rebirth in the Rg Veda

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr Dash and Group,

 

Here is a short article written by Arvind Sharma, a professor of philosophy who

specializes in Hindu thought.

 

Please make special note of the first section where he directly addresses the

question of rebirth in the Rg Veda. The remainder of the article isn't

pertinent to our discussion, but I thought I'd include it here because it may

be of interest to group members.

 

My aim in presenting his article is to show the development of thought within

the Vedic and Hindu tradition. By extension, we should consider the

possibility that Jyotish itself underwent significant evolution and development

over time. Elsewhere, Professor Sharma has written:

 

"Classical Hindu thought, however, did not suddenly emerge fully fashioned in

every respect, like a mansion in a dream. Even within the classical period the

key concepts underwent change or at least refinement and realignment." (p. 35

Classical Hindu Thought: An Introduction)

 

best wishes,

Chris

 

____

 

 

 

Title: ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KARMA AND REBIRTH IN HINDUISM , By: Sharma,

Arvind, Asian Philosophy, 09552367, Mar1996, Vol. 6, Issue 1Database: Academic

Search Premier

ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KARMA AND REBIRTH IN HINDUISM

Contents

ABSTRACT

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VII

Conclusion

NOTES

ABSTRACT

The doctrines of Karma and rebirth dovetail so neatly that they are often

treated as a single philosophical package. This paper demonstrates that when

they are each treated separately in theft own right and theft possible

relationships are re-examined, it leads to a much more nuanced understanding of

not only these concepts but also the issues they were developed to address.

The purpose of this paper is to establish the point that much is gained and

little lost by conceptually distinguishing between the concepts of Karma and

rebirth. It is true that they are encountered together not just in Hinduism but

also within the Indic religious tradition in general and are treated generally

as logical corollaries. [1] Some scholars, however, emphasise the fact that the

two can be dissociated. [2] In this paper this latter approach will be

elaborated.

I

The first basis for distinguishing between the two concepts is historical. The

idea of moral justice clearly appears in the RgVeda but without the

accompanying idea of rebirth. Hiriyanna sums up the RgVedic position on this

point succinctly:

Nor does there yet seem to have arisen any belief in transmigration. But the

survival of man after death is recognised. That is to say, the soul is

conceived as immortal; and the good and the pious, it is believed, go after

death to heaven where they lead a life of perfect joy in the company of the

gods. The fate of the souls of the wicked and the impious is not so clearly

stated; but they also seem to have been conceived as surviving after death,

because they are described, when mentioned at all, as consigned to 'abysmal

darkness' in contradistinction to the 'white light' into which the virtuous

pass after death.[3]

It is true that traditionally attempts have been made to trace the doctrine of

rebirth back to the .RgVeda but these have not carried conviction and have

sometimes resulted in contradiction. Thus Svami Dayananda Sarasvati

(1824-1883), for instance, only regarded the Samhita portion of the Veda as

revealed (vedadi rather than vedanta) and yet also accepted the doctrine of

rebirth as revealed therein--a position difficult to sustain in the light of

modem scholarship. [4] Moreover, it is often maintained that the doctrine of

Karma and rebirth legitimises the caste-system. [5] This is true of Smrti

literature but in the Vedas the doctrine of the four Varnas (RgVeda X.90)

precedes the doctrine of Karma and rebirth Brhadaranyaka (Upanisad III.2.13,

etc.). [6]

II

The second basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth is eschatological.

The standard view is that salvation in Hinduism consists of freedom from Karma

and rebirth--such emancipation is called moksa. But Paul Deussen draws

attention to an interesting circumstance in this connection, namely, that "we

can distinguish three stages in the development" [7] of the eschatology of

Vedanta: (1) the oldest which "knows as yet of no transmigration of the soul"

[8]; (2) one which knows of "three paths": [9] (a) devayana or the Path of the

Gods, for those who possess knowledge and who on this path move "towards

Brahman whence there is no return", [10] (b) pitryana or the Path of the

Fathers of those who follow works, along which one returns ultimately to a new

incarnation, [11] © a "third place" for those who possess neither works nor

knowledge, who "are reborn as lower animals or plants, without having tasted

bliss on the moon" unlike the performers of works [12] and (d) one according to

which "there is neither a migration of the soul nor an entering into Brahman but

'Brahman is he and into Brahman is he resolved' ". [13]

The point to be noted is that Karma can mean both (1) action or inaction in

general and (2) ritual action, and it is thus possible to say that one can have

rebirth without Karma (in the second sense). It also becomes possible to say

that one can have Karma without rebirth if we follow that Upanis. adic view

which "regards this liberation attained through the Devayana as being not yet

complete. It becomes only so when those, who through the lower knowledge have

entered into sagunam brahma" and "there obtain perfect knowledge" [14] when

alone can one claim to be liberated from Karma.

