DOCTRINE OF KARMA – AN ENQUIRY INTO ITS CONFORMITY
WITH HINDU PHILOSOPHY.
Abstract
Doctrine of Karma argues that every action produces a
reaction of similar force and effect, which the actor has to undergo without
omission or remission; persons are born again and again to undergo such
reactions exhaustively, before attaining the final liberation. Believed as the
only theory capable of explaining the problem of evil satisfactorily, it also expounds that
whatever one experiences at present are only the reactions of his past Karma.
Having been existent in India since ancient times it gradually earned the
credit of being a part of Hindu Philosophy and therefore got wide propagation
throughout our spiritual history. Eligibility of the Doctrine for such a credit
has been examined through a comparative study of its principles, as presented
mainly in Swami Abhedananda’s book “Doctrine of Karma”, vis-a-vis the teachings of rational Hindu Philosophy enshrined in
the Principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gīta. The study reveals that
fundamentals of Karma Doctrine are in conflict with Hindu Philosophy. According
to Hindu philosophy, diversity belongs exclusively to physical manifestation
and, further, individual identity is only a projection of body-consciousness.
Therefore, when a body disintegrates, individuality attached to it disappears
forever. Consequently, rebirth of the same individual after the loss of body is
not acceptable to Hindu philosophy, wherein death, rebirth and immortality have
unique philosophical meanings. But, rebirth in its conventional sense is an
essential ingredient of Karma Doctrine. Similarly, the problem of evil stands
instinctively explained in the Hindu concept of creation, rendering external
theorizing unnecessary therefor. The study also shows that attempts made to
authenticate the doctrine by selective references to scriptural texts are mere
exercises in misrepresenting those texts in a way that is anomalous to the
rational philosophic corpus of Hindu Scriptures.
Introduction
The
Doctrine of Karma, with its attendant concept of rebirth, has been existent in
India from a very distant past and is generally believed to be a part of the
Hindu Philosophy. But, the more we probe into its depths, the more we find it
to be starved of rational substance and cogency. This leaves one, who is
acquainted with the rational thought intrinsic to Hindu Philosophy, unable to figure
out a logical connection between the two. On the other hand, the supporters of
the doctrine also rely on Hindu scriptures to establish its validity. We may
therefore examine how far this doctrine conforms to Hindu Philosophy.
For the purpose of our discussion, the term ‘Hindu
Philosophy’ (‘Hinduism’ for short) may be deemed as the coherent series of
rational philosophic expositions shining in the following eleven Principal
Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gīta.
1. Aitareya
2. Bṛhadāraṇyaka
3. Chhāndogya
4. Īśa
5. Katha
6. Kena
7. Praśna
8. Māndukya
9. Mundaka
10. Śvetāśvatara
11. Taittirīya
The
Karma Doctrine
In relation to Hinduism, the Doctrine of Karma presents
itself as an adventitious theory that owes its life and form more to mythology
than to rational thinking. The exact period of its origin or the person who
expounded it first is not definitely known. For the sake of a meaningful
discussion, it is desirable to have an exponent of the doctrine to represent
the views in support of it. To serve this purpose, we may take the expositions
of Swami Abhedānanda (‘Swamiji’ for short), expressed in his book ‘Doctrine of
Karma’ published by Ramakrishna Vedanta Math, Calcutta (3rd edition,
1947). This does not imply that we restrict our discussion to this book only.
The Doctrine of Karma espouses the following fundamental
principles:
1. Every Karma produces a reaction of similar force and effect,
which the doer of that Karma must bear, in the present or future births;
2. Every experience of a person in the present is only the
effects of his past Karma;
3. Good Karma gives happiness and evil Karma gives suffering,
to its doer; and
4. Liberation from the bondage of Karma is achieved by
doing work for the sake of work, without any selfish motives.
Examination
of the Doctrine
In order to ensure
proper deliberation on all the above principles, the current discussion is
scheduled to progress in the following order:
A. Testing the above laws for their logical
sustainability.
B. Testing their compatibility with the concepts of Karma
and rebirth in Hinduism.
C. Comparing the concept of Dharma/Adharma in Hinduism
with that of Good/Evil actions in the Karma Doctrine.
D. Reviewing the concept of Moksha in Hinduism and in the
Doctrine.
A.
