The Theory of Karma: boon or bane?

In the last episode of Satyameva Jayate as Amir Khan explored the world of the “disabled” fellow men and women of our country, their lust and zeal for life coupled with a deep acceptance to their disadvantaged conditions stood in stark contrast to the shocking attitude of insensitivity, indifference and even contempt of the apparently “enabled” rest of us. The  outcome of this general attitude of apathy and lack of concern is manifestly evident not only in the way as a society we have completely failed to provide even a modicum of infrastructural facility to meet the special needs of our disabled brothers and sisters, but also in the way as individuals we interact with them, our reactions ranging mostly from a heartless indifference to a disrespectful condescension. And we nurture this inhuman insensitivity with little compunction, secured as we are in the belief that these hardships endured by these people are well deserved consequences of their past actions. In other words, as briefly mentioned in the show itself, The Theory of Karma, embedded deeply in our national psyche, plays no insignificant a role in contributing to our shameful insensitivity bordering on a ruthless hard-heartedness.

      There is no denying that The Theory of Karma, for whatever it is worth,  is one of those ideas that pervades our national consciousness, and shapes in a considerable measure our national attitude to life. It is one of those ideas that have been around for millennias  and have been reinforced time and again by philosophers, seers and spiritual masters of this land. The human mind is preoccupied with finding the unseen causes behind the seen effects. The vicissitudes faced by life, we find it unacceptable and unfair an idea to attribute it to an uncaring randomness. The remarkable arbitrariness in the apparent difference in the conditions of our lives,  in the skewed distribution of talents and intelligence, and also in the many events impacting our lives  profoundly and yet having little or nothing to do with our conscious actions and endeavors, is rationalized compellingly and also to an extent conveniently by The Theory of Karma.

“As you sow, so shall you reap” -this is the underlying sentiment behind The Theory of Karma that we invoke to explain the otherwise unexplainable quirks of “fate” . It is because of the apparent convincing and rational nature of this idea that for ages we accepted it almost unthinkingly. Though there have been at times certain individuals who raised a discordant note about this widely accepted theory, in general, as a Nation for much of our history we accepted it, but often with a shallow understanding and with little imagination. Have we seriously considered the implications and conclusions that flow from this Theory of Karma in their totality?

If we accept The Theory of Karma to be true how should it influence our lives?

1.     It implies that our lives in their entirety are our responsibility. Everything that has happened, that is happening, and that will happen to us is entirely of our doing. So in that case not only should we accept whatever falls in our lot without a murmur of complain, but we should also resist all temptations to point fingers at others for making our life miserable- whether it be a capricious family member, or a jealous colleague or a corrupt and callous government. True, Theory of Karma does not take away our capacity to make an effort to change the unfavorable conditions, but that should happen with a total absence of any feeling of rancor and bitterness to any other person or system. How far do we do it?

2.     Acceptance of The Theory of Karma together with the absence of rectitude in our everyday lives makes little sense. If we really accept that our present actions will shape the future conditions of our lives, how can we consciously indulge in moral lapses? With the pervasive erosion of morality and ethics in the Indian society something is seriously amiss here. Either our understanding of The Theory of Karma is disturbingly superficial, or we attach far too much importance to the temptation of the present moment to be mindful of what bearings it might have on our future. In either case, can we really consider that we take The Theory of Karma with much seriousness?

3.     For most humans, one intense desire is to be treated by his fellow men and women with consideration and fairness, if not with love and kindness. So naturally if we accept The Theory of Karma it follows that we will treat all our fellow human beings with respect, dignity and fairness that we would expect to receive from them. It is time we make an internal audit about the way we interact with people, especially the ones who are seemingly below our “social” ladder and from whom we have little to gain. Does it not belie our much touted faith in The Theory of Karma?

