Karma in Hinduism

Karma is a concept in Hinduism which explains causality through a system where beneficial effects are derived from past beneficial actions and harmful effects from past harmful actions, creating a system of actions and reactions throughout a person's reincarnated lives.

The doctrine of transmigration of the soul, or fateful retribution for acts committed, does not appear in the Rig Veda. The concept of karma appeared in Hindu thought during the period 800-200 BC and became widespread during the period considered as "Classical Hinduism" 200 BC - 1100 AD.

Definitions

"Karma" literally means "deed" or "act", and more broadly names the universal principle of cause and effect, action and reaction, which Hindus believe governs all consciousness. Karma is not fate, for man acts with free will creating his own destiny. The Vedas tell us that if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness; if we sow evil, we will reap evil. Karma refers to the totality of our actions and their concomitant reactions in this and previous lives, all of which determine our future. The conquest of karma lies in intelligent action and dispassionate reaction. Not all karmas rebound immediately. Some accumulate and return unexpectedly in this or other births. We produce Karma in four ways:

• through thoughts
• through words
• through actions that we perform ourselves
• through actions others do under our instructions

Everything that we have ever thought, spoken, done or caused is Karma; as is also that which we think, speak or do this very moment. Hindu scriptures divide karma into three kinds:

• Sanchita is the accumulated karma. It would be impossible to experience and endure all Karmas in one life. From this stock of sanchita karma, a handful is taken out to serve one lifetime and this handful of actions, which has begun to bear fruit and which will be exhausted only on their fruit being enjoyed and not otherwise, is known as prarabdha karma.
• Prarabdha Fruit-bearing karma is the portion of accumulated karma that has "ripened" and appears as a particular problem in the present life.
• Kriyamana is everything that we produce in current life. All kriyamana karmas flow in to sanchita karma and consequently shape our future. Only in human life we can change our future destiny. After death we loose Kriya Shakti (ability to act) and do (kriyamana) karma until we are born again in human body.

Actions performed consciously are weighted more heavily than those done unconsciously. But just as poison affects us if taken unknowingly, suffering caused unintentionally will also give appropriate karmic effect. Only human beings that can distinguish right from wrong can do (kriyamana) Karma. Animals and young children are not creating new Karma (and thus can not affect their future destiny) as they are incapable of discriminating between right and wrong. However, all sentient beings can feel the effects of Karma, which are experienced as pleasure and pain.

Tulsidas, a Hindu saint, said: "Our destiny was shaped long before the body came into being." As long as the stock of sanchita karma lasts, a part of it continues to be taken out as prarabdha karma for being enjoyed in one lifetime, leading to the cycle of birth and death. A Jiva cannot attain moksha (liberation) from the cycle of birth and death, until the accumulated sanchita karmas are completely exhausted.

The cycle of birth and death on earth is formed from 8.4 millions forms of life and only one of them is human. Only as humans, are we in position to do something about our destiny by doing the right thing at the right time. Through positive actions, pure thoughts, prayer, mantra and meditation, we can resolve the influence of the karma in present life and turn the destiny for the better. A spiritual master knowing the sequence in which our Karma will bear fruit, can help us. As humans we have the opportunity to speed up our spiritual progress with practice of good Karma. We produce negative karma because we lack knowledge and clarity.

Unkindness yields spoiled fruits, called paap, and good deeds bring forth sweet fruits, called punya. As one acts, so does he become: one becomes virtuous by virtuous action, and evil by evil action.

The role of divine forces

Several different views exist in Hinduism, some extant today and some historical in nature, regarding the role of divine beings in controlling the effects of karma or the lack thereof.

A Supreme God is ultimately the enforcer of karma but humans have the free will to choose good or evil.