Logical sustainability: Now, to start with, it would be helpful to quote a
little from Swamiji’s book and see how he presents the Doctrine. After claiming
that ‘the phenomena of the world are linked together in the universal chain of
cause and effect’ he continues:
“Similarly, every action of our body or mind is the
result of some force or power which is its cause; but at the same time that
which is the effect of some cause becomes in turn the cause of some grosser
result, and that again produces some other still grosser effect, and that again
a finer one, and so on and on, the chain of cause and effect continues to
spread without stopping anywhere, without coming to an absolute end. For
instance, a murderer shoots the Austrian Archduke and drives a bullet into his
body and the Archduke dies of blood-poisoning. Here, shooting is an action which
is the effect of the mental and physical activities of the murderer. But the
same action is again the cause of driving the bullet in the Archduke’s body;
this is the cause of the wound, which brings fever and other organic disorder,
which results in his death. The death of the Archduke causes his wife to become
a widow, which produces changes in her life and in her whole family. The effect
of this single act of murder did not stop here. It brought on the European war
and caused destruction of life and property of millions and affected the whole
world. It is needless to describe the horrors of the last war. The German
Emperor lost his throne and empire. The Czar was assassinated. People are still
reaping the effects of this war which will last for generations to come.
Furthermore, it reacted upon the murderer, brought to him incalculable misery
and untimely death. It left an impression upon his mind which he carried with
him and perhaps his suffering will continue even after his death, in another
life.”
“Thus, we can see how one event can be both a cause
and an effect at the same time, and how it can affect the whole world producing
various kinds of effects on the plane of the living as also on that of the
dead. From this endless chain of cause and effect we can neither separate one
single link nor call it useless or unnecessary. In the same manner, it can be
shown that every action however minute or trivial it may appear to us, being
conditioned by the universal law of causation, produces different effects visible
and invisible and affects the whole world of phenomena either directly or
indirectly. No action can escape this law, that every cause must be followed by
an effect, that every action is bound to react upon the actor with similar
force and effect.” (P. 4 to 6).
Swamiji gives an excellent illustration for the law of
causation, but at the end he draws an unreasonable conclusion. He describes how
the gunshot at the Archduke snowballed into a world-war and caused un-ending suffering
for millions. History says that the man who fired the shot died of
tuberculosis, in jail, after about four years of the shooting. He was later honoured in Yugoslavia as a hero. But millions of people
including the Archduke, his wife (who too, in fact, died of the bullet injury),
the German Emperor and the Czar of Russia suffered loss of life and wealth,
apart from inexplicable hardships and deprivations for generations. When millions
faced violent and excruciating death, the shooter died a natural death in
prison. This fact does not contribute any logical backing for the conclusion
that ‘every action is bound to react upon the actor with similar force and effect’. Swamiji does not say anything about
what exactly the ‘reaction’ constitutes in the given case or in what form it fell
upon the actor. If by reaction he means the actor’s imprisonment and thereafter
death due to tuberculosis, then, there is a prima facie dearth of materials to establish
its ‘similarity’ in force and effect with his action. Alternatively, if by
reaction, Swamiji implies the mere impact of the action, then, as per the
illustration itself, it is not only the actor who suffered by the reaction but
others also. Swamiji also does not give any verifiable facts and sustainable
reasons to suggest that the sufferings of the millions were reactions of their
past actions. The circumstances, implications, repercussions and ramifications
of Karma are so innumerable and conditioned, as evidenced by Swamiji’s own
account, that its absolute assessment is impossible. Therefore, the first and
second principles of the Doctrine are basically arbitrary, which fact dismantles
its very foundation. For, the doctrine fundamentally rests upon the beliefs
that doer of an act is punished or rewarded with a reaction of the same force
and effect, and that pleasure or pain visiting a person is the reaction of his
own actions. Devoid of foundation, the superstructure is bound to crumble.
B.
Compatibility with Hinduism: Now we pass on to the second step concerning the
concepts of Karma and rebirth in Hinduism. Let us start with the scriptural
affirmation that phenomenal world is simply a manifestation of the only
existing entity, the Ᾱtmā (Gīta 7.6, 9.4, 9.18, 10.8, 10.20, 10.41, 11.7, etc.;
Mundaka 1.1.6, 1.1.9; Śvetāśvatara 4.10, 6.11; Bṛha 1.4.7; etc. etc.) and that
its very nature is SAT -CHIT-ᾹNANDA
(सत्-चित्-आनन्द) (Chhāndogya
6.2.1; Māndukya 7 & 12; Mundaka 1.1.9; Śvetāśvatara 5.14; Taittirīya 3.1 to
3.6), which term is
often translated in English as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. There is only one
Ᾱtmā, without a second (Śvetāśvatara 6.11; Katha 5.9, 5.11, 5.12). It pervades
the entire universe and is the essence and the ultimate abode of all beings; it is absolute consciousness (Śvetāśvatara
6.11, Gīta 9.4).
