I have given some thought on this topic for quite some time. I know that this deserves a deeper study of the various themes but all broadly originating in India broadly from early religions, Vedic, Buddist and Jain. I consciously did not use the word Hinduism as it does not convey anything relevant. Interestingly there is a suggestion amongst (non traditional :-))scholars that the concept of Karma and reincarnation might have had its origins in the pre buddist and Jain traditions which continued into buddism and Jainism. The Braminical orthodoxy also accepted these principles.
A few common points on the definition
(1) Karma is basically the deed or act (actions) and its causes
(2) Buddism and Jainism attribute this to be just a natural law with the consequences and the individual bearing the sole responsibility
(3) Though deed and act are routinely used, "thought" as well contributes to this. Jainism particularly emphasizes this. If my memory serves right, a definition of Ahimsa refers to thought as well. Imagine saying we are all for non violence when we kill almost the entire universe in our thoughts :-)
(3) Vedic / Vedhanthic concept introduces an attribute that the God head can intervene with his will (though it is under very special circumstances - just to make it clear).
I always had this issue. When physicists talk of big bang, the common retort is "what was before that"? That must have been god. So what was before Karma? Typical answers are the following (not an exhaustive list)
There is a reference to the concept of Aadhi Karma or Free will. But frankly it is pretty convoluted. If there are souls who never experienced Karmic bondage, what were conditions to achieve that? Was it divine grace? I recall a swami answering this question when I posed this. Why Bhagavan decided to retain a soul called Aadhiseshan with him permanently can never be answered? It was his will. My only question is "Why not me?". How did I ever get into this " mess " from an undefined "Aadhi Karma"?
It is said that the grace flows on everyone like a rain but if you figuratively hold an umbrella, you dont get drenched. When I dont know if that is grace and I am ignorant, should the grace not flow through the umbrella and drench me anyway (as most of the rain water typically do:-)).
The concept of reincarnation is typically used to justify the wide differences at birth. Kids being born rich/poor, healthy/rich, safe homes/abusive homes etc etc. (Figuratively, )what if these are different solution points for a mathematical construct? I know we are being pretty mechanical without emotions, souls and all those esoteric and "feel good" concepts. After all, statistically we dont seem to have any difference in life parameters between a so called believer or otherwise. Everyone seems to get rich or poor, get cancer or not :-).
As Carl Sagan said in "Contact", should god not have made "Crosses" orbit earth instead of a moon or Sanghu and Chakram for that matter. That would have solved most of the issues.
Oh dear! This is so difficult ... while all this thinking makes sense so does the one below. After all who else than our Kaliyan to ask the questions that we have but with such authority and passion. (if you get a chance read the commentary for the below decad.. the glowing end of Periya Thirumozhi).
A few common points on the definition
(1) Karma is basically the deed or act (actions) and its causes
(2) Buddism and Jainism attribute this to be just a natural law with the consequences and the individual bearing the sole responsibility
(3) Though deed and act are routinely used, "thought" as well contributes to this. Jainism particularly emphasizes this. If my memory serves right, a definition of Ahimsa refers to thought as well. Imagine saying we are all for non violence when we kill almost the entire universe in our thoughts :-)
(3) Vedic / Vedhanthic concept introduces an attribute that the God head can intervene with his will (though it is under very special circumstances - just to make it clear).
I always had this issue. When physicists talk of big bang, the common retort is "what was before that"? That must have been god. So what was before Karma? Typical answers are the following (not an exhaustive list)
- It is Anaadhi (no beginning or end). Imagine scientists saying anything like that :-)
- No reference as it is just corollory to existence of souls and deeds
- Judeo Christian religions refers to original Sin as the starting point. But then there seems to be a starting block which opens up a larger issue of how did the equivalent of "Karma" impact souls which came later!! If they are impacted by the original sin, it seems to be a simple case of guilt by association.
There is a reference to the concept of Aadhi Karma or Free will. But frankly it is pretty convoluted. If there are souls who never experienced Karmic bondage, what were conditions to achieve that? Was it divine grace? I recall a swami answering this question when I posed this. Why Bhagavan decided to retain a soul called Aadhiseshan with him permanently can never be answered? It was his will. My only question is "Why not me?". How did I ever get into this " mess " from an undefined "Aadhi Karma"?
It is said that the grace flows on everyone like a rain but if you figuratively hold an umbrella, you dont get drenched. When I dont know if that is grace and I am ignorant, should the grace not flow through the umbrella and drench me anyway (as most of the rain water typically do:-)).
The concept of reincarnation is typically used to justify the wide differences at birth. Kids being born rich/poor, healthy/rich, safe homes/abusive homes etc etc. (Figuratively, )what if these are different solution points for a mathematical construct? I know we are being pretty mechanical without emotions, souls and all those esoteric and "feel good" concepts. After all, statistically we dont seem to have any difference in life parameters between a so called believer or otherwise. Everyone seems to get rich or poor, get cancer or not :-).
As Carl Sagan said in "Contact", should god not have made "Crosses" orbit earth instead of a moon or Sanghu and Chakram for that matter. That would have solved most of the issues.
Oh dear! This is so difficult ... while all this thinking makes sense so does the one below. After all who else than our Kaliyan to ask the questions that we have but with such authority and passion. (if you get a chance read the commentary for the below decad.. the glowing end of Periya Thirumozhi).
No comments:
Post a Comment