The Theory and Psychology of Karma

"The concept of Karma was invented by sages to desist people from doing them harm." (Swami Brahm Prakash)

"Prakarte Kriyamanaani Gune Karmaani Sarvashah,
Ahankaar-vimudhaatmaa Kartaaham-iti Manyate" (Gita)

"All actions are due to the qualities of nature.
Only a being deluded by his ego believes himself to be the doer."

One of the most fundamental beliefs of human beings is that there are good and bad acts. That the acts are somehow going to result in consequences which are physically unrelated to the acts themselves but are nevertheless causally linked. That is, if I murder someone, I will suffer an unrelated, but consequent pain sometime in the future, either in this life or in the next. Note that the consequence is not demonstrable, it is only speculated. The punishment by law, by police, by one's fellow citizens, the guilt in one's own mind are the demonstrable consequences. That is not what the theory of Karma says. It means rather that there is a principle in nature which will make sure that you will be punished or rewarded according to your acts in an undefinable and unpredictable way.

Going a level deeper, it is easily seen that it is not the act itself which is good or bad, but the intention behind it. Striking down a man who is bent upon raping a minor girl is considered a good act because the intention is noble. Striking down a poor man to steal his wallet to get money to gamble is a bad act because the intention is greed.

And it is presumed, of course, that one is free to intend this or that. That one's intentions are born of free will. Hence, one's acts are not predetermined. It is the level of one's awareness and one's control of one's "base tendencies" which dictate how good a person one is.

But can't one then say that if one's own acts are not predetermined, then the acts of others are also not predetermined but are born of their free will. Hence, someone trying to murder me is not due to my bad karma, but is born of that person's free will and intention.

And what about the tendencies a person is born with. Some people are naturally very peaceful and sagacious, others are natural born killers. So, if tendencies are given and not chosen, can one say that the mind is free to choose between a good act and a bad act?

What about a child who is shown violence on TV and plays violent video games for many years and grows up to be a heartless violent beast?

So, there are innate tendencies and there are tendencies which one acquires during one's life. Given the fact of these tendencies, can it be reasonably supposed that one is acting freely?

So, it is seen that freedom of will is fundamentally linked to acting without influence.

And if a person is not free, how can he be punished by Providence for doing something which was his very nature?

However, punishment in the normal realm can be understood as the conditioned reaction of others, as well as an effort by the majority to rein in the counter-productive tendencies of the "criminal". The argument that since I am not free to act in a good way so I should not be punished by the society and the law is a fallacy since the punishment is a form of deterrence to you and to others. Since "you" are not free anyway, what is being acted upon and re-trained is the conditioning in your mind. And just as you are not free to have acted in the way you did, society, being made of people like you, is also bound by its tendencies to punish you as it does.

Let us put the socially acceptable good totally aside if we want to find out what is truly good.

... (to be continued)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws