DOCTRINE OF KARMA AN ENQUIRY INTO ITS

CONFORMITY WITH HINDU PHILOSOPHY.

Abstract
Doctrine of Karma argues that every action
produces a reaction of similar force and effect, which
the actor has to undergo without omission or
remission; persons are born again and again to
undergo such reactions exhaustively, before attaining
the final liberation. Believed as the only theory
capable of explaining the problem of evil satisfactorily,
it also expounds that whatever one experiences at
present are only the reactions of his past Karma.
Having been existent in India since ancient times it
gradually earned the credit of being a part of Hindu
Philosophy and therefore got wide propagation
throughout our spiritual history. Eligibility of the
Doctrine for such a credit has been examined through
a comparative study of its principles, as presented
mainly in Swami Abhedanandas book Doctrine of
Karma, vis-a-vis the teachings of rational Hindu
Philosophy enshrined in the Principal Upanishads
and the Bhagavad Gita. The study reveals that
fundamentals of Karma Doctrine are in conflict with
Hindu Philosophy. According to Hindu philosophy,
diversity belongs exclusively to physical manifestation
and, further, individual identity is only a projection of
body-consciousness.

Therefore,
Page 1 of 26

when

body

disintegrates, individuality attached to it disappears

forever. Consequently, rebirth of the same individual
after the loss of body is not acceptable to Hindu
philosophy, wherein death, rebirth and immortality
have unique philosophical meanings. But, rebirth in
its conventional sense is an essential ingredient of
Karma Doctrine. Similarly, the problem of evil stands
instinctively explained in the Hindu concept of
creation, rendering external theorizing unnecessary
therefor. The study also shows that attempts made to
authenticate the doctrine by selective references to
scriptural texts are mere exercises in misrepresenting
those texts in a way that is anomalous to the rational
philosophic corpus of Hindu Scriptures.

Introduction
The Doctrine of Karma, with its attendant concept of rebirth,
has been existent in India from a very distant past and is
generally believed to be a part of the Hindu Philosophy. But, the
more we probe into its depths, the more we find it to be starved
of rational substance and cogency. This leaves one, who is
acquainted

with

the

rational

thought

intrinsic

to

Hindu

Philosophy, unable to figure out a logical connection between

the two. On the other hand, the supporters of the doctrine also
rely on Hindu scriptures to establish its validity. We may
therefore examine how far this doctrine conforms to Hindu
Philosophy.
Page 2 of 26

For the purpose of our discussion, the term Hindu

Philosophy (Hinduism for short) may be deemed as the
coherent series of rational philosophic expositions shining in the
following eleven Principal Upanishads and the Bhagavad Gta.
1. Aitareya
2. Br hadranyaka
3. Chhndogya
4. a
5. Katha
6. Kena
7. Prana
8. Mndukya
9. Mundaka
10.
vetvatara
11.
Taittirya
The Karma Doctrine
In relation to Hinduism, the Doctrine of Karma presents
itself as an adventitious theory that owes its life and form more
to mythology than to rational thinking. The exact period of its
origin or the person who expounded it first is not definitely
known. For the sake of a meaningful discussion, it is desirable to
have an exponent of the doctrine to represent the views in
support of it. To serve this purpose, we may take the expositions
of Swami Abhednanda (Swamiji for short), expressed in his
book Doctrine of Karma published by Ramakrishna Vedanta
Math, Calcutta (3rd edition, 1947). This does not imply that we
restrict our discussion to this book only.
Page 3 of 26

The Doctrine of Karma espouses the following fundamental

principles:
1. Every Karma produces a reaction of similar force and
effect, which the doer of that Karma must bear, in the
present or future births;
2. Every experience of a person in the present is only the
effects of his past Karma;
3. Good Karma gives happiness and evil Karma gives
suffering, to its doer; and
4. Liberation from the bondage of Karma is achieved by
doing work for the sake of work, without any selfish
motives.
Examination of the Doctrine
In order to ensure proper deliberation on all the above
principles, the current discussion is scheduled to progress in the
following order:
A. Testing the above laws for their logical sustainability.
B. Testing their compatibility with the concepts of Karma
and rebirth in Hinduism.
C. Comparing the concept of Dharma/Adharma in
Hinduism with that of Good/Evil actions in the Karma
Doctrine.
D. Reviewing the concept of Moksha in Hinduism and in
the Doctrine.
A. Logical sustainability: Now, to start with, it would be helpful to
quote a little from Swamijis book and see how he presents the
Page 4 of 26

Doctrine. After claiming that the phenomena of the world are

linked together in the universal chain of cause and effect he
continues:
Similarly, every action of our body or mind is the
result of some force or power which is its cause; but at the
same time that which is the effect of some cause becomes
in turn the cause of some grosser result, and that again
produces some other still grosser effect, and that again a
finer one, and so on and on, the chain of cause and effect
continues to spread without stopping anywhere, without
coming to an absolute end. For instance, a murderer
shoots the Austrian Archduke and drives a bullet into his
body and the Archduke dies of blood-poisoning. Here,
shooting is an action which is the effect of the mental and
physical activities of the murderer. But the same action is
again the cause of driving the bullet in the Archdukes body;
this is the cause of the wound, which brings fever and other
organic disorder, which results in his death. The death of
the Archduke causes his wife to become a widow, which
produces changes in her life and in her whole family. The
effect of this single act of murder did not stop here. It
brought on the European war and caused destruction of life
and property of millions and affected the whole world. It is
needless to describe the horrors of the last war. The
German Emperor lost his throne and empire. The Czar was
assassinated. People are still reaping the effects of this war
which will last for generations to come. Furthermore, it
reacted upon the murderer, brought to him incalculable
Page 5 of 26

misery and untimely death. It left an impression upon his

mind which he carried with him and perhaps his suffering
will continue even after his death, in another life.
Thus, we can see how one event can be both a
cause and an effect at the same time, and how it can affect
the whole world producing various kinds of effects on the
plane of the living as also on that of the dead. From this
endless chain of cause and effect we can neither separate
one single link nor call it useless or unnecessary. In the
same manner, it can be shown that every action however
minute or trivial it may appear to us, being conditioned by
the universal law of causation, produces different effects
visible and invisible and affects the whole world of
phenomena either directly or indirectly. No action can
escape this law, that every cause must be followed by an
effect, that every action is bound to react upon the actor
with similar force and effect. (P. 4 to 6).

Swamiji gives an excellent illustration for the law of

causation, but at the end he draws an unreasonable conclusion.
He describes how the gunshot at the Archduke snowballed into a
world-war and caused un-ending suffering for millions. History
says that the man who fired the shot died of tuberculosis, in jail,
after about four years of the shooting. He was later honoured in
Yugoslavia as a hero. But millions of people including the
Archduke, his wife (who too, in fact, died of the bullet injury), the
German Emperor and the Czar of Russia suffered loss of life
and wealth, apart from inexplicable hardships and deprivations
Page 6 of 26

for generations. When millions faced violent and excruciating

death, the shooter died a natural death in prison. This fact does
not contribute any logical backing for the conclusion that every
action is bound to react upon the actor with similar force and
effect. Swamiji does not say anything about what exactly the
reaction constitutes in the given case or in what form it fell upon
the actor. If by reaction he means the actors imprisonment and
thereafter death due to tuberculosis, then, there is a prima facie
dearth of materials to establish its similarity in force and effect
with his action. Alternatively, if by reaction, Swamiji implies the
mere impact of the action, then, as per the illustration itself, it is
not only the actor who suffered by the reaction but others also.
Swamiji also does not give any verifiable facts and sustainable
reasons to suggest that the sufferings of the millions were
reactions of their past actions. The circumstances, implications,
repercussions and ramifications of Karma are so innumerable
and conditioned, as evidenced by Swamijis own account, that its
absolute assessment is impossible. Therefore, the first and
second principles of the Doctrine are basically arbitrary, which
fact

dismantles

its

very

foundation.

