3

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.

Sanatan Darshan
  • 8,149
  • 1
  • 16
  • 50
  • 1
    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
  • 1
    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

5 Answers5

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 .

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