Followers of Vedanta, a leading practicing school of Hinduism in existence today, consider Ishvara, a personal supreme God, as playing that role. In these theistic schools, karma is not seen merely as a law of cause and effect, a view espoused by Buddhism or Jainism, for example, but dependent on the will of a personal supreme God. Examples of a personal supreme God include Shiva in Shaivism or Vishnu in Vaishnavism. A good summary of this theistic view of karma is expressed by the following: "God does not make one suffer for no reason nor does He make one happy for no reason. God is very fair and gives you exactly what you deserve." Thus, the theistic schools emphasize that karma is one explanation for the problem of human suffering; a soul reincarnates into an appropriate body, which is dependent on karma and this is said to explain why some persons never get to see the fruits of their action in their life time and why some children die when they have committed no sin. Thus, a person has to reap the fruits of one's personal karma and may need to undergo multiple births from plants, animals to humans and such fruits of karma may be analogized to a bank (i.e, God) not letting a person be released from karma's effects until the bank account is settled.

A supreme God does not exist but lesser highly evolved beings assist in delivering the fruits of karma.

In some earlier historical traditions of Hinduism, followers of an atheistic division of the Samkhya school, do not accept the idea of a supreme God. However, they consider devas or spirits as playing some kind of role. These beings can help to deliver well-being in the temporal world and the after cycles of birth and death, and salvation as well.

Neither supreme God nor does lesser divinities exist; rituals alone yield the fruits of karma.

Earlier historical traditions of Hinduism such as Mimamsakas, reject any such notions of divinity being responsible and see karma as acting independently, considering the natural laws of causation sufficient to explain the effects of karma. They believe that the karmas (rituals) themselves yield the results, and there is no Supreme God or Ishvara or even lesser divinities dispensing the results.

Vedanta's refutations

These differing views are explicitly noted in a series of passes in the Brahma Sutras (III.2.38-40), an important text in Vedanta, the major school of Hinduism, which endorses the concept of Ishvara i.e., a personal supreme God, as the source of fruits of karma, but note opposing views in order to refute them. For example, Swami Sivananda's commentary on verse III.2.38 from the Brahma Sutras refers to the role of Ishvara (the Lord) as the dispenser of the fruits of karma. A commentary by Swami Vireswarananda on the same verse says that the purpose of this verse is specifically to refute the views of the Mimamsakas, who say that karma (work) and not Ishvara, gives the fruits of one's actions. According to the Mimamsakas it is useless to set up an Ishvara for that purpose, since Karma itself can give the result at a future time.

Gita interpretations and role of Guru

Some interpretations of the Bhagavad Gita suggest an intermediate view, that karma is a law of cause and effect yet God can mitigate karma for His devotees. However, another interpretation of verses in the Bhagavad Gita suggest that God alone is the ultimate enforcer of karma.

Another view holds that a Sadguru, acting on God's behalf, can mitigate or work out some of the karma of the disciple.

Views of the theistic Hindu traditions believing in a supreme God

Vedanta

Theistic schools of Hinduism such as Vedanta disagree with the Buddhist views, Jain views and other Hindu views that karma is merely a law of cause and effect but instead additionally hold that karma is mediated by the will of a personal supreme God.

Sankara (Advaita)

In a commentary to Brahma Sutras (III, 2, 38, and 41)), a Vedantic text, Adi Sankara,an Indian philosopher who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta, a sub-school of Vedanta,argues that the original karmic actions themselves cannot bring about the proper results at some future time; neither can super sensuous, non-intelligent qualities like adrsta—an unseen force being the metaphysical link between work and its result—by themselves mediate the appropriate, justly deserved pleasure and pain. The fruits, according to him, then, must be administered through the action of a conscious agent, namely, a supreme being (Ishvara).

A human's karmic acts result in merits and demerits. Since unconscious things generally do not move except when caused by an agent (for example, the ax moves only when swung by an agent), and since the law of karma is an unintelligent and unconscious law, Sankara argues there must be a conscious God who knows the merits and demerits which persons have earned by their actions, and who functions as an instrumental cause in helping individuals reap their appropriate fruits. Thus, God affects the person's environment, even to its atoms, and for those souls who reincarnate, produces the appropriate rebirth body, all in order that the person might have the karmically appropriate experiences. Thus, there must be a theistic administrator or supervisor for karma, i.e., God.