For,

the

doctrine

fundamentally rests upon the beliefs that doer of an act is

punished or rewarded with a reaction of the same force and
effect, and that pleasure or pain visiting a person is the reaction
of his own actions. Devoid of foundation, the superstructure is
bound to crumble.
Page 7 of 26

B. Compatibility with Hinduism: Now we pass on to the second

step concerning the concepts of Karma and rebirth in Hinduism.
Let us start with the scriptural affirmation that phenomenal world
is simply a manifestation of the only existing entity, the tma
(Gita 7.6, 9.4, 9.18, 10.8, 10.20, 10.41, 11.7, etc.; Mundaka
1.1.6, 1.1.9; vetvatara 4.10, 6.11; Br ha 1.4.7; etc. etc.) and
that

its

very

nature

is

SAT-CHIT-NANDA

(--)

(Chhndogya 6.2.1; Mndukya 7 & 12; Mundaka 1.1.9;

vetvatara 5.14; Taittirya 3.1 to 3.6), which term is often
translated in English as Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. There is
only one tma, without a second (vetvatara 6.11; Katha 5.9,
5.11, 5.12). It pervades the entire universe and is the essence
and

the

ultimate

abode

of

all

beings;

it

is

absolute

consciousness (vetvatara 6.11, Gita 9.4).

Mundaka adds that the emergence of the universe is
effected by the expansion of Brahma that manifested from the
imperishable tma (1.1.8 and 1.1.9) and also that Brahma
represents the manifested whole, the universe (2.2.11). Gita too
declares that Brahma originated from the imperishable (see
verses 3.14 & 3.15). Modern scientific theory on the origin of
universe, the Big Bang theory, tallies with this scriptural view that
universe manifested through the expansion of a primeval entity.
Mundaka (1.1.8) further states that, along with the worlds,
unceasing Karma also arose, implying that Karma is an
essentiality of physical existence. This idea appears in Gita also
Page 8 of 26

( - 3.14). Gita further asserts that Karma is performed

because of the three Guna(s) of Prakrti (3.27, 13.29 & 14.19). In

3.5 it is said that nobody ever remains without doing Karma (
); everybody is compelled to do Karma

out of the necessity for physical existence (under the influence of

Gunas of Prakrti). It is further said in 3.8 that even for
maintaining ones own body Karma is essential (
). Gita asserts in 18.11 that those who holds a body

(or those who are committed to bodily existence) can never

relinquish Karma entirely ( ). The only
exception to this rule is the person, if any, who is always
occupied with the Atma and finds satisfaction and enjoyment in
being so. That person has nothing to gain by doing Karma or to
lose by not doing. He does not need to depend upon any being
for anything (Gita 3.17 and 3.18). a Upanishad also upholds
the essentiality of Karma in mantra 2 wherein it is declared that
only by performing Karma, one can wish to live here (
); no other option exists.

Thus Karma is inalienable to the manifested universe, but

not a feature of pure existence-consciousness-bliss, i.e. SATCHIT-NANDA, the true nature of tma. tma, being devoid of
the three guna(s), is not affected by Karma, it only presides over
Karma as a witness (vetvatara 6.11).
Since SAT-CHIT-NANDA is the ultimate source of this
universe, it is what our essence also is. As we have come from
Page 9 of 26

it, so do we return to it (vide 6.10.1 and 6.10.2 of Chhndogya).

Hence our basic urge and ultimate motivation for Karma is to
attain to SAT-CHIT-NANDA, just as a stone thrown up naturally
returns to earth, whatever course it takes. But, out of Avidya
(ignorance) caused by the Guna(s) of Prakrti, we are infatuated
with a temptation to realise it in our body. That is, we want
eternal existence, unbridled expression and uninterrupted
happiness in this body. This is an impossible thing. In fact, in
order to attain to the essence, we have to shed the body, since
body is only a manifestation. vetvatara (5.14) says that those
who

know

the

tma

gives

up

the

body

(i.e.

