Question related to karma and rebirth

Question

A Christian once asked me this question when I was explaining him about karma and rebirth philosophy in Hinduism. I told him that if anything happens in anybody's life, it is the result of their karma in a previous birth. He then raised a question with the following example:

If a thief stealing from a house is due to the sin of the houseowner in a previous birth, when a judge gives punishment to the accused, ideally the accused should not be found guilty.

How can karma and rebirth theory be defended against this argument?

So, did the thief not commit a sin because the robbery was destined to happen due to the houseowner's karma? Please answer with an authentic source.

Does this answer your question? If everything happens as per one's past karma, then why we decry Islamic invasions of India and resulting plunder of our heritage? — Ikshvaku, Dec 16 '19 at 15:21
Your question has been adequately answered here: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/37351/11726 — Ikshvaku, Dec 16 '19 at 15:22
Yes, its because of Karma but can the thief or judge find or show everyone the exact Karmas of houseowners to everyone in court? Only omniscient God and some real powerful Yogi can do that. Normal society Dharma is run based on the laws given by Manus made for low intellect bound souls and dharma applies to concrete things like matter which are seen and grasped by logic not that are twisted with shrewdness and word jugglery. Accurate Law of Karma applies to highly evolved beings who can perceive it but not common beings of earth, just like for an animal there is no God nor religion nor moksha — , Dec 19 '19 at 22:57
The houseowner deserved to be robbed. If he was punished by king (in form of taxes accepted by shastras), then his punishment is complete. but if he was robbed by a thief, his punishment is still complete, but now the sin gets transferred to the robber, because the robber did not follow shastras. See https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/37351/4435 — ram, Mar 05 '20 at 00:26
There is nothing to be defended here. Everyone is responsible for his own deeds or karma. Householder had a karma to become a robbery victim, and a thief is responsible for his crime, and that is a sin of robbery. So, both of them have their own karma. There is no contradiction in that thing. — brahma jijnasa, Jul 05 '20 at 17:47

Artist Formerly Known As CSD · Accepted Answer · 2020-01-26T09:31:01.160

1

Before coming to the example, one needs to understand the two types of karma in play here - Prarabdha and Kriyamana. But I will also include Sanchita karma for good order sake.

Sanchita Karma

It is all your accumulated karma of past lives.

Prarabdha karma

It is that portion of Sanchita karma that will fructify in this life. One cannot escape it.

Kriyamana karma

It is the karma that is being made for the future i.e. fruits of which we will experience in this lifetime or next lifetime. If next lifetime then it gets stored into Sanchita karma

In mathematical terms

SanchitaL = SanchitaL-1 — PrarabdhaL + KriyamanaL

Where

SanchitaL and SanchitaL-1 are accumulated karma at the end of life L and L-1 respectively

PrarabdhaL is that portion of SanchitaL-1 experienced in life L

KriyamanaL are the net new actions in life L over which you have control

So coming to example , the house owner losing wealth is because of his Prarabdha karma. If the thief didn't steal it , he would have lost it via another theft , poor investment decision etc.

The thief committing the robbery has incurred bad Kriyamana karma. So if he didn't receive punishment in this life then he would get it in one of his future lives because the Kriyamana karma will get stored into Sanchita karma. In one of his next rebirths he would suffer losses accordingly.

The judge is carrying out his prescribed duty. If he didn't carry out his duty i. e. punish the robber , then he would incur bad Kriyamana karma .

edited Jan 26 '20 at 09:31

answered Jan 26 '20 at 06:57

Artist Formerly Known As CSD

5,202
1
17
46

The thief committing the robbery has incurred bad Kriyamana karma. What if this was the thief's Prarabdha(L)? If so, does the thief have the choice (free will) of not stealing? – muser Aug 07 '23 at 04:13
1