Mundaka adds that the emergence of the
universe is effected by the expansion of Brahma that manifested from the
imperishable Ᾱtmā (1.1.8 and 1.1.9) and also that Brahma represents the
manifested whole, the universe (2.2.11). Gīta too declares that Brahma
originated from the imperishable (see verses 3.14 & 3.15). Modern
scientific theory on the origin of universe, the Big Bang theory, tallies with
this scriptural view that universe manifested through the expansion of a
primeval entity.
Mundaka (1.1.8) further states that, along
with the worlds, unceasing Karma also arose, implying that Karma is an
essentiality of physical existence. This idea appears in Gīta also (कर्म ब्रह्मोद्भवं विद्धि - 3.14). Gīta further asserts that Karma is performed because
of the three Guna(s) of Prakrti (3.27, 13.29 & 14.19). In 3.5 it is said that
nobody ever remains without doing Karma (न हि कश्चित् क्षणमपि जातु तिष्ठत्यकर्मकृत्); everybody is compelled to do Karma out of the necessity for
physical existence (under the influence of Gunas of Prakrti). It is further said
in 3.8 that even for maintaining one’s own body Karma is essential (शरीरयात्रापि च ते न प्रसिध्येदकर्मणः). Gīta asserts in 18.11 that those who holds
a body (or those who are committed to bodily existence) can never relinquish
Karma entirely (न हि देहभृता शक्यं त्यक्तुं कर्माण्यशेषतः). The only
exception to this rule is the person, if any, who is always occupied with the
Atma and finds satisfaction and enjoyment in being so. That person has nothing
to gain by doing Karma or to lose by not doing. He does not need to depend upon
any being for anything (Gīta 3.17 and 3.18). Īśa Upanishad also upholds the
essentiality of Karma in mantra 2 wherein it is declared that only by
performing Karma, one can wish to live here (कुर्वन्नेवेह कर्माणि जिजीविषेच्छतं समाः); no other option exists.
Thus Karma is inalienable to the manifested
universe, but not a feature of pure existence-consciousness-bliss, i.e. SAT -CHIT-ᾹNANDA, the true nature of Ᾱtmā. Ᾱtmā, being devoid of the three guna(s), is
not affected by Karma, it only presides over Karma as a witness (Śvetāśvatara
6.11).
Since SAT -CHIT-ᾹNANDA is the ultimate source of this
universe, it is what our essence also is. As we have come from it, so do we
return to it (vide 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 of Chhāndogya). Hence our basic urge and
ultimate motivation for Karma is to attain to SAT -CHIT-ᾹNANDA,
just as a stone thrown up naturally returns to earth, whatever course it takes.
But, out of Avidya (ignorance) caused by the Guna(s) of Prakrti, we are
infatuated with a temptation to realise it in our body. That is, we want eternal
existence, unbridled expression and uninterrupted happiness in this body. This
is an impossible thing. In fact, in order to attain to the essence, we have to
shed the body, since body is only a manifestation. Śvetāśvatara (5.14) says that those who know the Ᾱtmā
gives up the body (i.e. body-consciousness). Therefore, we may shed
body-consciousness and be insulated against the dual experiences of joy and
sorrow and thereby remain ever-balanced (निर्द्वन्द्व) as Brahma is (Gīta
2.45, 5.19 and 5.25). But, so long as our attachment to the body continues we
will not attain this balance. When we undertake Karma with this attachment it
happens that we ignore the existence and well-being of the whole, which we are
a part of. Moreover the attachment renders us to be affected by the various
impacts and reactions that our Karma produces. Let us see how it works.
As Karma exists in
the domain of manifestations, its impacts also are confined to that domain. The
immediate impact of Karma lies in the realisation or non-realisation (सिधि or असिधि) of the desired
result and its reaction lies in bringing joy or anger to the doer. Fulfilment
of the desires brings happiness and non-fulfilment causes sorrow. We are
affected by this duality, proportionate to our attachment to the desires. Gīta
says that attachment reinforces desire into Kāma (craving); Kāma breeds anger,
which prejudices our perceptions, thus causing mental confusion. This affects the
power of judgment, which ultimately results in total ruin (verses 2.62 and
2.63). This impact and reaction are immediate to us and may be called Mental as
they affect the mind.