Swami Sivananda, an Advaita scholar, reiterates the same views in his commentary synthesising Vedanta views on the Brahma Sutras. In his commentary on Chapter 3 of the Brahma Sutras, Sivananda notes that karma is insentient and short-lived, and ceases to exist as soon as a deed is executed. Hence, karma cannot bestow the fruits of actions at a future date according to one's merit. Furthermore, one cannot argue that karma generates apurva or punya, which gives fruit. Since apurva is non-sentient, it cannot act unless moved by an intelligent being such as God. It cannot independently bestow reward or punishment.

There is a passage from Swami Sivananda's translation of the Svetasvatara Upanishad (4:6) illustrating this concept:

Two birds of beautiful plumage — inseparable friends — live on the same tree. Of these two one eats the sweet fruit while the other looks on without eating.

In his commentary, the first bird represents the individual soul, while the second represents Brahman or God. The soul is essentially a reflection of Brahman. The tree represents the body. The soul identifies itself with the body, reaps the fruits of its actions, and undergoes rebirth. The Lord alone stands as an eternal witness, ever contented, and does not eat, for he is the director of both the eater and the eaten.

Swami Sivananda also notes that God is free from charges of partiality and cruelty which are brought against him because of social inequality, fate, and universal suffering in the world. According to the Brahma Sutras, individual souls are responsible for their own fate; God is merely the dispenser and witness with reference to the merit and demerit of souls.

In his commentary on Chapter 2 of the Brahma Sutras, Sivananda further notes that the position of God with respect to karma can be explained through the analogy of rain. Although rain can be said to bring about the growth of rice, barley and other plants, the differences in various species is due to the diverse potentalities lying hidden in the respective seeds. Thus, Sivananda explains that differences between classes of beings are due to different merits belonging to individual souls. He concludes that God metes rewards and punishments only in consideration of the specific actions of beings.

Other schools of Vedanta

Treatment of karma in other schools of Vedanta are discussed in the section on Vaishnavism.

Shaivism

Thirugnana Sambanthar

Karma as action and reaction: if we sow goodness, we will reap goodness.

Thirugnana Sambanthar of the Shaiva Siddhanta school, in the 7th century C.E., writes about karma in his outline of Saivism. He explains the concept of karma in Hinduism by distinguishing it from that of Buddhism and Jainism, which do not require the existence of an external being like God. In their beliefs, just as a calf among a large number of cows can find its mother at suckling time, so also does karma find the specific individual it needs to attach to and come to fruition. However, theistic Hindus posit that karma, unlike the calf, is an unintelligent entity. Hence, karma cannot locate the appropriate person by itself. Shri Sambantha concludes that an intelligent Supreme Being with perfect wisdom and power (Shiva, for example) is necessary to make karma attach to the appropriate individual. In such sense, God is the Divine Accountant.

Appaya Dikshita

Appaya Dikshita, a Saivite theologian and proponent of Siva Advaita, states that Siva (God) only awards happiness and misery in accordance with the law of karma. Thus persons themselves perform good or evil actions according to their own inclinations as acquired in past creations, and in accordance with those deeds, a new creation is made for the fulfilment of the law of karma. Shaivas believe that there are cycles of creations in which souls gravitate to specific bodies in accordance with karma, which as an unintelligent object depends on the will of Siva alone. Thus, many interpret the caste system in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are born into a highly spiritual family (probably the brahmana caste).

Srikantha

Srikantha, another Saivite theologian and proponent of Siva Advaita, believes that individual souls themselves do things which may be regarded as the cause of their particular actions, or desisting from particular actions, in accordance with the nature of the fruition of their past deeds. Srikantha further believes that Siva only helps a person when he wishes to act in a particular way or to desist from a particular action. Regarding the view that karma produce their own effects directly, Srikantha holds that karma being without any intelligence cannot be expected to produce manifold effects through various births and various bodies; rather fruits of one's karma can be performed only by the will of God operating in consonance with man's free will, or as determined in later stages by man's own karma so the prints of all karma are distributed in the proper order by the grace of God Shiva). In this way, God is ultimately responsible on one hand for our actions, and on the other for enjoyment and suffering in accordance with our karmas, without any prejudice to humans' moral responsibility as expressed through free will or as determined later by our own deeds. A good summary of his view is that "man is responsible, free to act as he wills to, for Siva only fulfills needs according to the soul's karma."

