Plausibility of karma and reincarnation - Do these aspects of the Guadiya school make sense

I realize that this is a fringe issue, but my hope is that some members will respond on whether or not karma and reincarnation are even reasonable. I don't ask this in a challenging spirt. I assume many of you have already dealt with this issue and can enlighten me. I assume that our gurus acept these doctrines as absolutly true.

Here is a challenge I recently came accross.


Although a clear statement of the law of Karma governing rebirth is difficult to find, what it entails can be simply stated: The world is completely just, since anything good that happens to a person in some life, such as the present one, is a reward for good actions in an earlier life, and anything bad that happens to a person is a punishment for bad actions in an earlier life. The reincarnationist admits that the world contains what seem like injustices. People are born with physical and mental handicaps, they suffer because of the evil inflicted on them by other human beings. However, the reincarnationist maintains that despite appearances, all these seeming injustices are just. They are punishments for evil deeds done by the person in some past incarnation.

This theory has a number of serious problems that prevent it from being an acceptable solution to the problem of evil:

(1) One obvious problem is that its implications are not only absurd but morally appalling. Paul Edwards has put this objection well:

"It follows from [the law of Karma] that Abraham Lincoln, Jean Jaures, the two Kennedy brothers, and Martin Luther King got no more than they deserved when they were assassinated. It equally follows that six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis deserved their fate. I will add one more outrageous consequence of Karma. Contrary to what almost everyone believed and believes, the seven Challenger astronauts who perished earlier this year were entirely responsible for their own death, and the grief felt by millions of people all over the world was quite out of place."

(2) The thoery of reincanation combined with Karma is also morally empty. No matter what we do, we will have done the morally correct thing. If we do not help people and they suffer, this is just. They deserve to suffer because of their bad deeds in a former incarnation. But if we do help people who are in trouble and they do not suffer as much as they would have done otherwise, then they did not deserve to suffer as much as they would have if we had not intervened.

(3) Many believers in the law of Karma do not believe in God, but even those who do maintain that the law of Karma operates autonomously. This raises the problem of how Karma is administered. How is it decided who is to be punished and who is to be rewarded, and how much? How is it decided who is to be reincarnated and in which body? How are all these decisions coordinated in a large-scale disaster such as the Lisbon earthquake, where thousands died and others benefited? Advocates of reincarnation do not give adequate answers to these questions, although they believe that no mistakes are ever made in the administration of Karma.

(4) It is difficult to see how reincarnation theodicy can be compatible with the findings of science. Reincarnationists often postulate a series of incarnations in human bodies stretching backward forever in time. However, science teaches that human life came into existence relatively recently. Even if one postulates, as some reincarnationists do, that souls can inhabit the bodies of animals and plants, there is still a problem, for science teaches that life came into existence and has not existed forever. Further, reincarnationists who do believe that souls can be reincarnated in animals do not believe that the sequence of biological evolution parallels reincarnation. For example, a person's soul might have been incarnated millions of years ago as a dog and reincarnated only recently asa bird. Moreover, it is difficult to see how the widely accepted scientific belief that animals came before humans in the evolutionary scale can be reconciled with the retributive punishment dispensed by the law of Karma. It would seem grossly unjust to punish Jones, a human being, for the actions of a carnivorous dinosaur millions of years ago when Jones's soul inhabited the dinosaur's body. We ordinarily suppose that animals cannot be blamed and punished for what they do. Reincarnation combined with biological evolution suggests that they can and should be.

(5) Reincarnationists who believe in God have a problem explaining the origin of evil If people's present suffering is the result of their evil deeds in earlier incarnations, why did God allow the past evil deeds for which they are now being punished? At this point the reincarnationist may fall back on another theodicy, perhaps the free will defense. If so, however, reincarnationist theodicy will possess all the problems associated with reincarnation and the law of Karma as well as the problems associated with the free will defense.

(6) If free will is assumed and if we understand it in the contracausal sense, another problem arises. Freedom of the will of the contracausal variety makes it even more difficult to understand how the law of Karma is administered. A person exercising free will would seem able to contradict the law of Karma. Suppose that Evans was a saint in a past incarnation. Following the law of Karma, Evans is born into excellent circumstances in this present incarnation. Her body is strong and healthy; her intelligence is sharp and keen; her disposition is gentle and warm. But Smith, by exercising his free will, can torture Evans and inflict undeserved pain and suffering on her. Thus it is difficult to see how free will, in the sense usually understood by theists, is compatible with the law of Karma. Without freedom of the will, however, it is difficult to see how in past incarnations evil ever originated.

Thank you in advance for any input.