Now, to
understand the second type of impact of Karma, we have to take stock of some
more basic facts about the physical manifestation and its stability. Manifestation
takes place by unleashing opposites from pure existence. In the world we see
that for every entity or experience there exists an opposite: pain for
pleasure, failure for success, hate for love, enmity for friendship, turbulence
for calmness, hostility for peace, chilliness for warmth, valleys for hills,
mountains for oceans, fire for water, etc. The phenomenal world exists in
opposites, from the subtlest, the atoms, to the grossest, the universe. Atoms
exist with opposite forces, namely, the protons and electrons. But, why don’t
these opposites cancel each other, causing total destruction of the universe? It
is because some force is holding back the opposites, preventing them from cancelling
each other. It is the force of creation; the energy of material existence. Praśna
Upanishad (1.4) says that energy and prāna were created first, which caused the
emergence of the whole universe. When this force or energy is withdrawn, the
opposites would come together and cancel each other. It does not mean that mere
nothingness would result, but that the material existence vanishes for the time
being. The opposites are not destroyed for ever; for, a thing that exists
cannot be destroyed (नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः -Gīta 2.16). They only withdraw to their original source, the
Ātma. Thus it is clear that physical existence originates from unleashing of
opposites and its continuance depends upon their balancing. This balancing is
natural to Brahma as stated in Gīta 5.19 (निर्दोषं हि समं ब्रह्म). That which helps to maintain this balancing is called Dharma
(that which supports, holds); the opposite is Adharma. Dharma aims at
protection of the world (लोकसंग्रहः). Since the balancing
of opposites is natural to physical existence, Dharma also is natural to it. Out
of Avidya (ignorance), people take their bodily existence for pure Existence
and their bodily pleasure for Ᾱnanda (bliss). This makes them do anything to cater
to their bodily existence and pleasure, to the extent of ignoring the balancing
that maintains the whole. So, the second likely impact of one’s Karma is its positive
or negative effect on the existence of the whole, that is, a boost or breach of
Dharma. This may be called Transcendental impact as it is concerned with
transcendental principle of existence.
The natural reaction to this impact is to
ensure physical existence by elimination of the forces of breach, if any, of
Dharma and protection of the forces of its boost. This occurs internally as
well as externally, since Ᾱtmā is all-pervading. We become aware of the process
through what we feel within as exaltation or scruple when we do a Karma. That
is why it is said that good deeds produce good and bad deeds produce bad (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 3.2.13, 4.4.5). Whenever there is
accumulation of Adharma threatening the balance of physical existence, the Ᾱtmā
by virtue of its very nature (Existence-Consciousness-Bliss) regains the
balance by force. This is just as a water course eventually disrupts the
embankments that have so far been preventing its natural flow. A figurative
discription of the process is seen in verses 4.7 and 4.8 of Gīta.
The third and final
type of impact is physical in nature. We have already seen that Ᾱtmā is the presiding
energy in all. Residing in all beings, it motivates them by its very nature ‘SAT- CHIT-ᾹNANDA’ to strive for eternal existence,
unbridled expression and uninterrupted enjoyment. But, out of ignorance, they seek
them where they are not available, that is, in the material aspect of their
entity. Since everybody is selfishly interested in working for his own material
existence and pleasure, he may ignore or infringe those of others, or even
endanger his own body, through his actions. Thus there arises a conflict between
what one seeks and what he ignores or infringes, creating tension and struggle.
This is the final impact of Karma and may be called Physical impact as it relates
to the physical aspects. In this case the reaction comes from the affected
party since he too is motivated by the urge for existence and pleasure. It may
not end with resolution of conflict, but may extend to retribution by
individuals or by society in general.
These three are the impacts and reactions
of Karma, which are possible as per Hindu teachings. It may be noted that none
of them provides for any reaction of ‘similar force and effect’. However, in
all cases, lessons are drawn through updating the contents of ‘Chitta’ (चित्त), the repository of all knowledge.