In fact the issue in terms of traditional Hinduism is much more complex. On the

one hand, traditional Hinduism upholds the institution of sraddha, in

accordance with which offerings are regularly made to the departed. In fact it

is the sight of his ancestors who literally hung by a thread and were about to

fall into hell on account of this tradition not being maintained by him by

turning an ascetic, that Jaratkaru finally decides to give up asceticism and

lead the life of a householder, according to a well-known story of the

Mahabharata. [15] On the other hand, it upholds the doctrine of Karma,

according to which our destiny in the future is the outcome of our own actions

and not of our relatives! The contradiction even finds its echo in the

Bhagavadguta, wherein, in the first chapter Arjuna bemoans the fact that as a

result of the social disruption caused by the battle he is about to engage in,

the traditional offering will be discontinued and the ancestors will fall in

hell, deprived of the offerings of food and drink (1.42). As Eric J. Sharpe is

quick to point out:

The idea of ancestors toppling out of heaven because they have not been given

their proper sacrifices is an intriguing one; but more seriously, it is one

which does not fit in very well with the idea of perpetual rebirth. The

official explanation of this, incidentally, is that 'heaven' and 'hell' are

intermediate rewards and punishments which intervene between births higher or

lower on the scale of merit--clearly an attempt to provide justification for a

dominant ritual practice, even though no longer metaphysically defensible. [16]

 

III

A third basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth, it is suggested, is

terminological. It is argued that the use of Karma in the sense of doctrine or

law is a modern development, which conrates Karma and rebirth. This argument

has been made most forcefully by the late Agehananda Bharati who emphasises the

following points in this regard:

(1) The word Karma, in its traditional usage, refers not to any kind of 'action'

in general in the abstract but specifically to ritualistic action;

(2) That such ritual action is in turn connected with specific 'fruits' which

ensue as a result of the performance of such ritual action;

(3) That in modem Hindu discourse this specific model within Mimamsa has been

generalised into a 'law' of Karma in which all action produces its appropriate

result.

Bharati is inclined to attribute its generalisation in modem Hindu discourse to

the appropriation and propagation of the word Karma in this sense by the

Theosophical movement. [17]

This argument possesses some validity but has its limitations. Although the idea

of the law of Karma is not entirely new, [18] the vogue is, and the Theosophical

Society [19] as well as the Buddhist keenness to project Buddhism as a

'scientific religion' [20] may have something to do with this. But as early as

the Katha Upanisad (11.2.7) rebirth is described as taking place yathakarma

yathasrutam. However, the dimension of ritual action associated with the word

Karma should not be overlooked and this has implications for regarding Karma

and rebirth as corollaries. In the early phase of Mimamasa, Karma as ritual

action was associated with svarga or rebirth in heaven and not so much with

involvement in samsara. [21] Even after the standard concept of moksa had been

integrated with the system, Karma meant ritual action [22] although it was

linked with the idea of samsara. The importance of the doctrine of apurva in

this context should be recognised, given the Mimamsa emphasis on sacrificial

ritual. [23]

This problem bears a structural resemblance to the one raised by the doctrine of

Karma: How does an action performed now produce a result later on? But whereas

the structure is similar, the content is not: in the case of sacrifice the

question involves going to heaven, in the case of ordinary action the question

is one of continued existence in samsara.

