5

I am quite fascinate and confused by karma philosophy.

But then I don't understand how it exactly works

A hurts B in some way (A has done bad karma)

C hurts A (A's karma has bore fruit)

but in the process C has incurred bad karma ?? Is it ?

If yes, then how does one reconcile the fact that C's response, even though C was unknowing about it, was a fruitition of bad karma done by A in some past.

If no, then that means there're two types of karma , one original you have done which will reap some fruit , secondly a karma which is a fruit of someone else's karma.

I hope you got my query . thanks :)

Curious Seeker
  • 1,051
  • 6
  • 12
  • 3
    Everything that anyone does to you is something that you deserve, but that doesn't mean that that action can't be good deed or bad deed on the part of the other person. Brahman uses the good deeds and bad deeds of others to give you what you deserve. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 14 '18 at 09:38
  • A does something to B. Here A is doing an action. B is not doing any action. Now there are 4 possibilities, based on past actions of A & B, their current duties, and method of doing such duty - A incurs good karma. A incurs bad karma. B gets rid of good karma. B gets rid of bad karma. If B is student and A is teacher, and the action is imparting wisdom, A incurs good karma, B gets rid of bad karma. If B is beggar and A is householder and action is charity, A incurs good karma, B gets rid of good karma. – ram Jan 14 '18 at 17:34
  • If B is householder and A is thief, and action is robbing, A incurs bad karma, B gets rid of bad karma. If B is listener and A is gossiper, and action is false slander, then A incurs bad karma, B gets rid of good karma. – ram Jan 14 '18 at 17:36
  • Now, If A (the guy performing the action), does the action in the line of duty (as mentioned by shastras), AND does not wait or care to enjoy the results of such action, then he gets rid of the desire to repeatedly do karma, face the results, do karma, face the results, do karma, face the results & so on.. The important thing here to note is that the action you take MUST be according to dharma. You cannot commit adharma and say you don't care about the results. I mean you could, but you'll be fooling yourself when the results inevitably bear fruit. – ram Jan 14 '18 at 17:38
  • Karma will bear fruit whether or not you do karma with attachment or without attachment. The only difference is that YOU will not be bothered by them. – ram Jan 14 '18 at 17:40
  • The Karma theory can be very easily summed up. Every action has an equal reaction. You do a good deed for the benefit of A. As per Karma theory you will reap the benefit of your good act. But the person giving you the benefit may or may not be A. If someone else gives you the benefit, he is repaying you your good deed - either in this birth or from your accumulated Prarabdha Karma. – Suresh Ramaswamy Jan 15 '18 at 05:52
  • I cannot quote any reference for answering this question. If mods think this qualifies only to be a comment, I have no objection in this answer to be turned to a comment. Coming to the OP, the entire universe is orchestrated by what is called the 'universal intelligence'. At the macroscopic level, we are all individuals with individual intelligence. But the paramatma that resides inside each one of us has no such divisions. He is aware of the deeds of every single one of us. Therefore, he orchestrates events in such a way that person A who has negative karma himself, punishes person B who agai – JRD Jan 15 '18 at 12:57
  • Therefore, he orchestrates events in such a way that person A who has negative karma himself, punishes person B who again has negative karma, whereby both their negative karma are brought to fruition. But what if person A becomes a yogi and somehow remedies his mental make-up/his karmic debts in such a manner he avoids doing harm to person B? Then the cosmic intelligence/paramatma will send a person D with suitable bad karma to harm person B. That is, if person A were to kill person B. And person A somehow obsolves himself of the crime beforehand. – JRD Jan 15 '18 at 12:57
  • Then person D who still has negative karma will be sent to kill person B. This is how universe operates. – JRD Jan 15 '18 at 12:57
  • "...confused by karma philosophy" - you are not alone. See this question. If you start digging deep into karma theory, all its inconsistencies and fallacies will become apparent. Most apologists will resort to 'karma is too complex for humans to understand!' Funny thing is, it's humans who came up with this theory in the first place. – Say No To Censorship Jan 15 '18 at 16:23
  • 1
    @sv. Humans did not come up with the theory of Karma, and it does not have any inconsistencies. And it's not too complex for humans to understand, although some people might have difficulty understanding it. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 16 '18 at 14:32
  • @KeshavSrinivasan 'it does not have any inconsistencies' - it does because there isn't a precise definition of Karma (see my other question on falsifiability of Karma theory here - wow, this is now closed as off-topic, way to go!) "One becomes good through good karma and evil through evil karma" - this definition maybe good enough for a school kid but not for serious thinkers. Also, there's no evidence of Karma 'theory' being actually true. All we have is anecdotal evidences and scriptural mention of it being true. – Say No To Censorship Jan 16 '18 at 17:03
  • @sv. I replied to your post in the comments: "The theory of Karma is more like, say, Gödel's incompleteness theorem or Cauchy's integral theorem than it is like the roundness of earth, i.e. its truth is proven through non-empirical means, and if it is to be disproven then it must be done through an examination of how it is proven, not by some empirical test." – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 16 '18 at 17:17
  • @sv. "Even if you became a Trikalajnani and knew all the events that ever happened in the history of the Universe, that wouldn't bring you a single step closer to proving or disproving the theory of Karma. Because you'd have no way of knowing which result a person is experiencing is a consequence of which actions. Pratyaksha can never tell you what would have happened if you had done something other than what you did. Thats why Sabda Pramana is required. Of course, the fact Sabda Pramana is required doesn't mean it's valid, but for the proof that it's valid see the Purva Mimamsa Sutras." – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 16 '18 at 17:19
  • @sv. The theory of Karma doesn't involve vague statements like "One becomes good through good karma and evil through evil karma." It involves quite precise statements, like "Swargakamo Yajeta Jyotishtomena" - if you do a Jyotishtoma Yagna, then you will go to Swarga. You can say a lot of thing about that statement, you can say you agree with it, you can say that you disagree with it, but you cannot say that it is vague in any way. The theory of Karma involves very precise fruits for very precise actions, not just "some random good thing will happen to you". – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 16 '18 at 17:32
  • @KeshavSrinivasan "its truth is proven through non-empirical means" - it's just your personal opinion or the generally accepted notion? – Say No To Censorship Jan 16 '18 at 17:48
  • @sv. No, it's not my personal opinion. It is the established position of the Purva Mimamsa and Vedanta schools. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 16 '18 at 17:53