Contrary to this scriptural position, advocates
of Karma Doctrine argue, by quoting Gīta 5.14, that all actions are tracked and
either punished or rewarded in a process that runs naturally without God’s
intervention. Gīta 5.14 actually says that the lord of this world, the Ᾱtmā, does
not assign anybody with any Karma or brings to him the results of his Karma;
everything occurs in accordance with the very nature of things. That means, we
undertake Karma according to our nature. As already stated our nature is
SAT-CHIT-ᾹNANDA, veiled by Avidya. We have already seen what would happen out
of this nature. Gīta 5.14 only implies that pursuing one’s actions and dispensing
rewards or punishments is not natural to Ᾱtmā. What is natural to it is pure existence
and therefore what happens naturally because of Ᾱtmā in the physical world is
the balancing of opposites. Since the very essence of humans is Ᾱtmā, they also
share the same nature. What is perceived as reward or retribution on their part
is only an expression incidental to furthering the basic urge for existence.
But pursuing each and every action of every individual and rewarding or
punishing him accordingly is not the concern of humans; nor is it possible for
them. It is not natural to them.
Is there any other arrangement for
dispensing the reward and retribution naturally or otherwise? The advocates of
Karma Doctrine do not suggest or establish the existence of a natural or
supernatural system for surveilling all the deeds and dispensing rewards and
punishments. Such a system or authority extraneous to Ᾱtmā cannot exist; for,
the Scriptures say that there exists nothing but Ᾱtmā and its manifestation. Ᾱtmā
pervades everywhere and everything (Īśa 8, Śvetāśvatara 6.11,
Mundaka 1.1.6 and Gīta 9.4, 13.26). Therefore, the concept of rewards or
retribution being awarded for each action depending upon its commendability or
culpability is only a fictional one advanced by those who are starved of a
rational explanation for the problem of evil and are therefore given to
dogmatic dispositions. These people, feeling the deficiency of substance in
their argument, come up with such props as rebirth in compensation thereof.
Now, therefore, we may examine the concept
of rebirth which is an essentiality of the Doctrine of Karma. It is with this
concept that the supporters of the doctrine explains the problem of evil. After
arguing that the present blindness of a person is the result of his evil
actions in the previous incarnation, Swamiji says, “The doctrine of Karma alone
can explain the mysterious problem of good and evil, and reconcile man to the
terrible and apparent injustice of life” (P.40). He misses the simple fact that
evil exists to balance the good, such balancing being an existential
essentiality. We have already seen that the phenomenal world exists in
opposites kept apart and balanced by the energy of creation. So, actually, good
is the problem of evil and there is no mystery in it. Thus, to explain the
problem of evil we don’t need rebirth. Therefore, we may seek the reason for
blindness in the physical phenomena, rather than inventing philosophical
formulations.
Retention of individuality beyond loss of
body is a prerequisite for the verity of rebirth. But, scriptures declare that
individuality is a feature limited to physical existence only. Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.7 says that into names and forms did
Atma differentiate. Therefore, when the form is gone, differentiation ends and
individuality vanishes. It is unequivocally asserted, in 2.4.12 ibid, that on
leaving this body no individuality exists. Expressing the same view, Chhandogya
(6.10.1, 6.10.2) says that beings come from and return to ‘SAT’ just as rivers
originate from and merge into the ocean. After the merger the rivers become
verily the ocean and therefore cannot be distinguished from one another.
Further, according to Gīta (13.26), every being consists of the body (क्षेत्र-Kshetra) and the Ᾱtmā within (क्षेत्रज्ञ-Kshetrajna). Therefore, when the body goes, it is only Ᾱtmā
which the scriptures unanimously declare to be the only one without a second
and is beyond fragmentation, destruction and attachment. Ᾱtmā is continuous, endless
and all-pervasive (Chhandogya 6.8.7, Mundaka 1.1.6, Śvetāśvatara 6.11, Īśa 8, Bṛhadāraṇyaka 3.8.8, Gīta 9.4). The true identity of
all beings is the same Ᾱtmā that is eternal, all-pervasive and without birth or
death (Gīta 2.12, 2.18, 2.20, 2.30, 9.4, etc.). Chhandogya 6.8.6 says that when
a man leaves his body, he merges with the Supreme Lord. Above all, worldly
experiences cannot stain Ᾱtmā (Katha 5.11; Gīta 2.24, 13.32) and therefore,
carrying their impressions to the next birth after the loss of body is
impossible. All these essentially indicate that individuality is not retained
beyond loss of body.