@abs We have no control over prarabdha, yet to put in effort (kriyamanakarma) is our duty. Getting delicious food served to you is your prarabdha. But unless you put in effort i.e. use your hands you won't get to eat it. In this case thief will have all the circumstances - necessary skills, perfect conditions (dark night, no neighbours etc) etc. But it is his duty to not act upon it. If he does incur bad kriyamanakarma – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 07 '23 at 04:26
I see. So it is "completely" in the thief's free will to not steal, not influenced by any past karmas? It won't be that previous karmas are somehow forcing him to steal? This seems reasonable, but it would be great if some references/scriptures could be quoted. – muser Aug 07 '23 at 05:02
I ask this because if we consider the story of Jaya and Vijaya (Vaikuntha's gatekeepers), it appears that they performed bad acts in later incarnations due to their previous karmas. – muser Aug 07 '23 at 05:07
@abs - karma does not affect devatas. Besides Jaya and Vijaya had curses on them – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 07 '23 at 17:51
Okay. But I do not understand if it's correct to judge the thief's acts as bad. The thief might be facing a curse. – muser Aug 08 '23 at 02:32
@abs - so you are saying that we should not judge Ravana as bad because he was facing a curse ? – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 08 '23 at 08:30
No, his actions are certainly deplorable. However, I want to understand if it is correct to judge him bad, taking into account his multiple lifetimes and the curse he was facing. I want to understand if it were "in his hands" to not commit the crimes he did. On the surface, I understand that he might have the free will not to do those atrocities, but I'm struggling to understand this when the curse comes into picture - can someone not argue that he was somehow supposed/tasked to do whatever he did? – muser Aug 09 '23 at 03:12
@abs - If not mistaken the curse said he and his brother will die in hands of Lord Vishnu in each of their three lifetimes . Don't think it said anything about he will be forced to do bad things – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 09 '23 at 05:18
From here (Text 31), the Lord says As My enemy being unified in consciousness, you will find liberation .... I believe it is implied that enemies of the Lord would do bad things. – muser Aug 09 '23 at 06:16
@abs - ok. But one can argue that lot of soldiers were killed in battle by Rama and Krishna who were enemies but not evil. But even the larger point is that they deserved the curse. From the link you shared it is clearly stated that Lord Vishnu said that he can nulify the curse but he won't as these two doorkeepers deserved it – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 09 '23 at 15:45
I see. So is it correct to say that if they willed, Ravana and others could have not done the crimes, even though Lord Vishnu had himself ordained the curse? (The curse itself not specifying that they commit crimes.) I ask this to understand if the crimes of Ravana were pre-ordained or not, that is, he had the control to stop them or not. – muser Aug 10 '23 at 03:35
I've asked a related question. – muser Aug 10 '23 at 03:54
@abs - yes, they could have not done so. Also just think out loud, why will curse spell out the evil deeds done by them. The curse is an outcome of an evil deed and the receiver has to suffer the consequences..why will the giver say that you will do xyz evil deeds because you did ABC evil deeds – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Aug 10 '23 at 03:59
they could have not done so. I see.
True, curse to commit crimes seems counter-intuitive to me. What comes to mind is that for Jaya-Vijaya, "suffering" would be to not be able to serve the Lord. In that sense, a curse to stand against the Lord (as they did in their rebirths) would indeed make them (as devoted servants of the Lord) suffer.

muser

Aug 10 '23 at 04:31

Pradip Gangopadhyay · Answer 2 · 2020-07-08T15:16:54.263

[If a thief stealing from a house is due to the sin of the houseowner in a previous birth, when a judge gives punishment to the accused, ideally the accused should not be found guilty.]

It is true that in general such question about justice can not be definitively answered by any human. Why is it so? The reason is that it is Ishvara who gives the fruits of karma.

The fruit of action is from Him, this being the logical position.

Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sri Sanakracharya III.ii.38

However, there are special cases where an answer can be given. This is one such case. The point here is that stealing is paapa (sin) and a person who steals will suffer the resulting karmic consequences. If someone eats a chilli then that person will suffer the discomfort of the heat generated by the chilli. There is no escaping it.

A good example is Adolf Hitler. AH's war bankrupted Britain which paved the way for the independence of India. Apparently AH did a good thing. Nevertheless AH's crimes against humanity will attract karmic consequences.

score 1 · Answer 3 · answered Jun 23 '20 at 05:14

The point that is being missed here is that the theory of karma is not based on pratyakSha pramANa (direct observation), but anumAna pramANa (inference).

Nobody has witnessed the previous life of the house-owner to certify that he committed some sin, because of which he is suffering this loss in his present life. It is only from inferring that because he suffered the loss, he must have done something to warrant it.

Whereas the crime of stealing is based on pratyakSha pramANa. Somebody saw the loss of property and witnessed the theft. So the thief is definitely guilty and must be punished.

This is because pratyakSha pramANa always has higher priority and credibility than anumAna pramANa.

pratyakSha pramANa always has higher priority than anumAna pramANa. Are there any references (scriptures) saying this? — muser, Aug 07 '23 at 04:18

score -1 · Answer 4 · answered Dec 17 '19 at 07:06

Fruits of one actions only come from the Lord. Karma itself is insentient. The Brahma Sutras say (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras) with commentary:

Chapter III, Section II, Adhikarana VIII

Adhikarana summary: Iswara the giver of the fruits of actions

Brahma-Sutra 3.2.38: Sanskrit text and English translation.

