It has become a fashion to use the word 'Karma', specially in West. I also got interested in it and at first glance 'Karma', the law of cause and effect sounded scientific enough for a logical mind to grasp, but more I dwelved in details the more I got confused.
Here's my 11 point confusion list on Theory of Karma as forwarded by the Advaitis -
1. The major argument raised in support of karma is the diversities of the living beings and their comparative advantages/disadvantages over one another with respect to the environment & the uncontrollable situations they get into. Without karma, it would seem as if the Creator is partial. But this can be negated saying that it is not partialness but randomness inherent to the Creator.
2. Partiality can come into play only when there is a goal & a winner. But neither are there for jeevatmas. Moksha cannot be considered as a goal as it is not a state or destination to be achieved but just a self-realization of true nature. So its not a race against others that partiality will play any role.
3. There is lot of diversity & randomness in the non-living material part of universe too. None of the galaxies or stars are same whether they affect jeevatmas or not. The fate of stars maybe black holes, neutron stars, pulsars, etc. Should that be also called as partiality towards the original consciousness inherent in these stars? This shows that randomness is an aspect of the universe and only its governing principles are constant (or impartial so to speak). This should apply in case of jeevatmas too.
4. Karmas are said to be without beginning so as to avoid the question of how the first jeevas were formed without any karmas. Now, that which has no beginning cannot have an neither have an end nor have any change as a whole. It can neither be created nor be destroyed. So how can any being increase or decrease its karma? Is it that he is just transferring his karma to other beings? In that case the liberation of one enlightened being should be adding load to thousands of others through no fault of theirs!
5. Karmas are referred as direct result of cause & effect cycle. But cause & effect can only exist when a concept of time exists. So when a creation gets dissolved, even the karmas should get dissolved as time itself becomes non-existent until the creation starts all over again.
6. The poonya paap aspects of karma sound a bit lame as good or bad, enjoyment or suffering is a matter of judgment & emotion and is extremely subjective. Also, what about the actions which are neither considered neither good nor bad or the results of which are neither enjoyed nor suffered? What about microbes which feel neither suffering nor enjoyment and can do neither good nor bad but only what it is supposed to do – will there be any addition to its karma?
7. How can the karmas result into being born in wealthy or poor families? Wealth is again a subjective term and the currency notes one have cannot be anyway get counted by the soul trying to find a family according to its karma. If any affluent family just after giving birth to a child (with good karmas) loses all its money (say because of the free will applied by the father incorrectly in business) and becomes poor, then how was the karmic calculation done? The soul of new baby found a rich house according to its punyas but got poor through no fault of his own. Either we have to say that this is partiality (which negates the argument for Karma) or we have to say that the soul with good karmas cannot be born in such a family which is going to be poor soon (this can only prove a fixed destiny which again negates the theory of karma & free will)
8. What exactly happens to the karma of the jnani at videha mukti? The karma is neither bears fruit (this will be negation of cause effect cycle) nor can it die away (since karmas are birthless).
9. Cause & effect are a continuous process without any break. For every action, reaction starts almost simultaneously. But for karmas to happen, the actions are hanging in for intervals of several lifetimes before getting a reaction.
10. If a person does minimal action and only enjoys or suffers all the situations of life, then his karma quota for this life (prarabdha) will get exhausted pretty soon and he will die soon. So, does action extend lifetime & enjoyment decreases lifetime?
11. Another argument for karma is said to be that the mind though conscious of consequences wills evil and though dissuaded continues to commit sinful deeds. This to me sounds more like an argument for free will rather than karma. Maya’s veiling power makes all beings unaware of their united true nature and they consider themselves only as limited individual consciousness. This is bound to create selfishness which is the root cause of all evils. A truly selfless man can never harm anyone. So, this argument can be negated as its more of misuse of free will owing to impulsion of Maya, than the compulsion of karma.
No comments:
Post a Comment