body-

consciousness). Therefore, we may shed body-consciousness

and be insulated against the dual experiences of joy and sorrow
and thereby remain ever-balanced () as Brahma is (Gita
2.45, 5.19 and 5.25). But, so long as our attachment to the body
continues we will not attain this balance. When we undertake
Karma with this attachment it happens that we ignore the
existence and well-being of the whole, which we are a part of.
Moreover the attachment renders us to be affected by the
various impacts and reactions that our Karma produces. Let us
see how it works.
As Karma exists in the domain of manifestations, its
impacts also are confined to that domain. The immediate impact
of Karma lies in the realisation or non-realisation ( or ) of
the desired result and its reaction lies in bringing joy or anger to
Page 10 of 26

the doer. Fulfilment of the desires brings happiness and nonfulfilment causes sorrow. We are affected by this duality,
proportionate to our attachment to the desires. Gita says that
attachment reinforces desire into Kma (craving); Kma breeds
anger, which prejudices our perceptions, thus causing mental
confusion. This affects the power of judgment, which ultimately
results in total ruin (verses 2.62 and 2.63). This impact and
reaction are immediate to us and may be called Mental as they
affect the mind.
Now, to understand the second type of impact of Karma,
we have to take stock of some more basic facts about the
physical manifestation and its stability. Manifestation takes place
by unleashing opposites from pure existence. In the world we
see that for every entity or experience there exists an opposite:
pain for pleasure, failure for success, hate for love, enmity for
friendship, turbulence for calmness, hostility for peace, chilliness
for warmth, valleys for hills, mountains for oceans, fire for water,
etc. The phenomenal world exists in opposites, from the
subtlest, the atoms, to the grossest, the universe. Atoms exist
with opposite forces, namely, the protons and electrons. But,
why dont these opposites cancel each other, causing total
destruction of the universe? It is because some force is holding
back the opposites, preventing them from cancelling each other.
It is the force of creation; the energy of material existence.
Prana Upanishad (1.4) says that energy and prna were
Page 11 of 26

created first, which caused the emergence of the whole

universe. When this force or energy is withdrawn, the opposites
would come together and cancel each other. It does not mean
that mere nothingness would result, but that the material
existence vanishes for the time being. The opposites are not
destroyed for ever; for, a thing that exists cannot be destroyed
( -Gita 2.16). They only withdraw to

their original source, the tma. Thus it is clear that physical

existence originates from unleashing of opposites and its
continuance depends upon their balancing. This balancing is
natural to Brahma as stated in Gita 5.19 ( ). That
which helps to maintain this balancing is called Dharma (that
which supports, holds); the opposite is Adharma. Dharma aims
at protection of the world ( ). Since the balancing of
opposites is natural to physical existence, Dharma also is natural
to it. Out of Avidya (ignorance), people take their bodily
existence for pure Existence and their bodily pleasure for
nanda (bliss). This makes them do anything to cater to their
bodily existence and pleasure, to the extent of ignoring the
balancing that maintains the whole. So, the second likely impact
of ones Karma is its positive or negative effect on the existence
of the whole, that is, a boost or breach of Dharma. This may be
called

Transcendental

impact

as

transcendental principle of existence.

Page 12 of 26

it

is

concerned

with

The natural reaction to this impact is to ensure physical

existence by elimination of the forces of breach, if any, of
Dharma and protection of the forces of its boost. This occurs
internally as well as externally, since tma is all-pervading. We
become aware of the process through what we feel within as
exaltation or scruple when we do a Karma. That is why it is said
that good deeds produce good and bad deeds produce bad
(Br hadranyaka 3.2.13, 4.4.5). Whenever there is accumulation
of Adharma threatening the balance of physical existence, the
tma by virtue of its very nature (Existence-ConsciousnessBliss) regains the balance by force. This is just as a water
course eventually disrupts the embankments that have so far
been preventing its natural flow. A figurative discription of the
process is seen in verses 4.7 and 4.8 of Gita.
The third and final type of impact is physical in nature. We
have already seen that tma is the presiding energy in all.
Residing in all beings, it motivates them by its very nature SATCHIT-NANDA to strive for eternal existence, unbridled
expression and uninterrupted enjoyment. But, out of ignorance,
they seek them where they are not available, that is, in the
material aspect of their entity. Since everybody is selfishly
interested in working for his own material existence and
pleasure, he may ignore or infringe those of others, or even
endanger his own body, through his actions. Thus there arises a
conflict between what one seeks and what he ignores or
Page 13 of 26