Allegorically it can be described thus: Air
fills a porous pot on the surface of the earth; the pot does not actually
create a break in the continuity of the atmospheric air, but still ‘air in the
pot’ is a valid identity. When the pot breaks, there is no more ‘air in the
pot’; only air is there in its vast and continuous extent. So is a being when
its body is gone. Air corresponds to Ᾱtmā and ‘air in the pot’ is what is known
as ‘Jeevātma’ (Self). There is no question of its travelling from one object or
place to another seeking a suitable womb or emancipation. For, there is nothing
but Ᾱtmā, everywhere; and also, it is not tainted by Karma (Gīta 13.31, 13.32;
Katha 5.11; Īśa 8). It is also without birth and death (Gīta 2.20; Katha
1.2.18). We have to understand the scriptures in line with this basic teaching
only; it is unwise to be led astray by verbal superficialities. Realisation of
this basic teaching is esteemed as Supreme knowledge in the scriptures (Gīta 6.29,
5.18, 13.27). In statements like ‘all of us have been and will be here for all
time’ (Gīta 2.12), ‘old bodies are replaced as soiled attires are’ (Gīta 2.22) and
‘You and I have had many births’ (Gīta 4.5) the subjects represent the
uninterrupted, unfragmented, eternal Ᾱtmā. It is definitively stated in Śvetāśvatara (4.10) that all the beings are bodies of
eternal, indestructible and unlimited Ᾱtmā; Gīta 2.18 concurs with this
teaching.
Therefore, Hinduism thoroughly rejects the
idea of rebirth of the same individual after the loss of physical body; it
holds that differentiation into individuals exists only in manifestations,
beyond which everything merge into one (Also see Gīta 2.28). If so, what do
references to death and rebirth in Hinduism actually indicate?
Yama, the Lord of Death, says in Katha 2.6,
4.2 and 4.10 that death is nothing but being felled by Kāma. This position is
further clarified in his stipulating the qualities for attaining to
immortality. Mantras 4.2, 6.14 and 6.15 declare that immortality is due only to
those who have eliminated all Kāma from within. These views on death and
immortality are shared by Gīta (2.15, 2.63, 5.19, 14.20, etc.), Kena (1.2),
etc. Immortality obviously does not indicate perpetuation of the body. For, the
body is liable to decay and destruction. Even the bodies of all those great
men, whom we extol as immortals did perish. So, immortality is something other
than non-perishability of physical bodies. Upanishads say that it is simply insulation
against being felled by Kāma. Bṛhadāraṇyaka asserts that hunger verily is death
(अशनाया हि मृत्युः – 1.2.1). Hunger implies insatiability,
Kāma. This explains what we have already seen in Gīta 2.62 and 2.63. Moreover,
our day-to-day experience shows that a person at a given moment is that which occupies
his mind at that moment; if it is kindness, he is kind; if anger, he is angry,
and so on. Sage Patanjali points out in Yogasutra (1.3 and 1.4) that when your
mental activities are fully eliminated, you are in your true self; otherwise,
you are what your mental activity is (वृत्तिसारूप्यमितरत्र). Thus, the
philosophical meaning of death is capitulation to Kāma.
So, what should be rebirth? Katha itself gives
the answer. Mantra 5.7 says thus:
योनिमन्ये प्रपद्यन्ते शरीरत्वाय देहिनः |
स्थाणुमन्ये∫नुसंयन्ति यथा कर्म यथा श्रुतम् ||
Meaning: (After death) some, (out of
attachment to the body), enter a new beginning (i.e. resort to a new
origin), for the sake of body (for furthering
that attachment); whereas others, (desirous
of breaking that attachment), seek changelessness, according as their
knowledge and deeds. In other words, some choose to continue under the sway of
body, while others opt to get away from it. Again, some choose to be felled further
by Kāma, but others embrace the freedom path; some choose birth to die again,
while others enter the path of immortality. It is this transformation,
undergone by persons after being capitulated by Kāma, that is treated as
rebirth in Hinduism. This rational conception of rebirth will present the
scriptures in their natural bright light, facilitating better assimilation of
their valuable essence that lies in the depths far under the verbose layers on
the top. Understanding rebirth as the process of taking a new body is
calamitous to this assimilation and will therefore defeat the pursuit of true
knowledge.