IV

A fourth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth, it has been

suggested, is semantic. It distinguishes between Karma and reincarnation. This

position has been articulated by Raimundo Panikkar thus:

May I be allowed to be historical for one paragraph? I have witnessed more than

once a simple Indian peasant, believing in the law of Karman, being driven to

say what he does not, in fact, believe because of the exigencies of the

dialogue and the limitations of his own vocabulary in the presence of his

enlightened questioner. He feels, certainly, that he is the bearer of a

treasure greater than he himself, he is convinced that what he has in his

hands, his life, is something over which he has no property rights. He senses

that his existence did not begin with him nor will it end with him. But he is

not saying, and much less meaning, that it will be he who survives, that it is

his personality that comes from somewhere else and goes to another. He has not

the impression that what a modem would call the 'individual' is what goes on

transmigrating. He is much closer to that already quoted saying of Samkara that

the Lord is the only transmigrator, that Life is what goes on, and that all the

qualities which he has cultivated will not get lost, nor will the vices he has

accumulated. It is only when confronted with the idea that it may be he himself

who will survive that his eyes kindle to the temptation and he may yield to it,

saying that it may be so [24]

This position is an intriguing one for two reasons. Firstly, it approximates the

version of the doctrine of Karma known to Theravada Buddhism, which believes in

rebirth but not reincarnation. This position is epitomised thus:

A real, and in the ultimate sense true, understanding of the Buddhist Karma

doctrine is accessible only to one with a deep insight into the Impersonality

(s. anatta) and Conditionality (s. paticcasamuppada, paccaya) of all phenomena

of existence. "Everywhere, in all the forms of existence . . . such as one is

beholding merely mental and physical phenomena kept going by their being bound

up through causes and effects.

No doer does he see behind the deeds, no recipient apart from the Karma-fruit.

And with full insight he clearly understands that the wise ones are using

merely conventional terms when, with regard to the taking place of any action,

they are speaking of a doer, or when they are speaking of a receiver of the

Karma-results at their arising. Therefore the ancient masters have said. 'No

doer of the deeds is found,

No one who ever reaps their fruits;

Empty phenomena roll on:

This view alone is right and true.

And whilst the deeds and their results

Roll on based on conditions all,

There no beginning can be seen,

Just as it is with seed and tree'. [25]

The argument is presented in more contemporary terms by Walpola Rahula thus:

These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a 'being', are dukkha

itself (samkhara-dukkha). There is no other 'being' or 'I', standing behind

these five aggregates, who experiences dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:

'Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds are, but no doer is found'.

There is no ummoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not

correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and

movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker

behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought,

there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this

Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: 'I

think, therefore I am. [26]

The problem with this view is that it is a sophisticated position to maintain

even among intellectuals. Be it as it may, the argument, however, does not

sever Karma from rebirth though it does sever the doer from the deed. Secondly,

the argument would have had a bearing on our effort if we had set out to

conceptually detach Karma from reincarnation rather than rebirth. But inasmuch

as, unlike reincarnation, rebirth may not necessarily involve a transmigrating

agency, the connection between Karma and rebirth remains unimpaired.

V

A fifth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth may be called

analytical inasmuch as it demonstrates their separability from one another. It

is possible to have belief in Karma without belief in rebirth and belief in

rebirth without belief in Karma. Thus the pre-Buddhist Bon religion of Tibet

may have believed in reincarnation in another world without believing in Karma.

[27] Several primal societies also instantlate this situation. [28] On the other

hand, the Semitic religions seem to represent faith in Karma--that is, in moral

justice and retribution as expressed in the belief in a day of Judgement and

assignment to heaven and hell, without a corresponding belief in rebirth. In

fact, resurrection may be said to have replaced rebirth in this model.

Karma connotes moral justice. If we go to heaven for being virtuous and to hell

for being vicious, then this basic conceptualisation is being recognised,

though in a way very different from the one in Hinduism. One might say that the

Western interpretation of Karma in this sense is spatial and the Hindu concept

temporal. In the Hindu view you go on moving forward in time and the results of

your deeds catch up with you. Or perhaps more appropriately one might say that

the Western concept of Karma is vertical and the Hindu concept horizontal.

VI

A sixth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth is empirical.