The Theory of Karma if followed and accepted in its totality, should impel us not only to a life full of action, but also compel us to have a cheerful disposition even at gravest of times. But let us now consider how what should have been compares with what really is:

1.      Instead of stirring us into vigorous action, the The Theory of Karma has slowly numbed us into inaction and slothfulness, so much so we have learnt to accept almost all miseries and adversities of life not only as inevitable but also as irrefutable consequences of “fate”. In a strangely distorted understanding of the Karma Theory, we have learnt to attribute the conditions of our lives to the “writings on the forehead”. We have conveniently forgotten that the same theory demands that just as what we are faced with depends on our past actions, we have perfectly within us the capacity to alter those conditions with our present actions. But if we carefully analyze the impact The Theory of Karma on our national character over centuries, we will see that more often than not it contributed to national indolence much more than to an exertion to work and action.

2.     While we have conveniently invoked The Theory of Karma to justify our otiose lifestyle, we have snugly forgotten it while indulging in grossly unethical behavior in pursuance of our selfish interests as perceived in the present moment . Our history, just as our lives have been littered with situations and instances when we almost inexplicably chose to remain oblivious to the inevitable baneful future effects that our present inappropriate actions will result in following from The Theory of Karma. However persuasive the Theory of Karma have been, at least in these times and days, it has been an utter failure to wean us away from immoral and improper behavior, when we think it can go undetected while bringing us considerable gain in the near future. 

3.     The most unconscionable effect The Theory of Karma have had on our National consciousness is the utter insensitivity, indifference and the indefensible self-righteousness with which we deal with those unfortunate individuals who have perhaps got the most raw deal from life. Be it the lowly untouchable, the unfortunate child-widow, the miserable leper or the gravely ill, as a society we have been hideous in the way we have behaved with them. And we nurture this inhuman cruelty with little compunction, secured in the belief that these terrible conditions  endured by these people are well deserved consequences of their past actions. What can be a more  perverse understanding of The Theory of Karma, that on one hand does precious little to goad us into an honorable uncomplaining life of intense activity for a better future, while on the other  provides us the perfect alibi to  invoke unknown past crimes committed by those hapless individuals to rationalize their present conditions and absolve ourselves from any sense of responsibility that our conscience might otherwise  prompt us into.

While we consider these implications of The Theory of Karma and the impacts it has on us , both as individuals, and as a society, it is time we also think about the Theory itself. I will not get into empirical evidences where at least superficially the rational understanding of the Theory of Karma makes very little sense, because to really make a judgment on the Theory based on such evidences one needs to have the complete information on the lives and experiences of the concerned subjects, which would be hardly possible.  I would rather try to understand the fundamental premises of the Theory itself and find out where it leads us to.

1.     Is it actions or intentions that The Theory of Karma cares about? If it is our actions, then it is as well we would never know what an action will result in, as once the action is done it assumes a life of its own and we have very little control of all the resulting consequences. As the example goes, I take up the action to dig a well for the thirsty passengers. What a noble action, and so far so good. But what if someone tumbles and gets drowned? So for that noble altruistic action will I have to suffer the consequences of causing someone’s untimely death? It makes little sense to our rational mind. Is it the intentions? As the proverb goes  “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” ! Is it a combination of both? As we start thinking about it deeply, we will see it is not as obvious as it seemed in the beginning.

2.     If what I face today is the result of my past actions, and I follow this chain of thought all the way back, and say for the sake of argument I accept the Theory of Rreincarnation, then we will soon find ourselves trapped in the chicken and egg problem Which came first? Which cause led to which effect?

3.     Does The Theory of Karma apply to the animals too? If it does it will be highly absurd, because almost all the actions of the animals (which perhaps, rather unfortunately, holds true for most human beings also) is prompted by instincts. They can rarely help doing what they end up doing as they are almost entirely in the thrall of their senses. In that case how does The Theory of Karma account for the evolution of the animal “soul” from lower forms of bodies, ultimately to the rarest and the “highest” of all, the human form?