Vaishnavism

Vishnu Sahasranama

Many names in the Vishnu Sahasranama, the thousand names of Vishnu allude to the power of God in controlling karma. For example, the 135th name of Vishnu, Dharmadhyaksha, in the Advaita philosopher Sankara's interpretation means, "One who directly sees the merits (Dharma) and demerits (Adharma), of beings by bestowing their due rewards on them."

Other names of Vishnu alluding to this nature of God are Bhavanah, the 32nd name, Vidhata, the 44th name, Apramattah, the 325th name, Sthanadah, the 387th name and Srivibhavanah, the 609th name. Bhavanah, according to Sankara's interpretation, means "One who generates the fruits of Karmas of all Jivas (souls) for them to enjoy." The Brahma Sutra (3.2.28) "Phalmatah upapatteh" speaks of the Lord's function as the bestower of the fruits of all actions of the jivas.

Ramanuja (Vishishtadvaita)

Ramanuja of the Vishishtadvaita school, another sub-school of Vedanta, addresses the problem of evil by attributing all evil things in life to the accumulation of evil karma of jivas (human souls) and maintains that God is amala, or without any stain of evil. In Sri Bhasya, Ramanuja's interpretation of the Brahma sutras from a Vaishnavite theistic view that Brahman, whom he conceives as Vishnu, arranges the diversity of creation in accordance with the different karma of individual souls.

Furthermore, Ramanuja believes that Vishnu wishing to do a favour to those who are resolved on acting so as fully to please Him, engenders in their minds a tendency towards highly virtuous actions, such as means to attain to Him; while on the other hand, in order to punish those who are resolved on lines of action altogether displeasing to Him, He engenders in their minds a delight in such actions as have a downward tendency and are obstacles in the way of the attainment of God.

Madhva (Dvaita)

Madhva, the founder of the Dvaita school, another sub-school of Vedanta,on the other hand, believes that there must be a root cause for variations in karma even if karma is accepted as having no beginning and being the cause of the problem of evil. Since jivas have different kinds of karma, from good to bad, all must not have started with same type of karma from the beginning of time. Thus, Madhva concludes that the jivas are not God's creation as in the Christian doctrine, but are rather entities co-existent with Vishnu, although under His absolute control. Souls are thus dependent on Him in their pristine nature and in all transformations that they may undergo.

According to Madhva, God, although He has control, does not interfere with Man's free will; although He is omnipotent, that does not mean that He engages in extraordinary feats. Rather, God enforces a rule of law and, in accordance with the just deserts of jivas, gives them freedom to follow their own nature. Thus, God functions as the sanctioner or as the divine accountant, and accordingly jivas are free to work according to their innate nature and their accumulated karma, good and bad. Since God acts as the sanctioner, the ultimate power for everything comes from God and the jiva only utilizes that power, according to his/her innate nature. However, like Shankara's interpretation of the Brahma Sutras as mentioned earlier, Madhva, agrees that the rewards and punishments bestowed by God are regulated by Him in accordance with the good and sinful deeds performed by them, and He does so of out of His own will to keep himself firm in justice and he cannot be controlled in His actions by karma of human beings nor can He be accused of partiality or cruelty to anyone.

Swami Tapasyananda further explains the Madhva view by illustrating the doctrine with this analogy: the power in a factory comes from the powerhouse (God), but the various cogs (jivas) move in a direction in which they are set. Thus he concludes that no charge of partiality and cruelty can be brought against God. The jiva is the actor and also the enjoyer of the fruits of his/her own actions.

Madhva differed significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs, owing to his concept of eternal damnation. For example, he divides souls into three classes: one class of souls which qualify for liberation (Mukti-yogyas), another subject to eternal rebirth or eternal transmigration (Nitya-samsarins), and a third class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas (Tamo-yogyas). No other Hindu philosopher or school of Hinduism holds such beliefs. In contrast, most Hindus believe in universal salvation: that all souls will eventually obtain moksha, even if it is after millions of rebirths.