Inasmuch as Hinduism represents the belief of the Hindus, there is a trend in

modem Hinduism to view the operation of Karma within a single lifetime. Kane

remarks, for instance, that:

The doctrine of Karma in so far as it asserts that one's actions in this life

have a reaction on one's life here and now has a moral validity; but it has no

validity when it is extended beyond one's death or to events before one's

birth. [29]

One might be tempted to believe that this merely represents Kane's personal

predilection. But a survey carried out by Philip Ashby among the students at a

university in Andhra Pradesh indicated that:

A large number of those who did not believe in Karma as something carrying over

from one life to the next did hold that it is an active force in the successive

stages of this present life. [30]

One may be tempted to dismiss even this as a modern development but some other

studies may give cause for pause. Oscar Lewis surveyed the villagers of Rampur

on Karma and rebirth. [31] His findings are of some interest. He found that

only 14 of the 25 subjects expressed belief in reincarnation; that seven of the

eleven non-believers were Jats, who tended to reject the concept while Brahmins

and Harijans tended to accept it. [32] Among the Jats:

The operation of Karma . . .conceived to take place within this life--not

necessarily through a chain of lives. One's posthumous reputation on Earth was

sometimes equated with Heaven and Hell. [33]

The work of the anthropologist, W.H. Newell, among the villagers in the

Himalayan region has confirmed the finding that many villagers not only do not

believe in rebirth but hadn't heard of it, but believed in moral retribution.

[34] Thus the results of both modern, urban and rural anthropological studies

point in the same direction. Many reform movements in the history of Hinduism

accepted Karma as a moral principle without subscribing to the idea of rebirth.

[35]

VII

A seventh basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth may be described as

philosophical, as it rests on the distinction drawn in Hindu philosophy between

two aspects associated with the doctrine of Karma: samskara and phala. [36].

The latter refers to the process whereby the results of our actions ramify over

several lives but the former identifies the psychological basis of one's

involvement itself, especially under the alternative expression employed for

it, namely vasana or the psychic trace an action leaves behind in the performer

of an action, after the 'mechanical' performance of the act itself and the

consequences thereof are done with. Moksa or liberation really consist in the

elimination of these vasanas or samskaras which are the roots of the ego. [37]

They are thus the cause of our attachment to life, and, according to Hinduism,

therefore to lives, that liberation is 'secondarily' defined as the cessation

of the process of rebirth. Primarily it consists in the elimination of our

attachment to mundane life itself per se represented by the terms samskara or

vasana. This distinction comes to the fore in Advaita Vedanta and explains why

someone like Ramana Maharshi could be quite casual about the idea of rebirth at

times, [38] but dead serious about the removal of vasanas to the extent of

declaring that samskara (predisposition) is samsara (cycle of births and

deaths): [39] "Your mind is the cycle of births and deaths (samsara)." [40]

Conclusion

It is, clear, therefore, that despite the close conceptual connection which is

virtually taken for granted between Karma and rebirth, it is analytically

useful to distinguish between the two in the context of Hinduism. The great

practical significance of this distinction lies in the fact that it

philosophically grounds the point, established through modem field work, that

more and more Hindus see the principle of Karma operating within the course of

one life itself rather than across several lives, while its great doctrinal

significance lies in the fact that it helps shift the focus of discussion from

rebirth to Karma by renewing the insight that the "cause of rebirth is Karma,

inherent in the subtle body" and not merely its effect; and that the "cause of

liberation from rebirth is the cutting of the bond that ties atman to the

subtle body and with it to Karma", [41] the bond we referred to as vasana.

NOTES

[1] HIRIYANNA, M. (1948) The Essentials of Indian Philosophy (London: George

Allen & Unwin) p. 47; MAHADEVAN, T.M.P. (1956) Outlines of Hinduism (Bombay:

Chetana, p. 61; DEUTSCH, ELIOT (1969) Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical

Reconstruction (Honolulu: East-West Center Press) p. 68, note 3.

[2] CHAPPLE, CHRISTOPHER (1986) Karma and Creativity (Albany: State University

of New York Press) p. 3. Chapple himself, however, goes on to emphasise the

link between the two.

[3] HIRIYANNA, M., op. cit., p. 13.

[4] HUME, ROBERT ERNEST (1931) The Thirteen Principal Upanisads, 2nd edn

(Oxford: Oxford University Press) p. 54, note 1. Also see SHARMA, ARVIND (1981)

Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Vedic authority, in: ROBERT D. BAIRD (Ed.)