These are uncomfortable questions. May be there is someone with enough wisdom out there who has a better understanding of how things work. Even if there is some sense to The Theory of Karma, the total import of it eludes most of us..Over the years we have used this limited and imperfect understanding in a rather perverse way to justify many of the inadequacies and weaknesses of our human nature. Rather than submitting to this little understood theory, it will be only more honourable of us if we have the maturity and courage to accept life as it happens. Rather than surrendering to an unknown past, it would be more becoming of us to take responsibility of the present moment. Rather than justifying people’s miseries to unverifiable past “sins”, it would me more humane of us if we develop a compassionate outlook, which will urge us to offer the same respect and dignity to others that we expect for ourselves. 

Nature of things...

Me:


 ‎Arvind What intrigues me more is not that we are so damn intelligent, but “WHY” is it that nature blessed us with so much intelligence, a capacity and also thirst, of almost infinite knowledge? Is it because of the propagation of our species? In that case all this intelligence has been surely self-defeating, with the alarming state of our planet that we have been able to reduce it to, thanks to our “intelligence”. While the “dumb” dinosaurs dominated this planet for millions of years (or billions?), perhaps only to be wiped out by a merciless meteor, we humans in spite of a relatively congenial planetary condition and so much “intelligence” and knowledge, has been able to put the planet on a “red-alert” by our own actions in a few thousand years of our unhindered domination. Which other species have been solely responsible for their own extinction? I sometimes wonder, isn’t so much “intelligence” actually self-defeating? It is true that what our species have achieved in a few thousand years have been simply stunningly spectacular. But what is a few thousand years compared to the billions of years this planet has been around? What worth is intelligence of if life itself is not sustained? Are we intelligent enough to really understand why we are so intelligent? Or we would be rather “dumb” and lazily say..we are a “freak” of nature?




Arvind:


Deb, it appears we have some disagreement. I want to try to address the points you made in your previous comments. Firstly I completely agree with your second comment. Yes, human beings are a truly marvelous species that has exercised control over almost all living and nonliving entities on this planet. And yes, it is due to this intellect are we on the brink of a thermonuclear war threatening us with extinction.


Coming to your first comment. I think your central argument can be captured by, "if nature blessed us with such high intelligence, then why are we using that to kill ourselves and everybody around us?" Here, I have major disagreements. Firstly, infidels like Akshay and I believe there is nothing blessing anything with anything. But I know you were not trying to get a supernatural angle out of this. So let us replace the statement with the following more accurate one, "if evolution by natural selection endowed us with a superior intellect, supposedly for dominating the gene pool, then why is this intellect trying to kill us, resulting in the removal of the very genes that it's supposed to protect?" This is a gross misunderstanding of the natural process leading to evolution.


Evolution cares about genes in the genepool only as much as gravity cares about the fate of passengers on a falling plane. There is no (and cannot be) a causal relationship between natural selection and the long term well being of the species. If a particular genetic mutation enables an individual to reproduce more then by definition its genes will dominate the genepool. That is “be all and end all”. There is nothing exotic about natural selection. For instance, if some genetic mutation arises in a cat that enormously enhances the sexual libido then these genes (along with others that the particular cat possess) will dominate the gene pool. But if it turned out that, that very gene causes the cat to commit suicide on the first of April every year, then all cats (it’s blood line) with that gene will die on that day (possibly extinction if the gene had managed to make its way into most living cats). There is no way natural selection can predict the side-effects of a reproduction enhancing gene. 


Intelligence is one such genetic trait that arose as a genetic mutation (bigger brains with a more foldings) in higher apes resulting in a greater reproductive capability (for e.g, by hunting predators effectively and living longer). As with all genetic traits, there is no way natural selection for predicting the ill effects of the intelligence when higher apes use them to build weapons destroying the world.


Understanding this viewpoint of life we see that there is no disagreement between what is and what ought to be. 


Let me know if you disagree.




Me:  



Aha…now it makes a lot of sense and clarifies to a large extent about the worldview held by you infidels. God Bless you! Haha..But truly, it was very well explained.  