Peter Wise

There is something called Daiva or Fate, and the will of God. The Pandavas suffered persecution despite their great devotion to Krishna. yasyaham anugrhnami harisye tad dhanam shanaih (SB) "When I am kind to someone I take away his wealth..." Furthermore, the Vedanta Sutra says : "God engages the soul in good work so that he may go to heaven and he engages the soul in evil works so that he can go to hell." There is more to it than the mathematics of karma.

[quote=adbhuta1,Jan 19 2004, 11:08 PM]I realize that this is a fringe issue, but my hope is that some members will respond on whether or not karma and reincarnation are even reasonable. I don't ask this in a challenging spirt. I assume many of you have already dealt with this issue and can enlighten me. I assume that our gurus acept these doctrines as absolutly true.

Here is a challenge I recently came accross.[/quote]
There are endless challenges, most of them challenges to a superficial understanding of a subject matter, such as the one at hand.

At any rate, some thoughts on the matter.


[quote]Although a clear statement of the law of Karma governing rebirth is difficult to find, what it entails can be simply stated: The world is completely just, since anything good that happens to a person in some life, such as the present one, is a reward for good actions in an earlier life, and anything bad that happens to a person is a punishment for bad actions in an earlier life.  The reincarnationist admits that the world contains what seem like injustices.  People are born with physical and mental handicaps, they suffer because of the evil inflicted on them by other human beings.  However, the reincarnationist maintains that despite appearances, all these seeming injustices are just.  They are punishments for evil deeds done by the person in some past incarnation.[/quote]
The person discussing the subject matter should clarify his premises for what can be duly considered just and unjust. The words just and unjust imply that there is a particular fixed standard of determining what is justice in the cosmos. Wherefrom are the author's standards in this regard derived?



[quote](1)  One obvious problem is that its implications are not only absurd but morally appalling.[/quote]
Do we expect an impartial, dispassionate treatment of the matter from a person who states that the theory is "obviously ... absurd"? Can one expect a constructive dialogue on any given subject matter with a person who has already passed his judgement in such an evident way, labeling the theory discussed as obviously absurd?


[quote]Paul Edwards has put this objection well:

"It follows from [the law of Karma] that Abraham Lincoln, Jean Jaures, the two Kennedy brothers, and Martin Luther King got no more than they deserved when they were assassinated.  It equally follows that six million Jews exterminated by the Nazis deserved their fate.  I will add one more outrageous consequence of Karma.  Contrary to what almost everyone believed and believes, the seven Challenger astronauts who perished earlier this year were entirely responsible for their own death, and the grief felt by millions of people all over the world was quite out of place." [/quote]
Here Paul Edwards wishes to invoke a particular emotional response from his audience by mentioning well-known examples which are generally known to bring about feelings of sympathy in people. If it is a theory we are to discuss, he would do well to set aside the names and present purely theoretical examples.


[quote](2)  The thoery of reincanation combined with Karma is also morally empty.  No matter what we do, we will have done the morally correct thing.  If we do not help people and they suffer, this is just.  They deserve to suffer because of their bad deeds in a former incarnation.  But if we do help people who are in trouble and they do not suffer as much as they would have done otherwise, then they did not deserve to suffer as much as they would have if we had not intervened. [/quote]
This is based on a misunderstanding that a human being may not incur new karma through his actions. We are not living in a vicious cycle of absolute determination. The karma of our past sets a framework for our deeds, and our actions in that framework determine the future framework in which we excercise our limited free will.


[quote](3)  Many believers in the law of Karma do not believe in God, but even those who do maintain that the law of Karma operates autonomously.[/quote]
It is a rare theist who declares that there is something entirely autonomous of God.

The law of karma does not "operate". It is. The law of gravity does not "operate". It is.


[quote]This raises the problem of how Karma is administered.  How is it decided who is to be punished and who is to be rewarded, and how much?  How is it decided who is to be reincarnated and in which body?  How are all these decisions coordinated in a large-scale disaster such as the Lisbon earthquake, where thousands died and others benefited?  Advocates of reincarnation do not give adequate answers to these questions, although they believe that no mistakes are ever made in the administration of Karma. [/quote]
How is gravity administered? How is it decided how fast an object falls to the ground from a certain height? Do all objects need to fall at all?

Certainly there are definite parameters to the law of karma.

"How is it decided who is to be punished and who is to be rewarded, and how much?" A person receives a due reaction to his deeds in proportion to his awareness of the nature of the act he performs. A man who sins knowingly gains more severe reactions than a man who sins out of ignorance (BhP 5.26.3).