Religion in Modern India (Delhi: Manohar) p. 192, note 45.

[5] Manusmrti, chapter XII.

[6] HUME, op. cit., p. 54.

[7] DEUSSEN, PAUL (1943) The System of the Vedanta, (CHARLES JOHNSTON (Trans.)

(Chicago: Open House) p. 357.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid., p. 358.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., p. 359.

[15] VAN BUITTENEN, J.A.B. (1973) (Trans.) The Mahabharata (Chicago: University

of Chicago Press) Vol. I., pp. 103-105.

[16] SHARPE, ERIC J. (1978) The Concept of Salvation with special reference to

religions of Indian origin, Religious Traditions (I, 1; p. 53.

[17] BHARATI, AGEHANANDA (1985) Speaking about 'That which shows itself': the

language of mysticism and the mystics', in: CHRISTOPHER CHAPPLE. (Comp.)

Religious Experience and Scientific Paradigms (Stony Brook, New York: The

Institute for Advanced Study in World Religions) pp. 234-235.

[18] NEUFELDT, ROBERT W. (1986) (Ed.) Karma and Rebirth: Post Classical

Developments (Albany: State University of New York Press) pp. 162, 179, 195,

etc.

[19] Ibid., chapter 13.

[20] HIRIYANNA, M. (1983) Outlines of Indian Philosophy (Bombay: Blackie) pp. 136-137.

[21] Ibid., p. 332.

[22] MAHADEVAN, op. cit., pp. 137-138.

[23] HALBFASS, WILHELM, (1980) Karma, Apurva, and Natural causes: observations

on the growth and limits of the Theory of Samsara, in: WENDY DONIGER

O'FLAHERTY, (Ed.) Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions (Berkeley:

University of California Press) pp. 275-276.

[24] PANIKKAR, RAIMUNDO (1972) The Law of Karman and the historical dimension of

man, Philosophy East and West, 22, 1; p. 39,

[25] Viguddhimagga XIX, quoted in NYANATILOKA (1972) Buddhist Dictionary (Colombo: Freewin) p. 70.

[26] RAHULA, WALPOLA (1974) What the Buddha Taught (New York: Grove Press) p. 26.

[27] KVAERNE, PER (1987) Bon. In: ELIADE, MIRCEA (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of

Religion (New York: Macmillan) Vol. 2, p. 277.

[28] OBEYESEKERE, GANANATH The rebirth eschatology and its transformations: a

contribution to the sociology of early buddhism, in: WENDY DONIGER O'FLAHERTY

(Ed.) op. cit., pp. 137-164.

[29] Quoted by CREEL, AUSTIN B. (1986) Contemporary philosophical treatments of

Karma and Rebirth, in: RONALD W. NEUFELDT (Ed.) op. cit., p. 9.

[30] ASHBY, PHILIP M. (1974) Modern Trends in Hinduism (New York: Columbia University Press) p. 65.

[31] See LEWIS, OSCAR (1965) Village Life in Northern India (New York.' Vintage).

[32] For a summary statement see SHARMA, ARVIND (1980) The Hindu Scriptural

Value System and the Economic Development of India (New Delhi: Heritage) p. 94.

 

[33] LEWIS, op. cit., p. 253.

[34] Personal communication.

[35] See BROCKINGTON, J.L. (1981) The Sacred Thread (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) p. 5.

[36] HIRIYANNA, op cit., note 1. p. 49.

[37] OSBORNE, ARTHUR (Ed.) (1971) The Teachings of Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi

in His Own Words (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam) p. 229.

[38] GODMAN, DAVID (Ed.) (1985) The Teachings of Sri Ramana Maharshi (London: Arkana) chapter 18.

[39] ANON (1984) Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam) p. 249.