So now if I understood it correctly, the underlying idea of the “Natural process” of Evolution is much like any other physical process, say the Force of Gravity. But even Gravity is one of the most amazing forces, yet beyond our complete understanding. For example, if the Theory of relativity is to be used to explain gravity, then what it boils down to is that gravity is there because we exist! And not the other way round! ( “ In other words just by existing, you are compelled to move through space - this is gravity.” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/gravity.html UCR han!) 


Now if the world view that sees at Evolution as a purely mechanical process like most of the other physical laws, then I don’t think it would be too presumptuous on my part to hold that Evolutionary Biology stands today where Physics stood in the 17th and the 18th century….trying to explain all physical phenomenon with precise mechanistic laws, only to tumble upon the world of Quantum and sub-atomic physics to find all those certainties dissolve away…. and one has to conjure up things like “dark energy” and “dark matter” to shed some light on the darkness of our inadequate understanding! So indeed it would be incredibly fascinating to see the “evolution” of the Theory of Evolution in the coming years! May be I will have to wait for a few lifetimes to find out…while you infidels get roasted in the pit fire of hell..haha…


But more seriously, I would like to say something which I do not know if you have considered. 


 I am sure you are only too well aware of the two dominating ways to look at this world. One is God and His design and all that. The problem with this approach I don’t think I need to tell you and I agree to most of them. The other approach is to understand the world as a purely mechanistic process, governed by a set of laws. I also have serious problems with this. The fact is that even with all our knowledge and understanding as of 2012, an overwhelming portion of what this universe is and how this universe works lies beyond us. Even the most fundamental and intimate thing, the sense of “I”, an integrated consciousness that endows us with a sense of agency and individuality, we have grasped very little of it. The world of sub-atomic particles remains almost as elusive as it was a century ago. And finally even when we consider all those things that we have somewhat understood and made sense of, we did it with a thing called “mind” and the way the world outside maps to the world inside, and it remains a completely subjective experience, with its logical conclusions. To explain what I mean, we have been “blessed” (:P) with the power to experience only three dimensions. If String theory is to be true then there exists a few more dimensions, of which in our present state of consciousness we cannot have any subjective experience of. If we really had the power to experience more than three dimensions, would not that radically alter our way of looking and understanding the world? I know these remain purely speculative points, but nonetheless I think pertinent when we are trying to understand the nature of things.


So now that I have mentioned my problems with the two approaches, both of which I feel is too simplistic and convenient, this is what I feel and believe. I do not know who or what created this world. I do not know why things are the way things are in their totality. I perceive this world the way the world has wired me to, and in some ways I remain a prisoner to it. But like Andy Dufense in Shawshank Redemption, I believe I can break free from this prison one day. I do not know if “God” exists. Actually I believe, the idea of God as popular today is much of a human construct. But I know “I” exist. And I “believe” this “I” is the most extraordinary thing there is. I “believe” that this universe exist because this “I” exist in the first place just as I think, that most ideas of God as a supernatural power, distinct and different from this “I” is a figment of imagination, born of a childish sense of insecurity. I “believe” that what I understand and make of this “I” today, is only a tiny fraction of what the true possibilities and potential of “I” is. In the checkered history of mankind there have been certain individuals in whom this “I” has shone forth extra-ordinarily, almost inexplicably. And I “believe” that if there is, or should be a purpose to existence of life, it is the total manifestation of this “I”. All of life, all of evolution, all physical laws, and everything that we understand and do not understand, is for this purpose. I don’t believe there is a God other than this “I”. Can I prove this? No! because to prove we need mind, and mind is only secondary to “I”. I become aware of my mind, only after I become aware of “I”. So I do not think mind will be an effective tool in this enquiry. In fact, it is only when the mind stops buzzing, do we have some glimpse of this magnificent “I”. Haha…I don’t know if all this makes any sense to you. All this had no intention to bring you around to my view-point. But just to explain how I look at all this.