infringes, creating tension and struggle. This is the final impact

of Karma and may be called Physical impact as it relates to the
physical aspects. In this case the reaction comes from the
affected party since he too is motivated by the urge for existence
and pleasure. It may not end with resolution of conflict, but may
extend to retribution by individuals or by society in general.
These three are the impacts and reactions of Karma, which
are possible as per Hindu teachings. It may be noted that none
of them provides for any reaction of similar force and effect.
However, in all cases, lessons are drawn through updating the
contents of Chitta (), the repository of all knowledge.
Contrary to this scriptural position, advocates of Karma
Doctrine argue, by quoting Gita 5.14, that all actions are tracked
and either punished or rewarded in a process that runs naturally
without Gods intervention. Gita 5.14 actually says that the lord
of this world, the tma, does not assign anybody with any Karma
or brings to him the results of his Karma; everything occurs in
accordance with the very nature of things. That means, we
undertake Karma according to our nature. As already stated our
nature is SAT-CHIT-NANDA, veiled by Avidya. We have
already seen what would happen out of this nature. Gita 5.14
only implies that pursuing ones actions and dispensing rewards
or punishments is not natural to tma. What is natural to it is
pure existence and therefore what happens naturally because of
tma in the physical world is the balancing of opposites. Since
Page 14 of 26

the very essence of humans is tma, they also share the same
nature. What we perceive as reward or retribution on their part is
only an expression incidental to furthering the basic urge for
existence. But pursuing each and every action of every
individual and rewarding or punishing him accordingly is not the
concern of humans; nor is it possible for them. It is not natural to
them.
Is there any other arrangement for dispensing the reward
and retribution naturally or otherwise? The advocates of Karma
Doctrine do not suggest or establish the existence of a natural or
supernatural system for surveilling all the deeds and dispensing
rewards and punishments. Such a system or authority
extraneous to tma cannot exist; for, the Scriptures say that
there exists nothing but tma and its manifestation. tma
pervades everywhere and everything (a 8, vetvatara 6.11,
Mundaka 1.1.6 and Gita 9.4, 13.26). Therefore, the concept of
rewards or retribution being awarded for each action depending
upon its commendability or culpability is only a fictional one
advanced by those who are starved of a rational explanation for
the problem of evil and are therefore given to dogmatic
dispositions. These people, feeling the deficiency of substance
in their argument, come up with such props as rebirth in
compensation thereof.
Now, therefore, we may examine the concept of rebirth
which is an essentiality of the Doctrine of Karma. It is with this
Page 15 of 26

concept that the supporters of the doctrine explains the problem

of evil. After arguing that the present blindness of a person is the
result of his evil actions in the previous incarnation, Swamiji
says, The doctrine of Karma alone can explain the mysterious
problem of good and evil, and reconcile man to the terrible and
apparent injustice of life (P.40). He misses the simple fact that
evil exists to balance the good, such balancing being an
existential essentiality. We have already seen that the
phenomenal world exists in opposites kept apart and balanced
by the energy of creation. So, actually, good is the problem of
evil and there is no mystery in it. Thus, to explain the problem of
evil we dont need rebirth. Therefore, we may seek the reason
for blindness in the physical phenomena, rather than inventing
philosophical formulations.
Retention of individuality beyond loss of body is a
prerequisite for the verity of rebirth. But, scriptures declare that
individuality is a feature limited to physical existence only.
Br hadranyaka 1.4.7 says that into names and forms did Atma
differentiate. Therefore, when the form is gone, differentiation
ends and individuality vanishes. It is unequivocally asserted, in
2.4.12 ibid, that on leaving this body no individuality exists.
Expressing the same view, Chhandogya (6.10.1, 6.10.2) says
that beings come from and return to SAT just as rivers originate
from and merge into the ocean. After the merger the rivers
become verily the ocean and therefore cannot be distinguished
Page 16 of 26

