Karma Book Pdf

[Theodora Wallingford]

WilhelmHalbfass (2000) explains karma (karman) by contrasting it with the Sanskrit word kriya:[3] whereas kriya is the activity along with the steps and effort in action, karma is (1) the executed action as a consequence of that activity, as well as (2) the intention of the actor behind an executed action or a planned action (described by some scholars[10] as metaphysical residue left in the actor). A good action creates good karma, as does good intent. A bad action creates bad karma, as does bad intent.[3]

Difficulty in arriving at a definition of karma arises because of the diversity of views among the schools of Hinduism; some, for example, consider karma and rebirth linked and simultaneously essential, some consider karma but not rebirth to be essential, and a few discuss and conclude karma and rebirth to be flawed fiction.[11] Buddhism and Jainism have their own karma precepts. Thus, karma has not one, but multiple definitions and different meanings.[12] It is a concept whose meaning, importance, and scope varies between the various traditions that originated in India, and various schools in each of these traditions. Wendy O'Flaherty claims that, furthermore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether karma is a theory, a model, a paradigm, a metaphor, or a metaphysical stance.[13]

In the context of theory, karma is complex and difficult to define.[13] Different schools of Indology derive different definitions for the concept from ancient Indian texts; their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, i.e., good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth.[13][15] Other Indologists include in the definition that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to his or her actions in the past. These actions may be those in a person's current life, or, in some schools of Indian traditions, possibly actions from their past lives; furthermore, the consequences may result in the current life, or a person's future lives.[13][16] The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.[17]

The theory of karma as causation holds that: (1) executed actions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives, and (2) the intentions of an individual affects the individual and the life he or she lives. Disinterested actions, or unintentional actions do not have the same positive or negative karmic effect, as interested and intentional actions. In Buddhism, for example, actions that are performed, or arise, or originate without any bad intent, such as covetousness, are considered non-existent in karmic impact or neutral in influence to the individual.[21]

Karl Potter and Harold Coward suggest that karmic principle can also be understood as a principle of psychology and habit.[14][24][note 2] Karma seeds habits (vāsanā), and habits create the nature of man. Karma also seeds self perception, and perception influences how one experiences life-events. Both habits and self perception affect the course of one's life. Breaking bad habits is not easy: it requires conscious karmic effort.[14][26] Thus, psyche and habit, according to Potter and Coward, link karma to causality in ancient Indian literature.[14][24] The idea of karma may be compared to the notion of a person's 'character', as both are an assessment of the person and determined by that person's habitual thinking and acting.[9]

The second theme common to karma theories is ethicization. This begins with the premise that every action has a consequence,[8] which will come to fruition in either this life or a future life; thus, morally good acts will have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will produce negative results. An individual's present situation is thereby explained by reference to actions in his present or in previous lifetimes. Karma is not itself 'reward and punishment', but the law that produces consequence.[27] Wilhelm Halbfass notes that good karma is considered as dharma and leads to punya ('merit'), while bad karma is considered adharma and leads to pāp ('demerit, sin').[28]

Reichenbach (1988) suggests that the theories of karma are an ethical theory.[18] This is so because the ancient scholars of India linked intent and actual action to the merit, reward, demerit, and punishment. A theory without ethical premise would be a pure causal relation; the merit or reward or demerit or punishment would be same regardless of the actor's intention. In ethics, one's intentions, attitudes, and desires matter in the evaluation of one's action. Where the outcome is unintended, the moral responsibility for it is less on the actor, even though causal responsibility may be the same regardless.[18] A karma theory considers not only the action, but also the actor's intentions, attitude, and desires before and during the action. The karma concept thus encourages each person to seek and live a moral life, as well as avoid an immoral life. The meaning and significance of karma is thus as a building-block of an ethical theory.[29]

The third common theme of karma theories is the concept of reincarnation or the cycle of rebirths (saṃsāra).[8][30][31] Rebirth is a fundamental concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism.[9] Rebirth, or saṃsāra, is the concept that all life forms go through a cycle of reincarnation, that is, a series of births and rebirths. The rebirths and consequent life may be in different realm, condition, or form. The karma theories suggest that the realm, condition, and form depends on the quality and quantity of karma.[32] In schools that believe in rebirth, every living being's soul transmigrates (recycles) after death, carrying the seeds of Karmic impulses from life just completed, into another life and lifetime of karmas.[8][12] This cycle continues indefinitely, except for those who consciously break this cycle by reaching moksha. Those who break the cycle reach the realm of gods, those who do not continue in the cycle.