Other Vaishnavite thoughts

Kulashekhara Alwar, a Vaishnava devotee, says in his "Mukundamala Stotra": 'yad yad bhavyam bhavatu bhagavan purva-karma-anurupam'. And purva-karma or bhaagya or daiva is unseen ['a-drishta'] by us, and is known only to God as Vidhaataa. God created the law of karma, and God will not violate it. God does, however, give courage and strength if asked.

Swaminarayan view

In the Swaminarayan sect followed by many in the Indian state of Gujarat, their spiritual leader, Swaminarayan stated that karma is not to be confused as the giver of the fruits of our actions. In His Vachanamrut, a foundational scripture of the Swaminarayan faith, Swãminãrayan says, “Just as when seeds which are planted in the earth sprout upwards after coming into contact with rainwater, similarly, during the period of creation, the jivas which had resided within maya together with their kãran sharir (causal body), attain various types of bodies according to their individual karmas by the will of God, the giver of the fruits of karmas.” (Vartãl 6)

So, thus, just as in other theistic schools of Hinduism, followers of the Swaminaryan faith believe that God is the giver of the fruits of our actions. Although people may think that God is cruel when He dispenses the fruits of bad actions, this is not the case. God, in fact, is impartial towards all. The Brahma Sutras by Veda Vyasa say, “God is not biased in giving happiness and misery to anyone but gives the fruits of one’s karmas.” (2-1-34) However, unlike general schools of Hinduism, the Swaminarayan followers believe in Swaminarayan as the supreme God, which is not believed by followers of Hinduism.

Nyaya

The Nyaya school, one of six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, states that one of the proofs of the existence of God is karma; It is seen that some people in this world are happy, some are in misery. Some are rich and some poor. The Naiyanikas explain this by the concept of karma and reincarnation. The fruit of an individual's actions does not always lie within the reach of the individual who is the agent; there ought to be, therefore, a dispenser of the fruits of actions, and this supreme dispenser is God. This belief of Nyaya, accordingly, is the same as that of Vedanta.

Karma in the Dharmaśāstras

In Hinduism, more particularly the Dharmaśāstras, Karma is a principle in which “cause and effect are as inseparably linked in the moral sphere as assumed in the physical sphere by science. A good action has its reward and a bad action leads to retribution. If the bad actions do not yield their consequences in this life, the soul begins another existence and in the new environment undergoes suffering for its past deeds”. Thus it is important to understand that karma does not go away, one must either reap the benefits or suffer the consequences of his past actions. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad states, “According as a man acts and according as he believes so will he be; a man of meritorious acts will be meritorious, a man of evil deeds sinful. He becomes pure by pure deeds and evil by evil deeds. And here they say that person consists of desires. An as is his desire so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deeds he does that he will reap”. The doctrine of karma dates from ancient times and besides the above author is mentioned in the Gautama dharma-sutra, Shatapatha Brahmana, Kathaaka-grhya-sutra, Chandogya Upanishad, Markandeya Purana and many others.

The shastras written about karma go into some detail about possible consequences of karma. There is often talk about coming back as a variety of different object when it comes to reincarnation and pasts lives. In this case, it holds true, or at least insofar as the texts state. The Kathaaka-grhya-sutra states, “some human beings enter the womb in order to have an embodied existence; others go into inorganic matter (the stump of a tree and the like) according to their deeds and according to their knowledge”.

More extensively discussed is the consequences of karma in relation to sin. “Karmavipaka means the ripening (or fruition) of evil actions or sins. This fruition takes three forms, as stated in the Yogasutra II. 3, i.e., jati (birth as a worm or animal), ayuh (life i.e. living for a short period such as five or ten years) and bhoga (experiencing the torments of Hell”.