from one another. Further, according to Gita (13.26), every being

consists of the body ( -Kshetra) and the tma within ( Kshetrajna). Therefore, when the body goes, it is only tma
which the scriptures unanimously declare to be the only one
without a second and is beyond fragmentation, destruction and
attachment. tma is continuous, endless and all-pervasive
(Chhandogya 6.8.7, Mundaka 1.1.6, vetvatara 6.11, a 8,
Br hadranyaka 3.8.8, Gita 9.4). The true identity of all beings is
the same tma that is eternal, all-pervasive and without birth or
death (Gita 2.12, 2.18, 2.20, 2.30, 9.4, etc.). Chhandogya 6.8.6
says that when a man leaves his body, he merges with the
Supreme Lord. Above all, worldly experiences cannot stain tma
(Katha 5.11; Gita 2.24, 13.32) and therefore, carrying their
impressions to the next birth after the loss of body is impossible.
All these essentially indicate that individuality is not retained
beyond loss of body.
Allegorically it can be described thus: Air fills a porous pot
on the surface of the earth; the pot does not actually create a
break in the continuity of the atmospheric air, but still air in the
pot is a valid identity. When the pot breaks, there is no more air
in the pot; only air is there in its vast and continuous extent. So
is a being when its body is gone. Air corresponds to tma and
air in the pot is what is known as Jeevtma (Self). There is no
question of its travelling from one object or place to another
seeking a suitable womb or emancipation. For, there is nothing
Page 17 of 26

but tma, everywhere; and also, it is not tainted by Karma (Gita

13.31, 13.32; Katha 5.11; a 8). It is also without birth and death
(Gita 2.20; Katha 1.2.18). We have to understand the scriptures
in line with this basic teaching only; it is unwise to be led astray
by verbal superficialities. Realisation of this basic teaching is
esteemed as Supreme knowledge in the scriptures (Gita 6.29,
5.18, 13.27). In statements like all of us have been and will be
here for all time (Gita 2.12), old bodies are replaced as soiled
attires are (Gita 2.22) and You and I have had many births
(Gita

4.5)

unfragmented,

the

subjects

eternal

tma.

represent
It

is

the

uninterrupted,

definitively

stated

in

vetvatara (4.10) that all the beings are bodies of eternal,

indestructible and unlimited tma; Gita 2.18 concurs with this
teaching.
Therefore, Hinduism thoroughly rejects the idea of rebirth of
the same individual after the loss of physical body; it holds that
differentiation into individuals exists only in manifestations,
beyond which everything merge into one (Also see Gita 2.28). If
so, what do references to death and rebirth in Hinduism actually
indicate?
Yama, the Lord of Death, says in Katha 2.6, 4.2 and 4.10
that death is nothing but being felled by Kma. This position is
further clarified in his stipulating the qualities for attaining to
immortality. Mantras 4.2, 6.14 and 6.15 declare that immortality
is due only to those who have eliminated all Kma from within.
Page 18 of 26

These views on death and immortality are shared by Gita (2.15,

2.63, 5.19, 14.20, etc.), Kena (1.2), etc. Immortality obviously
does not indicate perpetuation of the body. For, the body is liable
to decay and destruction. Even the bodies of all those great
men, whom we extol as immortals did perish. So, immortality is
something other than non-perishability of physical bodies.
Upanishads say that it is simply insulation against being felled by
Kma. Br hadranyaka asserts that hunger verily is death(
1.2.1). Hunger implies insatiability, Kma. This explains

what we have already seen in Gita 2.62 and 2.63. Moreover, our
day-to-day experience shows that a person at a given moment is
that which occupies his mind at that moment; if it is kindness, he
is kind; if anger, he is angry, and so on. Sage Patanjali points out
in Yogasutra (1.3 and 1.4) that when your mental activities are
fully eliminated, you are in your true self; otherwise, you are
what

your

mental

activity

is

( ).

Thus,

the

philosophical meaning of death is capitulation to Kma.

So, what should be rebirth? Katha itself gives the answer.
Mantra 5.7 says thus:
|

||

Meaning: (After death) some, (out of attachment to the

body), enter a new beginning (i.e. resort to a new origin), for the
sake of body (for furthering that attachment); whereas others,
(desirous of breaking that attachment), seek changelessness,
Page 19 of 26

