Discussion Karma

1 discussion

1.1 free , destiny
1.2 psychological indeterminacy
1.3 transferability
1.4 problem of evil

discussion
free , destiny

one of significant controversies karma doctrine whether implies destiny, , implications on free will. controversy referred moral agency problem; controversy not unique karma doctrine, found in form in monotheistic religions.

the free controversy can outlined in 3 parts: (1) person kills, rapes or commits other unjust act, can claim bad actions product of karma: devoid of free will, can not make choice, agent of karma, , merely delivers necessary punishments wicked victims deserved own karma in past lives. crimes , unjust actions due free will, or because of forces of karma? (2) person suffers unnatural death of loved one, or rape or other unjust act, assume moral agent responsible, harm gratuitous, , therefore seek justice? or, should 1 blame oneself bad karma on past lives, , assume unjust suffering fate? (3) karma doctrine undermine incentive moral education--because suffering deserved , consequence of past lives, why learn when balance sheet of karma past lives determine 1 s action , sufferings?

the explanations , replies above free problem vary specific school of hinduism, buddhism , jainism. schools of hinduism, such yoga , advaita vedanta, have emphasized current life on dynamics of karma residue moving across past lives, allow free will. argument, of other schools, threefold: (1) theory of karma includes both action , intent behind action. not 1 affected past karma, 1 creates new karma whenever 1 acts intent - or bad. if intent , act can proven beyond reasonable doubt, new karma can proven, , process of justice can proceed against new karma. actor kills, rapes or commits other unjust act, must considered moral agent new karma, , tried. (2) life forms not receive , reap consequence of past karma, means initiate, evaluate, judge, give , deliver consequence of karma others. (3) karma theory explains evils, not (see moral evil versus natural evil).

other schools of hinduism, buddhism , jainism consider cycle of rebirths central beliefs , karma past lives affects 1 s present, believe both free (cetanā) , karma can co-exist; however, answers have not persuaded scholars.

psychological indeterminacy

another issue theory of karma is psychologically indeterminate, suggests obeyesekere. is, (1) if no 1 can know karma in previous lives, , (2) if karma past lives can determine 1 s future, individual psychologically unclear if or can shape future, more happy, or reduce suffering. if goes wrong – such sickness or failure @ work – individual unclear if karma past lives cause, or sickness caused curable infection , failure caused correctable.

this psychological indeterminacy problem not unique theory of karma; found in every religion adopting premise god has plan, or in way influences human events. karma-and-free-will problem above, schools insist on primacy of rebirths face controversy. answers psychological indeterminacy issue same addressing free problem.

transferability

some schools of asian religions, particularly buddhism, allow transfer of karma merit , demerit 1 person another. transfer exchange of non-physical quality exchange of physical goods between 2 human beings. practice of karma transfer, or possibility, controversial. karma transfer raises questions similar substitutionary atonement , vicarious punishment. defeats ethical foundations, , dissociates causality , ethicization in theory of karma moral agent. proponents of buddhist schools suggest concept of karma merit transfer encourages religious giving, , such transfers not mechanism transfer bad karma (i.e., demerit) 1 person another.

in hinduism, sraddha rites during funerals have been labelled karma merit transfer ceremonies few scholars, claim disputed others. other schools in hinduism, such yoga , advaita vedantic philosophies, , jainism hold karma can not transferred.

the problem of evil

there has been ongoing debate karma theory , how answers problem of evil , related problem of theodicy. problem of evil significant question debated in monotheistic religions 2 beliefs: (1) there 1 god absolutely , compassionate (omnibenevolent), , (2) 1 god knows absolutely (omniscient) , powerful (omnipotent). problem of evil stated in formulations such as, why omnibenevolent, omniscient , omnipotent god allow evil , suffering exist in world? max weber extended problem of evil eastern traditions.

the problem of evil, in context of karma, has been long discussed in eastern traditions, both in theistic , non-theistic schools; example, in uttara mīmāṃsā sutras book 2 chapter 1; 8th century arguments adi sankara in brahmasutrabhasya posits god cannot reasonably cause of world because there exists moral evil, inequality, cruelty , suffering in world; , 11th century theodicy discussion ramanuja in sribhasya. epics such mahabharata, example, suggests 3 prevailing theories in ancient india why , evil exists – 1 being ordained god, being karma, , third citing chance events (yadrccha, यदृच्छा). mahabharata, includes hindu deity vishnu in form of krishna 1 of central characters in epic, debates nature , existence of suffering these 3 perspectives, , includes theory of suffering arising interplay of chance events (such floods , other events of nature), circumstances created past human actions, , current desires, volitions, dharma, adharma , current actions (purusakara) of people. however, while karma theory in mahabharata presents alternative perspectives on problem of evil , suffering, offers no conclusive answer.

other scholars suggest nontheistic indian religious traditions not assume omnibenevolent creator, , theistic schools not define or characterize god(s) monotheistic western religions , deities have colorful, complex personalities; indian deities personal , cosmic facilitators, , in schools conceptualized plato’s demiurge. therefore, problem of theodicy in many schools of major indian religions not significant, or @ least of different nature in western religions. many indian religions place greater emphasis on developing karma principle first cause , innate justice man focus, rather developing religious principles nature , powers of god , divine judgment focus. scholars, particularly of nyaya school of hinduism , sankara in brahmasutra bhasya, have posited karma doctrine implies existence of god, administers , affects person s environment given person s karma, acknowledge makes karma violable, contingent , unable address problem of evil. arthur herman states karma-transmigration theory solves 3 historical formulations problem of evil while acknowledging theodicy insights of sankara , ramanuja.

some theistic indian religions, such sikhism, suggest evil , suffering human phenomenon , arises karma of individuals. in other theistic schools such in hinduism, particularly nyaya school, karma combined dharma , evil explained arising human actions , intent in conflict dharma. in nontheistic religions such buddhism, jainism , mimamsa school of hinduism, karma theory used explain cause of evil offer distinct ways avoid or unaffected evil in world.

those schools of hinduism, buddhism , jainism rely on karma-rebirth theory have been critiqued theological explanation of suffering in children birth, result of or sins in past life. others disagree, , consider critique flawed , misunderstanding of karma theory.