Principle of karma
Karma also refers to a conceptual principle that originated in India, often descriptively called the principle of karma, and sometimes the karma-theory or the law of karma.
In the context of theory, karma is complex and difficult to define. Different schools of Indology derive different definitions for the concept from ancient Indian texts; their definition is some combination of (1) causality that may be ethical or non-ethical; (2) ethicization, i.e., good or bad actions have consequences; and (3) rebirth. Other Indologists include in the definition that which explains the present circumstances of an individual with reference to their actions in the past. These actions may be those in a person's current life, or, in some schools of Indian traditions, possibly actions from their past lives; furthermore, the consequences may result in the current life, or a person's future lives. The law of karma operates independent of any deity or any process of divine judgment.
A common theme to theories of karma is its principle of causality. This relationship between karma and causality is a central motif in all schools of Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain thought. One of the earliest associations of karma to causality occurs in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad verses 4.4.5–6:
The theory of karma as causation holds that: (1) executed actions of an individual affect the individual and the life that person lives, and (2) the intentions of an individual affect the individual and the life that person lives. Disinterested actions, or unintentional actions do not have the same positive or negative karmic effect, as interested and intentional actions. In Buddhism, for example, actions that are performed, or arise, or originate without any bad intent, such as covetousness, are considered non-existent in karmic impact or neutral in influence to the individual.
Another causality characteristic, shared by many karmic theories, is that like deeds lead to like effects. Thus, good karma produces good effect on the actor, while bad karma produces bad effect. This effect may be material, moral, or emotional – that is, one's karma affects both one's happiness and unhappiness. The effect of karma need not be immediate; the effect of karma can be later in one's current life, and in some schools it extends to future lives.
The consequence or effects of one's karma can be described in two forms: phala and samskara. A phala (lit. 'fruit' or 'result') is the visible or invisible effect that is typically immediate or within the current life. In contrast, a samskara (Sanskrit: संस्कार) is an invisible effect, produced inside the actor because of the karma, transforming the agent and affecting their ability to be happy or unhappy in their current and future lives. The theory of karma is often presented in the context of samskaras.
Karl Potter and Harold Coward suggest that karmic principle can also be understood as a principle of psychology and habit. Karma seeds habits (vāsanā), and habits create the nature of a person. Karma also seeds self perception, and perception influences how one experiences life-events. Both habits and self perception affect the course of one's life. Breaking bad habits is not easy: it requires conscious karmic effort. Thus, psyche and habit, according to Potter and Coward, link karma to causality in ancient Indian literature. The idea of karma may be compared to the notion of a person's 'character', as both are an assessment of the person and determined by that person's habitual thinking and acting. Christopher Chapple describes action as leaving an internal residue, or samskara, within the person, and these residues, also called vāsanās, develop into habit patterns that shape "how one perceives and reacts to the world".
The second theme common to karma theories is ethicization. This begins with the premise that every action has a consequence, which will come to fruition in either this life or a future life; thus, morally good acts will have positive consequences, whereas bad acts will produce negative results. An individual's present situation is thereby explained by reference to actions in their present or in previous lifetimes. Karma is not itself "reward and punishment", but the law that produces consequence. Wilhelm Halbfass notes that good karma is considered as dharma and leads to punya ('merit'), while bad karma is considered adharma and leads to pāp ('demerit, sin').
Reichenbach (1988) suggests that the theories of karma are an ethical theory. This is so because the ancient scholars of India linked intent and actual action to the merit, reward, demerit, and punishment. A theory without ethical premise would be a pure causal relation; the merit or reward or demerit or punishment would be the same regardless of the actor's intention. In ethics, one's intentions, attitudes, and desires matter in the evaluation of one's action. Where the outcome is unintended, the moral responsibility for it is less on the actor, even though causal responsibility may be the same regardless. A karma theory considers not only the action, but also the actor's intentions, attitudes, and desires before and during the action. The karma concept thus encourages each person to seek and live a moral life, as well as avoid an immoral life. The meaning and significance of karma is thus as a building-block of an ethical theory.
The third common theme of karma theories is the concept of reincarnation or the cycle of rebirths (saṃsāra). Rebirth is a fundamental concept of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. Rebirth, or saṃsāra, is the concept that all life forms go through a cycle of reincarnation, that is, a series of births and rebirths. The rebirths and consequent life may be in different realm, condition, or form. The karma theories suggest that the realm, condition, and form depend on the quality and quantity of karma. In schools that believe in rebirth, every living being's soul transmigrates (recycles) after death, carrying the seeds of karmic impulses from life just completed, into another life and lifetime of karmas. This cycle continues indefinitely, except for those who consciously break this cycle by reaching moksha. Those who break the cycle reach the realm of gods, those who do not continue in the cycle.
The concept has been intensely debated in ancient literature of India; with different schools of Indian religions considering the relevance of rebirth as either essential, or secondary, or unnecessary fiction. Hiriyanna (1949) suggests rebirth to be a necessary corollary of karma; Yamunacharya (1966) asserts that karma is a fact, while reincarnation is a hypothesis; and Creel (1986) suggests that karma is a basic concept, rebirth is a derivative concept.
The theory of "karma and rebirth" raises numerous questions – such as how, when, and why the cycle started in the first place, what is the relative karmic merit of one action versus another and why, and what evidence is there that rebirth actually happens, among others. Various schools of Hinduism recognized these difficulties and debated their own formulations. Some developed what they considered internally consistent theories, while other schools modified and de-emphasized it; a few schools in Hinduism such as Charvakas (or Lokayata) abandoned the theory of "karma and rebirth" altogether. Many schools of Buddhism consider karma-rebirth cycle integral to their theories of soteriology.