according as their knowledge and deeds. In other words, some

choose to continue under the sway of body, while others opt to
get away from it. Again, some choose to be felled further by
Kma, but others embrace the freedom path; some choose birth
to die again, while others enter the path of immortality. It is this
transformation, undergone by persons after being capitulated by
Kma, that is treated as rebirth in Hinduism. This rational
conception of rebirth will present the scriptures in their natural
bright light, facilitating better assimilation of their valuable
essence that lies in the depths far under the verbose layers on
the top. Understanding rebirth as the process of taking a new
body is calamitous to this assimilation and will therefore defeat
the pursuit of true knowledge.
As against this rational interpretation, many understand the
said mantra as some are reborn as humans/animals and others
become trees! They attribute changelessness to trees. In Gita
2.24 the very same word Sthnu () is used and everyone
interprets it as denoting the Atma. This difference in approach
comes out of ignorance about the philosophical meaning of
death. The pedestrian interpretation of the Doctrinists is not
attuned to the context also. The question, whether after death
man exists or not, was put to Yama in Katha 1.20. His answer
came only in mantra 5.7, after 72 mantras, the total mantras in
Katha being only 119. In the meanwhile, he explained what
should be construed as death, immortality, etc. and also tested
Page 20 of 26

Nachiketas eligibility to receive the intended instruction. If the

Doctrinists are correct, he need not have undertaken that task of
explaining death and immortality and of testing the eligibility of
Nachiketas; instead, he could have straight away given the trite
explanation.
Incidentally, Katha 5.7 is one among the many verses of
scriptures quoted and misinterpreted by the Doctrinists to
support their belief in rebirth. They quote a lot from other
Principal Upanishads and Gita to prove their argument. But
rational examination of these philosophical texts would reveal
that these people are actually misinterpreting the quoted verses
to suit their predisposition to the blind belief in rebirth. They
neglect the precious teachings such as the unity of existence
and the immaculateness, nonstainability

and indivisibility of

tma, in order to embrace the absurdity of individual tma

wandering to find a suitable womb and entering into the waiting
tma-free embryo to take another birth for suffering the pending
reactions of his past Karma. For this purpose, they invariably
interpret yoni () as female reproductive organ and paraloka
() as the world of the dead, whereas these words can also

take the meanings of origin/source and the future/other world

respectively. With these meanings the quoted verse acquires a
different meaning, which may not support the blindness they
seek. We shall consider one more of such quotations that is
equally prominent owing to its frequent use and easy
Page 21 of 26

susceptibility

to

gross

misinterpretation.

It

is

3.9.28

of

Br hadranyaka.
After finishing his answers to all the questions raised in the
court of King Janaka, Yjavalkya () asks a question:
When a tree is felled, new ones sprout from the root; from which
root is man born again, after death? He himself answers the
question, as nobody volunteers. He says,
I

I.

The

meaning goes thus: Man is only a manifestation (); he is not

born; therefore how can anybody generate him again? Brahma
is pure Intelligence and Bliss; it is attainable by one who gives
up material cravings and, on having known about it, is resolved
to attain to it. Since man manifests from Brahma, it is his root.
But its real nature is pure intelligence and bliss and therefore no
personal identity is maintained there. Generating the same
person again is consequently impossible. This is in full
agreement with Chhandogya 6.8.6 wherein it is said that the root
of everything is the SAT and on losing the body humans merge
with the Supreme Lord. Despite this, those who believe in rebirth
interpret Br hadranyaka 3.9.28 that Brahma produces the same
person again. This interpretation is further proved wrong by
2.4.12 ibid, which states that in the absence of body, beings lose
idenity, just as a lump of salt does, on being dissolved in water.
C. Concept of Dharma: Let us now pass on to the third
step in our investigation, which is concerned with the concept of
Page 22 of 26

Dharma and Adharma. This corresponds to good and evil of the

third law of Karma Doctrine. Good and evil are purely contextspecific. Lying, killing, injuring, cheating, etc. are usually known
as evil; but not so in absolute terms. In certain contexts these
may be good also; for example, killing an enemy by a soldier is
not taken as evil. What makes an act good or evil is not
determined by the act per se, but by something external to it, the
context, the intention, etc. That is why Hinduism prefers the
concept of Dharma and Adharma to the absolute classification of
Karma into good and evil. The concept of Dharma holds good for
all times and all contexts; it is therefore eternal (). As we
have seen, Dharma is that which contributes to the sustenance
of the world, the whole. Without the whole there is no particular;
so it is in our interest that we should follow Dharma while doing
our Karma. That is why Taittirya 1.11 advises to pursue Dharma.
Ethical laws of all times are nothing but attempted practical
translations of this vision of Dharma.
Pursuit of Dharma naturally involves precedence of
collective interests to personal ones, a kind of sacrifice (yaja). Gita 3.14, 3.15 and 3.16 tell us that the universe exists