The concept has been intensely debated in ancient literature of India; with different schools of Indian religions considering the relevance of rebirth as either essential, or secondary, or unnecessary fiction.[11] Hiriyanna (1949) suggests rebirth to be a necessary corollary of karma;[33] Yamunacharya (1966) asserts that karma is a fact, while reincarnation is a hypothesis;[34] and Creel (1986) suggests that karma is a basic concept, rebirth is a derivative concept.[35]

In the early Vedic literature, the concept of karma is also present beyond the realm of rituals or sacrifices. The Vedic language includes terms for sins and vices such as āgas, agha, enas, pāpa/pāpman, duṣkṛta, as well as for virtues and merit like sukṛta and puṇya, along with the neutral term karman.

The verse refers to the evaluation of virtuous and sinful actions in the afterlife. Regardless of their application in rituals (whether within or outside the Vedi), the concepts of good and evil here broadly represent merits and sins.

What evil is done here by man, that it (i.e. speech = Brahman) makes manifest. Although he thinks that he does it secretly, as it were, still it makes it manifest. Verily, therefore one should not commit evil.

The Vedic words for "action" and "merit" in pre-Upaniṣadic texts carry moral significance and are not solely linked to ritual practices. The word karman simply means "action," which can be either positive or negative, and is not always associated with religious ceremonies; its predominant association with ritual in the Brāhmaṇa texts is likely a reflection of their ritualistic nature. In the same vein, sukṛta (and subsequently, puṇya) denotes any form of "merit," whether it be ethical or ritualistic. In contrast, terms such as pāpa and duṣkṛta consistently represent morally wrong actions.[43]

The earliest clear discussion of the karma doctrine is in the Upanishads.[8][41] The doctrine occurs here in the context of a discussion of the fate of the individual after death.[44] For example, causality and ethicization is stated in Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.2.13:[45][46]

Some authors state that the samsara (transmigration) and karma doctrine may be non-Vedic, and the ideas may have developed in the "shramana" traditions that preceded Buddhism and Jainism.[47] Others state that some of the complex ideas of the ancient emerging theory of karma flowed from Vedic thinkers to Buddhist and Jain thinkers.[13][48] The mutual influences between the traditions is unclear, and likely co-developed.[49]

Many philosophical debates surrounding the concept are shared by the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions, and the early developments in each tradition incorporated different novel ideas.[50] For example, Buddhists allowed karma transfer from one person to another and sraddha rites, but had difficulty defending the rationale.[50][51] In contrast, Hindu schools and Jainism would not allow the possibility of karma transfer.[52][53]

The 6th chapter of the Anushasana Parva (the Teaching Book), the 13th book of the Mahabharata, opens with Yudhishthira asking Bhishma: "Is the course of a person's life already destined, or can human effort shape one's life?"[57] The future, replies Bhishma, is both a function of current human effort derived from free will and past human actions that set the circumstances.[58] Over and over again, the chapters of Mahabharata recite the key postulates of karma theory. That is: intent and action (karma) has consequences; karma lingers and doesn't disappear; and, all positive or negative experiences in life require effort and intent.[59] For example:

Happiness comes due to good actions, suffering results from evil actions,

by actions, all things are obtained, by inaction, nothing whatsoever is enjoyed.

If one's action bore no fruit, then everything would be of no avail,

if the world worked from fate alone, it would be neutralized.

3a8082e126