There are long lists of birth of lower animals and the diseases and deformities from which sinners suffer. Some authors offer specific ramifications for specific sins. For example, in “the Haritasamhita it is said the killer of a brahmana suffers from white leprosy and the killer of a cow from black leprosy.” While the list is extensive for ways of reducing sin and therefore reducing bad karma, some authors, such as Mitākṣarā, a commentator on the Yājñavalkya Smṛti, believe karma is, “not to be taken literally, but is meant to induce sinner to undergo such prāyaścittas or penance as Prajapatya which entail great worry and trouble and which no one might willingly undertake.”

Further the Karmavipaka states, “that no soul need be without hope provided it is prepared to wait and undergo torments for its misdeeds, that it need not be appalled by the numerous existences foreshadowed in those works and that the soul,may in its long passage and evolution, ultimately be able to discover its true greatness and realize eternal peace and perfection.”

Mitigation of bad karma

According to a theistic view, the effects of one's bad karma may be mitigated. Examples of how bad karma can be mitigated include following dharma, or living virtuously; performing good deeds, such as helping others; bhakti yoga, or worshiping God in order to receive grace; and conducting pilgrimages to sacred places, such as Chidambaram Temple or Rameswaram to get grace of God. In another example, Ganesa can unweave his devotees from their karma, simplifying and purifying their lives, but this only happens after they have established a personal relationship with Him.

Examples of getting God's grace are further illustrated below.

Puranas

The story of Markandeya, who was saved from death by Siva, illustrates that God's grace can overcome Karma and death for His beloved devotee.

In another similar story, Krishna resurrected his teacher Sandipani's son from the world of Yama, the lord of death, by noting that his teacher's son was brought there due to his personal karma, but due to His power and lordship over Yama, brought him back to life. Sandipani was Krishna's teacher during his boyhood days.

The story of Ajamila in the Bhagavata Purana also illustrates the same point. Ajamila had committed many evil deeds during his life such as stealing, abandoning his wife and children, and marrying a prostitute. But at the moment of death, he involuntarily chanted the name of Narayana and therefore received Moksha or union with God, and was saved from the messengers of Yama. Ajamila was actually thinking of his youngest son, whose name was also Narayana. But the name of God has powerful effects, and Ajamila was forgiven for his great sins and attained salvation, despite his bad Karma.

Upanishads

Shvetashvatara Upanishad 7 and 12 aver that the doer of the deeds wanders about and obtains rebirth according to his deeds but postulates an omnipotent creater, i.e., Isvara and the doctrine of grace. Isvara is the great refuge of all and a person attains immortality when blessed by Isvara or at Isvara's pleasure.

A person can be free from sorrow through the grace of Isvara. Therefore, the Shvetashvatara Upanishad postulates a supreme Being whose grace to devotees provides a way of escape from the law of karma. As Adi Sankara stated in his commentary on Shvetashvatara Upanishad VI:4, "If we dedicate all our works to Ishvara, we will not be subject to the law of karma."

Dharmaśāstras

The Dharmaśāstras turn to means of reducing sin, some of which are hard to reconcile with the doctrines of karma. For example, one such practice, Śrāddha, or as the Brahma Purana states, “whatever is given with faith to brahmanas intending it to be for the benefit of pitrs (ancestors) at a proper time, in a proper place, to deserving persons and in accordance with the prescribed procedure” is meant to honor ancestors; however, by contrast, a believer of karma would agree that when the body dies, the soul automatically enters into another body, regardless of whether one performs srāddha for his or her ancestors.

Therefore, in contrast with karma, Kane states that Śrāddha, “the doctrine of offering balls of rice to three ancestors requires that the spirits of the three ancestors, even after the lapse of 50 or 100 years, are still capable of enjoying in an ethereal body the flavor or essence of rice balls wafted by the wind.” Of course, the two differing views can be reconciled if we take into account the belief of the sastras which state that karma is not to be taken literally. However, as evidenced by the variety of opinions written on this subject, the consistency between differing views on karma will not hold elsewhere.