As against this rational interpretation, many
understand the said mantra as ‘some are reborn as humans/animals and others
become trees’! They attribute changelessness to trees. In Gīta 2.24 the very
same word ‘Sthāṇu’ (स्थाणु) is used and
everyone interprets it as denoting the Atma. This difference in approach comes
out of ignorance about the philosophical meaning of death. The pedestrian
interpretation of the Doctrinists is not attuned to the context also. The
question, whether after death man exists or not, was put to Yama in Katha 1.20.
His answer came only in mantra 5.7, after 72 mantras, the total mantras in
Katha being only 119. In the meanwhile, he explained what should be construed
as death, immortality, etc. and also tested Nachiketas’ eligibility to receive
the intended instruction. If the Doctrinists are correct, he need not have undertaken
that task of explaining death and immortality and of testing the eligibility of
Nachiketas; instead, he could have straight away given the trite explanation.
Incidentally, Katha 5.7 is one among the
many verses of scriptures quoted and misinterpreted by the Doctrinists to
support their belief in rebirth. They quote a lot from other Principal
Upanishads and Gīta to prove their argument. But rational examination of these
philosophical texts would reveal that these people are actually misinterpreting
the quoted verses to suit their predisposition to the blind belief in rebirth.
They neglect the precious teachings such as the unity of existence and the
immaculateness, nonstainability and
indivisibility of Ᾱtmā, in order to embrace the absurdity of ‘individual Ᾱtmā’
wandering to find a suitable womb and entering into the waiting ‘Ᾱtmā-free’
embryo to take another birth for suffering the pending reactions of his past
Karma. For this purpose, they invariably interpret ‘yoni’ (योनि) as female reproductive organ and ‘paraloka’ (परलोक) as the world of the dead, whereas these words can also take
the meanings of ‘origin’/‘source’ and the ‘future/other world’ respectively. With
these meanings the quoted verse acquires a different meaning, which may not
support the blindness they seek. We shall consider one more of such quotations
that is equally prominent owing to its frequent use and easy susceptibility to
gross misinterpretation. It is 3.9.28 of Bṛhadāraṇyaka.
After finishing his answers to all the
questions raised in the court of King Janaka, Yājñavalkya (याज्ञवल्क्य) asks a question: When a tree is felled, new ones sprout from
the root; from which root is man born again, after death? He himself answers
the question, as nobody volunteers. He says, “जात एव न जायते, को न्वेनं जनयेत् पुनःI विज्ञानमानन्दं ब्रह्म रातिर्दातुः परायणं तिष्ठमानस्य तद्विद इतिI”. The meaning goes thus:
“Man is only a manifestation (जात); he is not born; therefore how can anybody generate him
again? Brahma is pure Intelligence and Bliss; it is attainable by one who gives
up material cravings and, on having known about it, is resolved to attain to it.”
Since man manifests from Brahma, it is his root. But its real nature is pure
intelligence and bliss and therefore no personal identity is maintained there. Generating
the same person again is consequently impossible. This is in full agreement
with Chhandogya 6.8.6 wherein it is said that the root of everything is the
‘SAT’ and on losing the body humans merge with the Supreme Lord. Despite this, those
who believe in rebirth interpret Bṛhadāraṇyaka 3.9.28 that Brahma produces the same
person again. This interpretation is further proved wrong by 2.4.12 ibid, which
states that in the absence of body, beings lose idenity, just as a lump of salt
does, on being dissolved in water.
C. Concept
of Dharma: Let us now pass on to the third step in our investigation, which
is concerned with the concept of Dharma
and Adharma. This corresponds to good and evil of the third law of Karma
Doctrine. Good and evil are purely context-specific. Lying, killing, injuring,
cheating, etc. are usually known as evil; but not so in absolute terms. In certain
contexts these may be good also; for example, killing an enemy by a soldier is
not taken as evil. What makes an act good or evil is not determined by the act
per se, but by something external to it, the context, the intention, etc. That
is why Hinduism prefers the concept of Dharma and Adharma to the absolute classification
of Karma into good and evil. The concept of Dharma holds good for all times and
all contexts; it is therefore eternal (सनातन). As we have seen,
Dharma is that which contributes to the sustenance of the world, the whole. Without
the whole there is no particular; so it is in our interest that we should
follow Dharma while doing our Karma. That is why Taittirīya 1.11 advises to
pursue Dharma. Ethical laws of all times are nothing but attempted practical
translations of this vision of Dharma.