on sacrifice and those who do not abide by that smooth-going

system are not worthy of living. Such sacrifice demands an
attitude of equipoise to loss and gain, pain and pleasure, and to
all such dual results of Karma. So the advice is to do Karma
disregarding the nature of its results (Gita 2.38, 2.47, 2.48, 3.9,
Page 23 of 26

etc.). The advantage is that when we remain unaffected by good

and evil alike, the resulting mental balance keeps us free, happy
and peaceful. Reversely, if we have to be happy, then we should
be equipoised to all dualities. This relieves us of attachment to
Karma and the results. On being unattached, we find our
existence to be involved in the existence of the whole. There we
embrace Dharma.
D. Moksha: Finally we may turn to Moksha (Liberation).
Regarding Moksha Swamiji says thus: All work done through
selfish motives binds the soul to the fruits thereof, and is in
consequence a cause of bondage. If, however, we can once
reach the point of working without having desire for results,
without seeking any return, then the law of Karma will be broken
and freedom will be ours. Swamiji does not explain the
philosophical basis of the claim that selfish motives cause
bondage. Hinduism says that it is the Guna(s) that bind. Of the
three Guna(s), Rajas binds us to Karma; it is born of desire and
attachment and its nature is affection () (Gita 14.7).
Affection by itself is not dangerous; it is a phenomenal
expression of the urge for existence. But, by too much brooding,
affection brings forth the lurking attachment and transforms into
the devastating Kma (Gita 2.62 & 2.63). In order to avoid this
we have to become balanced to all dualities like success-failure,
pleasure-pain, etc. (). In this balanced posture, no Karma is
done out of Kma and therefore we have no reason to be
Page 24 of 26

affected by the results. Thus we transcend Guna(s) and thereby

the bondage.
But absolute freedom lies in realisation of tma. The path
to reach this state is described in Gita 18.49 to 18.55 and it
involves abstention from Karma (), pursuit of knowledge
(), attaining to Brahma (), devotion to tma (),

identifying with tma () and finally being established in it

(). One who reached this stage is said to have attained

immortality ( ). When we conquer Kma we overcome death

( ) since death is mere capitulation to Kma. It is only

when we get established in tma that we attain

immortality ( ), a stage where there is no Kma and no
death. a (11) enlightens us that after overcoming death
through Karma, immortality is attained through knowledge (
).

Conclusion
In the light of our discussions we may conclude thus:
Fundamentals of the Doctrine of Karma such as indispensability
of reaction of similar force and effect for all actions, attribution of
ones present suffering to his past Karma, etc. are not logically
sustainable. These are in conflict with the basic teachings of
Hinduism also. Rebirth of the same individual after the loss of
body is an essential feature of Karma Doctrine, but Hinduism
rejects it outright. Similarly, the concept of good and evil is not
Page 25 of 26

approved as such by Hinduism which upholds the higher

concept of Dharma and Adharma. Further, in Hinduism Moksha
is the culminating attainment of sustained, dedicated, and
persistent self-refinements, whereas Karma Doctrine relegates it
to be something that can be attained simply by regulating ones
Karma. Thus Karma Doctrine presents itself to be adventitious to
Hinduism. Attempts to eke out a substantiation from selected
verses of Gita and Upanishads meet with failure as they are
replete with misinterpretations. The Doctrine might be catering to
the presumed ethical necessity of instilling a sense of fear, in the
minds of gullible and ignorant ones, against committing acts that
are socially conceived as bad or wrong. Nevertheless, it is an
amateurish conception of dogmatic contents, formed out of
traditional mythological beliefs, and blown up beyond the
boundaries of rational thinking, through ages of indiscriminate
manipulations by interested parties. Such doctrines and theses
obfuscate the profundity, brightness, perfection and uniqueness
of the rational thoughts of Hinduism and render the most
ancient, simultaneously the most modern, Philosophy of the
world to be viewed as a bunch of formulations consisting of
superstitious observances, rituals and expiations.

Page 26 of 26