फलमतः, उपपत्तेः ॥ ३८ ॥

phalamataḥ, upapatteḥ || 38 ||

phalam—Fruits of actions; ataḥ—from Him; upapatteḥ—for that is reasonable.

38. From Him (the Lord) are the fruits of actions ; for that is reasonable.

Having described the nature of Brahman, the author proceeds now to discuss the view of the Mimamsakas, who say that Karma (work) and not Īswara gives the fruits of one’s actions. According to them(?) it is useless to set up an Iswara for this purpose, since Karma itself can give that result at a future time.

This Sutra refutes it and says that from Iswara alone come the fruits cf one’s work. Karma is insentient and short-lived, and cannot therefore be expected to bestow the fruits of actions at a future time according to one’s deserts. We do not see any insentient thing bestow fruits on those who worship it. Therefore it is only from the Lord, who is worshipped through actions, that their results proceed.

Brahma-Sutra 3.2.39: Sanskrit text and English translation.

श्रुतत्वाच्च ॥ ३९ ॥

śrutatvācca || 39 ||

śrutatvāt—Because the scripture so teaches; ca—and.

39. And because the scripture so teaches.

The scripture declares that the fruits of actions come from the Lord. “That great, birthless Self is the eater of food and the giver of wealth (the fruit of one’s work)” (Brih. 4. 4. 24).

Brahma-Sutra 3.2.40: Sanskrit text and English translation.

धर्मं जैमिनिः, अत एव ॥ ४० ॥

dharmaṃ jaiminiḥ, ata eva || 40 ||

dharmaṃ—Religious merits; jaiminiḥ—(sage) Jaimini; ata eva—for the same reasons.

40. Jaimini (thinks) for the same reasons (viz. scriptural authority and reasoning) that religious merit (is what brings about the fruits of actions).

The view of the previous Sutra is being criticized.

The scripture enjoins, “He who is desirous of the heavenly world is to sacrifice” (Tandya). Since every scriptural injunction has an object, it is reasonable to think that the sacrifice itself produces the fruit. But it may be objected that since the deed is destroyed, it cannot produce a result at a future time. This is met by the positing of an Apurva or extraordinary principle, which is produced by the Karma before it is destroyed, and through the intervention of which the result is produced in the distant future. Again, if the deed itself did not produce the result, it would be useless to perform it; and moreover it is not reasonable to imagine one cause (the Lord) for a great variety of effects.

Brahma-Sutra 3.2.41: Sanskrit text and English translation.

पूर्वं तु बादरायणः, हेतुव्यपदेशात् ॥ ४१ ॥

pūrvaṃ tu bādarāyaṇaḥ, hetuvyapadeśāt || 41 ||

pūrvam—The former (i.e. the Lord); tu—but; bādarāyaṇaḥ—Badarayana; hetu-vyapadeśāt—on account of His being declared to be the cause (of the actions even).

41. But Badarayana (thinks) the former (the Lord, as the bestower of the fruits of actions) on account of His being declared to be the cause (of the actions even).

‘But’ refutes the view of Sutra 40. Both Karma and Apurva are insentient, and as such incapable of producing results without the intervention of an intelligent principle. For such a phenomenon is not experienced in the world. No one gets anything by worshipping stocks and stones. So the fruits of actions come only from the Lord, and this is all the more established, as the Lord Himself causes people to act one way) or the other; and since the Jiva acts as directed by Him, He Himself is the bestower of the fruits of his actions according to his deserts. “He makes him whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds do a good deed” etc. (Kau. 3. 8); “Whichever divine form a devotee wishes to worship . . . and obtains from it the results he desires, as ordained by Me” (Gita 7. 21-22). Since the Lord has regard for the merit and demerit of the souls, the objection that a uniform cause is incapable of producing various effects does not stand.

In the last four topics the entity ‘That’ has been explained. Firstly, Brahman has been shown to be formless, self-effulgent, and without difference; secondly, by the denial of manifoldness in It it has been established that It is one without a second; and lastly, It has been proved to be the giver of the fruits of people’s actions in the relative world. Thus the two entities ‘thou’ and ‘That’ have been explained in these two sections.

Long block quote with very little summary of your own. Also, does not refute the central argument: Did the thief not commit a sin because it was due to houseowner's own karma? — Say No To Censorship, Dec 28 '19 at 17:26
@sv, the thief committed a sin. Just because the houseowner got what he deserved, it doesn't mean he got it through means accepted by Shastras. It's a chain where sins get transferred from victim to perpetrator, that only stops when the punishment is meted out by the King (or Bhagavan) as long as it is accepted by Shastras. — ram, Mar 05 '20 at 00:33

ram · Answer 5 · 2020-07-01T23:13:30.890

Let's say Somu kills Kumar.