"How is it decided who is to be reincarnated and in which body?" This is one of the basic tenets of Bhagavad-gita. It is hilarious that a person arguing about reincarnation is not familiar with even the basics of Bhagavad-gita. Whatever nature one remembers at the time of death, that he will certainly attain (BG 8.6). Whatever one remembers at the time of death is obviously the sum total of his thoughts during the entirety of his life.

"How are all these decisions coordinated in a large-scale disaster such as the Lisbon earthquake, where thousands died and others benefited?" At a particular time, people with particular karma gather in a particular place, and a particular event occurs, effecting them in a particular way. Is that not simple enough?


[quote](4)  It is difficult to see how reincarnation theodicy can be compatible with the findings of science.  Reincarnationists often postulate a series of incarnations in human bodies stretching backward forever in time.  However, science teaches that human life came into existence relatively recently. Even if one postulates, as some reincarnationists do, that souls can inhabit the bodies of animals and plants, there is still a problem, for science teaches that life came into existence and has not existed forever.[/quote]
Apparently the author is not familiar with the cyclic concept of time, which is common among Indic religions. There is creation, maintenance and destruction, followed by creation again. Hence at some point in time species appear and disappear, only to reappear again at the unfolding of a new creation.


[quote]Further, reincarnationists who do believe that souls can be reincarnated in animals do not believe that the sequence of biological evolution parallels reincarnation. For example, a person's soul might have been incarnated millions of years ago as a dog and reincarnated only recently as a bird.[/quote]
If reincarnationists would believe that reincarnation would parallel biological evolution, would that make the theory any more plausible?


[quote]Moreover, it is difficult to see how the widely accepted scientific belief that animals came before humans in the evolutionary scale can be reconciled with the retributive punishment dispensed by the law of Karma.  It would seem grossly unjust to punish Jones, a human being, for the actions of a carnivorous dinosaur millions of years ago when Jones's soul inhabited the dinosaur's body.  We ordinarily suppose that animals cannot be blamed and punished for what they do.  Reincarnation combined with biological evolution suggests that they can and should be.[/quote]
Only humans are aware of good and evil and are at a situation in which they may choose between the two. The rest of the species follow the ways of nature. They are evolutionary steps in the spiritual journey of the soul, in which its awareness accumulates through various experiences into the shape of a human awareness.


[quote](5)  Reincarnationists who believe in God have a problem explaining the origin of evil. If people's present suffering is the result of their evil deeds in earlier incarnations, why did God allow the past evil deeds for which they are now being punished? At this point the reincarnationist may fall back on another theodicy, perhaps the free will defense. If so, however, reincarnationist theodicy will possess all the problems associated with reincarnation and the law of Karma as well as the problems associated with the free will defense. [/quote]
This issue has little to do with reincarnation as such. It has to do with God and the existence of evil. It is an interesting issue as well, but an unnecessary detour in this particular matter.


[quote](6)  If free will is assumed and if we understand it in the contracausal sense, another problem arises.  Freedom of the will of the contracausal variety makes it even more difficult to understand how the law of Karma is administered.  A person exercising free will would seem able to contradict the law of Karma.  Suppose that Evans was a saint in a past incarnation.  Following the law of Karma, Evans is born into excellent circumstances in this present incarnation.  Her body is strong and healthy; her intelligence is sharp and keen; her disposition is gentle and warm.  But Smith, by exercising his free will, can torture Evans and inflict undeserved pain and suffering on her.  Thus it is difficult to see how free will, in the sense usually understood by theists, is compatible with the law of Karma.  Without freedom of the will, however, it is difficult to see how in past incarnations evil ever originated.[/quote]
The author herein presumes that the law of karma implies absolute predetermination. However, the karma of our past merely lays out the framework for our activities. Karma in itself is a material phenomena, and hence unable to absolutely bound the soul, which is spiritual in nature. Therefore the presence of free will is there, and may be exercised within the parameters of the past karma of the embodied being.

= = =

I hope the answers above have shed some light on the subject matter. Please feel free to address any points therein if you wish to.

Thanks. Your reply is pretty good and you are right he does not understand the law of karma. However, one question comes up from what you have written (Madhava). Where does it say that ones karma from the past life is only a framework and not an eye for an eye?

Well, the karma's being a framework doesn't rule out your getting an eye for an eye. Karma still doesn't dictate your every move. Say, your karma is to be locked up in a closet and eventually get out. It still is up to you how you get out of the closet. Like that.

Kumusta ka na mahal kong kaibigan?
(Filipino for How are you my beloved friend.)

Please forgive me for behaving so impulsively, (I did not read any of the replies to the origional question). But I hope you can somehow find something worth reading in my reply.