Pursuit of Dharma naturally involves
precedence of collective interests to personal ones, a kind of sacrifice (यज्ञ- yajña). Gīta 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16 tell us that the universe exists
on sacrifice and those who do not abide by that smooth-going system are not
worthy of living. Such sacrifice demands an attitude of equipoise to loss and
gain, pain and pleasure, and to all such dual results of Karma. So the advice
is to do Karma disregarding the nature of its results (Gīta 2.38, 2.47, 2.48,
3.9, etc.). The advantage is that when we remain unaffected by good and evil
alike, the resulting mental balance keeps us free, happy and peaceful. Reversely,
if we have to be happy, then we should be equipoised to all dualities. This
relieves us of attachment to Karma and the results. On being unattached, we
find our existence to be involved in the existence of the whole. There we
embrace Dharma.
D. Moksha:
Finally we may turn to Moksha (Liberation). Regarding Moksha Swamiji says thus:
“All work done through selfish motives binds the soul to the fruits thereof,
and is in consequence a cause of bondage. If, however, we can once reach the
point of working without having desire for results, without seeking any return,
then the law of Karma will be broken and freedom will be ours.” Swamiji does
not explain the philosophical basis of the claim that selfish motives cause
bondage. Hinduism says that it is the Guna(s) that bind. Of the three Guna(s),
‘Rajas’ binds us to Karma; it is born of desire and attachment and its nature is
affection (रागात्मकम्) (Gīta 14.7). Affection
by itself is not dangerous; it is a phenomenal expression of the urge for
existence. But, by too much brooding, affection brings forth the lurking attachment
and transforms into the devastating Kāma (Gīta 2.62 & 2.63). In order to
avoid this, we have to become balanced to all dualities like success-failure,
pleasure-pain, etc. (निर्द्वन्द्व). In this balanced
posture, no Karma is done out of Kāma and therefore we have no reason to be
affected by the results. Thus we transcend Guna(s) and thereby the bondage.
But absolute freedom lies in realisation of
Ᾱtmā. The path to reach this state is described in Gīta 18.49 to 18.55 and it
involves abstention from Karma (नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धि), pursuit of
knowledge (ज्ञाननिष्ठ), attaining to
Brahma (ब्रह्मभूत), devotion to Ᾱtmā
(भक्ति), identifying with Ᾱtmā (अभिजानाति) and finally being established in it (विशते). One who reached this stage is said to have attained
immortality (अमृतत्व). When we conquer
Kāma we overcome death (मृत्यु) since death is
mere capitulation to Kāma. It is only when we get established in Ᾱtmā that we attain
immortality (अमृतत्व), a stage where there
is no Kāma and no death. Īśa (11) enlightens us that after overcoming death through
Karma, immortality is attained through knowledge (अविद्यया मृत्युं तीर्त्वा विद्ययामृतमश्नुते).
Conclusion
In the light
of our discussions we may conclude thus: Fundamentals of the Doctrine of Karma such
as indispensability of reaction of similar force and effect for all actions,
attribution of one’s present suffering to his past Karma, etc. are not
logically sustainable. These are in conflict with the basic teachings of
Hinduism also. Rebirth of the same individual after the loss of body is an
essential feature of Karma Doctrine, but Hinduism rejects it outright.
Similarly, the concept of good and evil is not approved as such by Hinduism which
upholds the higher concept of Dharma and Adharma. Further, in Hinduism Moksha is
the culminating attainment of sustained, dedicated, and persistent
self-refinements, whereas Karma Doctrine relegates it to be something that can
be attained simply by regulating one’s Karma. Thus Karma Doctrine presents
itself to be adventitious to Hinduism. Attempts to eke out a substantiation
from selected verses of Gīta and Upanishads meet with failure as they are replete
with misinterpretations. The Doctrine might be catering to the presumed ethical
necessity of instilling a sense of fear, in the minds of gullible and ignorant
ones, against committing acts that are socially conceived as bad or wrong.
Nevertheless, it is an amateurish conception of dogmatic contents, formed out
of traditional mythological beliefs, and blown up beyond the boundaries of
rational thinking, through ages of indiscriminate manipulations by interested
parties. Such doctrines and theses obfuscate the profundity, brightness,
perfection and uniqueness of the rational thoughts of Hinduism and render the
most ancient, simultaneously the most modern, Philosophy of the world to be
viewed as a bunch of formulations consisting of superstitious observances,
rituals and expiations.