Did Kumar deserve it? Yes. Why? Shastras tell us Law of Karma decides your birth & death. So Kumar deserved to die exactly at that time in that manner.

So, can we let Somu go free? No. Why not? Because Somu committed a crime.

How can it be a crime if Kumar deserved it? Because Shastras tell us that murder is a crime.

But if murder is a crime, how will Kumar get the death he deserves according to Karma? Shastras give the right of execution only to Raja (king/government/judge/police).

So if King executes Kumar, isn't it also murder? No. Why not? Because Shastras says that King must uphold justice by executing criminals. If Kumar committed a murder in this birth that the King knows about, then the King will execute him. But if he committed a murder in his previous birth, then the King cannot execute him because King cannot see into past lives. But Bhagavan can. So Bhagavan will ensure that Kumar gets the death he deserves. Whether it be through another criminal, or an accident, only Bhagavan will decide. Humans CANNOT decide.

Somu is just a means through which Kumar gets his deserved punishment. There is no contradiction.

...
Kumar killed Pappu. (Pappu's punishment is over, Kumar committed a crime)
Somu killed Kumar. (Kumar's punishment is over, Somu committed a crime)
Binny killed Somu. (Somu's punishment is over, Binny committed a crime)
King killed Binny. (Binny's punishment is over, King did not commit crime)
-end of chain-

Suppose that Kumar hurts Pappu. What should Pappu feel ? What should Kumar feel ?

Pappu should not feel angry to get revenge. He should feel relieved that his own paap (sin) balance got reduced through the punishment, which just happened to come through Kumar.

Kumar should feel afraid and guilty because his paap (sin) balance just got increased because he did adharma.

If Pappu does not punish Kumar in revenge, who will punish him ? Bhagavan.
How ? Maybe some other person, Somu will cut off Kumar's hand, maybe Kumar will lose his hand in an accident, or maybe he will just get a fracture, or maybe just a skin-rash. if he repents and does prayaschitta. We have no idea how or when Kumar will get what he deserved. All that is true is that he will. Just as Pappu got what he deserved.

So how will I know what I deserve and what I don't ?
Simple. Whatever happens to you, you deserved it.
If you don't want bad things to happen to you, follow dharma. If you want good things to happen to you, follow dharma. You have no say in who/how/when these consequences will happen, but they will, as long as Bhagavan is the enforcer.

Can this be used to justify crimes against Shudras and Dalits? They were born that way so they deserve to be oppressed.

Again, there are 2 parties involved - the oppressed and the oppressor. Again, lookup dharma. Does it say you are allowed to oppress ? If yes, then go ahead. If not, then don't.

What will happen if I still oppress against dharma?

Most likely, you will be born as Shudra/Dalit in next life, and that person will be born as born as brahmin, and he will oppress you. There is a precedent for this, from the word 'Mamsah'

So if someone is suffering from disease, or handicap, or injury, should I just let him suffer because he deserved it?

Once again, lookup dharma. Does dharma say you should ignore him ? No. It says you should help them, show mercy.

Otherwise, what will happen?

When you are suffering as a result of your karma, no one else will come to your aid.

Why can't Bhagavan show that mercy and not punish him in the first place?

No - mercy is reserved for the deserving. A criminal, as soon as he gets his punishment, becomes deserving of mercy - rehabilitation, preventing further crimes etc.

But what use is mercy AFTER punishment has been given out?

Mercy was shown even before punishment. Ever wondered by punishments are not immediate ? Deivam Nindru Kollum ? That period is chance/mercy given to repent and do prayaschitta. But the criminal did not. So he will be punished. As soon as he has undergone punishment, he is deserving of mercy like everyone else.

If Somu had used his buddhi/manas to control himself instead of killing Kumar, then Kumar will have time to repent, and if he doesn't, will eventually be punished by King.
If Binny had controlled himself, then Somu will have time to repent, and if he doesn't, will eventually be punished by King.
But neither did. They interfered and disobeyed shastras, so they will also be punished.

In other words, if you follow shastras, you will not be punished.
You do not have the right to commit a crime and then say the victim deserved it.
If you say so, then police will punish you and say you deserved it.

Source - https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras

Brahma-Sutra 3.2.38: फलमतः, उपपत्तेः

Question related to karma and rebirth

5 Answers5

Linked