1 Answers1

1

There is no logic in your statement and you have misinterpreted the theory of Karma. From the point of logic, what is it that makes you assume that C's action are the result of A's actions on B? Simply saying karma is not logical. Your example is lacking in logic. Second, the Lord is the giver of karma. The Brahma Sutras 3.2.38-39 and Sankara's commentary says (Swami Vireswarananda translator, available here - https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/brahma-sutras/d/doc62753.html):

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 Mimamsakas, who say that Karma (work) and not Isvara, gives the fruits of one's actions. According to them it is useless to set up Iswara for this purpose, since Karma itself can give the result at a future time.

This Sutra refutes it and says that from Iswara alone come the fruits of 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 worshiped through actions, that their results proceed.

And because the scriptures 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 fruits of one's work)" (Brhadaranyaka Upanisihad 4.4.24)

And Sankara's commentary on this verse (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, Swami Madhavananda translator):

...and the giver of wealth, i.e. the fruits of the actions of all, in other words, he connects all beings with the results of their respective actions...

The Lord is the giver of the fruits of karma. No one can say that any action is directly the cause of a previous action.

Swami Vishwananda
  • 24,140
  • 2
  • 34
  • 78
  • 1
    It's true enough that Brahman is the dispenser of fruits, but that doesn't really get at the heart of the question. Here's the heart of the matter: if you do something bad, there are many ways Brahman dispense the fruit of that bad action to you. One of those ways is by another person harming you in some way. Now the question is, in such a case, why does the other person incur bad Karma as a result, when he is just the means by which Brahman is delivering to you the result of your previous bad action? Now I think that question is easy enough to answer, but your answer doesn't really answer it. – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 15 '18 at 11:09
  • @KeshavSrinivasan how do you know that the other person does or does not incur bad karma? The answer is the same for the other person, the Lord is the giver and dispenser. Life and karma cannot be analyzed into a single event, everything is interwoven, like the warp and woof of a piece of cloth. Pull a piece of cloth in one place, and strings in another part of the fabric are stretched. It is all the Lord's play. As Krishna says in the Gita 10.42 - "But what is there of your acquiring this detailed knowledge, O Arjuna? With a single fragment of Myself I stand supporting the whole universe." – Swami Vishwananda Jan 16 '18 at 04:49
  • Hi @SwamiVishwananda Ji , I agree everything is interwoven. Infact it is implicit in my question. The question was simply if a person punishes the original bad karma agent, then why does this person incur bad karma , since he's simply a vessel of Brahman to met out the fruit of the other person's bad karma – Curious Seeker Jan 21 '18 at 15:16