Relation between birth in a particular body to karma

Theistic schools believe in cycles of creations where souls gravitate to specific bodies in accordance with karma, which as an unintelligent object depends on the will of God alone. For example, Kaushitaki Upanishad 1.2 asserts that birth in different forms of existence as a worm, insect, fish, bird, lion, boar, snake or a human, is determined by a person's deeds and knowledge. Chandogya Upanishad 5.10.7 distinguishes between good birth such as birth in a spiritual family, i.e., (brahmin caste) or an evil birth, such as birth as a dog or hog.) Thus, the doctrine of karma comes to explain why different life forms manifest, into widely various levels of biological development such as characterization into different species from plants to various types of animals, and to even differences between members of the same species, such as humans.

Thus, many, such as the Upanishadic readings suggest that birth in a particular caste is in accordance with karma, as those with good deeds are said to be born into a spiritual family, which is synonymous with the brahmana caste. Good deeds will lead one to be born into a spiritual family where his future destiny will be determined by his behaviour and deeds in the current life. In the Gita, Krishna said that characteristics of a brahmin are determined by behavior, not by birth. A verse from the Gita illustrates this point: "The duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas as also of Sudras, O scorcher of foes, are distributed according to the gunas (behavior) born of their own nature." (Bhagavad Gita 18.41)

Further elaborating on this view as recited in the Gita, Madhvacharya interprets the concept of Varna (Hinduism), a term designating the division of Hindu society into four social classes based on guna (attributes) and karma (activity) as not being defined by birth, but rather by the nature of a soul. For example, a soul having the nature of a Brahmin could be born as a Sudra and vice versa. The caste system decided by birth, according to him, is actually Jati, which is a term designating a particular community, and not Varna. The varnas simply define the disposition of the soul; for example,a soul classified as Brahmin varna is disposed towards learning; a Kshatriya soul is disposed towards administration and a Sudra soul is disposed towards performing service. Thus, he gave a new interpretation to the caste system as he believed that the caste was related to one's nature than to his or her birth; birth, according to Madhva, was not determinative of varna; a spiritually enlightened chandala (outcaste) was better than an ignorant Brahmin.

Relation between ups and downs in life to karma

Devas, more specifically, the Navagraha which are the nine primary planetary celestial beings (subordinate to Ishvara, i.e., the Supreme Being) assist in the administration of justice appropriately, according to theistic traditions. For example, Shani (Saturn) gives the results of one's deeds through one's life through appropriate punishments and rewards; Yama, the lord of death, gives the results of one's misdeeds after death. God, in this interpretation, has designated Shani to deliver the results of karmas of all living beings, exactly in line with their deeds, and Shani obeys his duties most honestly and righteously.

Predictive effect of astrology and past karma

Planetary influences such as Shani are believed by many to be measurable using Jyotiṣa, the Hindu system of astrology. Jyotiṣa,is believed to reveal the results of past karma, and is expressed in terms of planetary influences; planets indicate the results of previous karma, and the future in this life is a reflection of the past karma. According to this view, a horoscope is thus indicative of the future.

Other uses in Hinduism

Besides narrow meaning of karma as the reaction or suffering being due to karma of their past lives and that one would have to transmigrate to another body in their next life, it is often used in the broader sense as action or reaction.

Thus, karma in Hinduism may mean an activity, an action or a materialistic activity. Often with the specific combination it takes specific meanings, such as karma-yoga or karma-kanda means "yoga or actions" and "path of materialistic activity" respectively. Yet another example is Nitya karma, which describes rituals which have to be performed daily by Hindus, such as the Sandhyavandanam which involves chanting of the Gayatri Mantra.

Other uses include such expressions such as "ugra-karma", meaning bitter, unwholesome labor.

See also

• Hindu answers to the problem of evil
• Problem of evil
• Reincarnation and Hinduism
• Karma
• Karma in Buddhism
• Karma in Jainism

Further reading

• Michaels, Axel (2004). Hinduism: Past and Present. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-08953-1. (English translation of Der Hinduismus: Geschichte und Gegenwart, Verlag C. H. Beck, 1998).
• Vireswarananda, Swami (1996). Brahma Sūtras. Calcutta: Advaita Ashrama Publication Department. ISBN 81-85301-95-6.