshadowed in those works and that the soul may in its long passage and evolution but ultimately able to discover its true greatness and realize eternal peace and perfection.” Thus the sastras turn to means of reducing sin, some of which are hard to reconcile with the doctrines of karma. For example, one practice, sraddha, or as the Brahmapurana sates, “whatever is given with faith to brahmanas intending it to be for the benefit of pitrs at a proper time, in a proper place, to deserving persons and in accordance with the prescribed procedure” is meant to honor ancestors, however a believer of karma would agree that when the body dies the soul automatically enters into another body. Therefore, in contrast with karma, Kane states about sraddha, “the doctorine of offering balls of rice to three ancestors requires that the spirits of the three ancestors even after the lapse of 50 or 100 years are still capable of enjoying in an ethereal body the flavor or essence of rice balls wafted by the wind.” Of course the two can be reconciled if taking into account the sastras that state that karma is not to be taken literally, but as evidenced by the variety of opinion written on the subject this will not hold true everywhere.
Other uses in Hinduism
Besides narrow meaning of karma as the reaction or suffering being due to karma of their past lives and that one would have to transmigrate to another body in their next life, it is often used in the broader sense as action or reaction.
Thus, karma in Hinduism may mean an activity, an action or a materialistic activity. Often with the specific combination it takes specific meanings, such as karma-yoga or karma-kanda means "yoga or actions" and "path of materialistic activity" respectively. Yet another example is Nitya karma, which describes rituals which have to be performed daily by Hindus, such as the Sandhyavandanam which involves chanting of the Gayatri Mantra.
Other uses include such expressions such as "ugra-karma", meaning bitter, unwholesome labor.
See also
Further reading
(English translation of Der Hinduismus: Geschichte und Gegenwart, Verlag C. H. Beck, 1998).
External links
|
| |
|
|