Regarding your origional question, I am a "reincarnationist," but I actually do not believe:

Every apparent evil in the universe is just.

Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita that the laws of karma are very difficult to trace and understand.

Karma is the good action and the result of the action. Vikarma is ther bad action. This is my understanding. In my own philosophy, any living being which is itself also subject to generate karma CANNOT carry out the results of actions, through his own actions. Only nature can. In other words, If a man shoots you down in the street, it is not because of your karma. However, the sinking of the Titanic could have been due to group karma.

So if we divide karma into the two kinds: action and reaction, there must be actions that exist that are not reactions. I cannot fathom much free- will in a universe where every action is a reaction and every reaction produces another reaction. There are two things, as I understand: Material and spiritual. Material energy has no free will. But spiritual energy has all free will. Material goings-on are predesined... for example, tossing a coin. The result is predetermined by the atmospheric pressure, weight of the coin (gravity), kinetic energy latent in the coin, humidity, temperature, and obviously the manner and force with which you throw it (the only spiritual variable). Of course your hand is material, but the action was delegated to your hand by spirit. So material going's on, such as the movements of the planets, are predestines. Whe know where Jupiter will be in 5 years. But whenever something is predesined, there must be something that does the predestining, right? That is spirit. This is micro-macrocosm. Thus everything in the material world is a reflection of the spiritual world.

Therefore, free will is latent in a person's actions. Karma does not exist in the spiritual world.... I think it is just what results from the juxtaposition of spirit and matter. Spirit is the cause and material is the caused, in this world.

If all actions were reactions and all reactions created reactions, then where is the free will? And therefore, where are the modes of material nature? goodness, passion and ignorance? They would have no meaning. (similarly there would be no good or bad). Psychopaths believe this, apparently, they believe that because they can kill someone, it must be because of that person's rotten karma. So they are justified in their own mind. If their victim has good karma, then it should not be possible for them to be killed. In their own mind they are justified and their action of killing must be exempt from making bad karma for them because they were simply executing nature's laws.. and if they do get bad karma, then it is just a ridiculous chain of karma.
Animals are said to not be able to behave good or bad, only within the facility that they are given by nature. I'm not sure if I agree, because how does a soul get "promoted" to a human form of life? I think animals do have free will, just not as much consciousness to facilitate it.

But if we take it that all actions by spirit are actually brand new actions, not related to reactions, and all reactions are by material nature, then the philosophy works, I think. This view of mine is agreed upon by Stephen Knapp in an email I wrote to him... and also from a Hare Krishna article I read. But I want to add a new dimension to this. Our conscious is conditioned by material nature. Karma actions and vikarma actions are thus tanted by material conceptions (their definition). But Akarma is not. So if there was absolutely no Akarma in the universe, every soul was completely condioned at all seconds of the day, then perhaps we would have that situation where all actions are reactions. I hit my brother, (because he is in the mode of passion), he must hit me back, alittle harder, and I (in the mode of passion) do the same until eventually one of us kills the other. Jesus taught "turn the other cheek." If after 5 times of hitting me, I simply do not hit back, then I have broken this chain of karma.


hmmm. I do disagree with Prabhupada when he explains that a wealthy or beautiful family is that way due to good deed in a past life, and that a poor family is that way due to bad deeds. If this is true, then why is India so poor? And America so impious? I think it may be the other way around. I observe that the poorer one is materially, the greater is their spititual wealth. And the more materially opulent one is, the more the are spiritually impoverished. I do not like very many material posessions, they make me feel uncomfortalbe. I would much rather be born into a poor family in my next life.

I have 5 sponsored children through chreities in several countries. Actually, these children are very happy in my opinion. I am glad to see that their material necessities are provided (I got one girl for Christmas a pillow, blanketing and a bath towel. We are working up to the bed!) But actually I think that the poor people are sponsoring the wealthy spiritually. So to be poor is to be offering a certain mercy to others, also a teaching by example. I think these things.

Regarding your questions about the origin of life. Scientific theory has many flaws. It is only theory too. In sceince, hardly anything is ever "proven." For centuries neutonian physics was regarded as gospel, but Einstein "proved" contrary. Anyways, William J Sidis, one of the most intelligent humans to ever live, wrote in his book "the animate and the inamimate," that "life" did not originate. It must have always existed, even before the formation of our solar system. In one form or another, it existed. He was an athiest. Plus, You must consider that Earth is one of many worlds and also that this universe is being continually created and annihilated and recreated. Plus there is scientific evidence against evolutionist theory. Chek out the book "Forbidden Archaeology."

Whenever an archaeological finding flies in the face of the athietisc thoeries, it gets covered up.
Have a nice day,
Leo