[40] Ibid., pp, 38, 209,

[41] KLOSTERMAIER, KLAUS K. (1989)A Survey of Hinduism (Albany, N.Y.: State

University of New York) p. 205.

~~~~~~~~

By ARVIND SHARMA

Arvind Sharma, Department of Religious Studies, McGill University, William and

Henry Birks Building, 3520 University Street, Montreal PQ H3A 2A7, Canada.

 

http://modernVedic Astrology.com

 

http://modernVedic Astrology.blogspot.com

 

 

---Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.Checked by AVG anti-virus system

(http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release Date:

7/2/04

[Guest guest]

|| Om Vishnava Namah ||

 

Namaste Chris,

 

Before questioning the author about his views, I would like to

express some basics from my understanding.

 

A Person before reading Veda's has to read All the 6 Vedangas. Vedas

were mere summation of core phylosiphy as coded chants to be sung by

many different priests. And each priest, Agnihotri, Ritvik, Jyotish,

etc etc come together for each Yagnya. If you read the Puranas, You

will see description of Many Yagya in which Priests of different

specialization cometogether.

 

Before one goes about directly reading Vedas', A common person is best

adviced to read Ramayana, Mahabharata and Atleast 1 Purana completely.

This stands true even for Jyotish Studies. Until the person does not

understand various Symbology, background etc. This is even true for

Jyotish understanding Forget the Vedas which are higher. If you do

want to translate or understand Vedas go for certain really qualified

teachers like Aurobindo etc (Like read Secret of Vedas of his).

 

A person before reading Jyotish is best adviced to Read Ramayana,

Mahabharata and Atleast 1 Purana. To get sufficient background on

Terms, Symbols, Character analysis etc.

 

Warm Regards

Sanjay P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

valist, "Christopher Kevill"

<christopher.kevill@s...> wrote:

> Dear Dr Dash and Group,

>

> Here is a short article written by Arvind Sharma, a professor of

philosophy who specializes in Hindu thought.

>

> Please make special note of the first section where he directly

addresses the question of rebirth in the Rg Veda. The remainder of

the article isn't pertinent to our discussion, but I thought I'd

include it here because it may be of interest to group members.

>

> My aim in presenting his article is to show the development of

thought within the Vedic and Hindu tradition. By extension, we should

consider the possibility that Jyotish itself underwent significant

evolution and development over time. Elsewhere, Professor Sharma has

written:

>

> "Classical Hindu thought, however, did not suddenly emerge fully

fashioned in every respect, like a mansion in a dream. Even within

the classical period the key concepts underwent change or at least

refinement and realignment." (p. 35 Classical Hindu Thought: An

Introduction)

>

> best wishes,

> Chris

>

>

______________________________\

________________________

>

>

>

> Title: ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KARMA AND REBIRTH IN

HINDUISM , By: Sharma, Arvind, Asian Philosophy, 09552367, Mar1996,

Vol. 6, Issue 1

> Database: Academic Search Premier

>

> ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN KARMA AND REBIRTH IN HINDUISM

>

>

> Contents

> ABSTRACT

> I

> II

> III

> IV

> V

> VI

> VII

> Conclusion

> NOTES

> ABSTRACT

> The doctrines of Karma and rebirth dovetail so neatly that

they are often treated as a single philosophical package. This paper

demonstrates that when they are each treated separately in theft own

right and theft possible relationships are re-examined, it leads to a

much more nuanced understanding of not only these concepts but also

the issues they were developed to address.

>

> The purpose of this paper is to establish the point that much

is gained and little lost by conceptually distinguishing between the

concepts of Karma and rebirth. It is true that they are encountered

together not just in Hinduism but also within the Indic religious

tradition in general and are treated generally as logical corollaries.

[1] Some scholars, however, emphasise the fact that the two can be

dissociated. [2] In this paper this latter approach will be elaborated.

>

> I

> The first basis for distinguishing between the two concepts is

historical. The idea of moral justice clearly appears in the RgVeda

but without the accompanying idea of rebirth. Hiriyanna sums up the

RgVedic position on this point succinctly:

>

> Nor does there yet seem to have arisen any belief in

transmigration. But the survival of man after death is recognised.

That is to say, the soul is conceived as immortal; and the good and

the pious, it is believed, go after death to heaven where they lead a

life of perfect joy in the company of the gods. The fate of the souls

of the wicked and the impious is not so clearly stated; but they also

seem to have been conceived as surviving after death, because they are

described, when mentioned at all, as consigned to 'abysmal darkness'

in contradistinction to the 'white light' into which the virtuous pass

after death.[3]

>

> It is true that traditionally attempts have been made to trace

the doctrine of rebirth back to the .RgVeda but these have not carried

conviction and have sometimes resulted in contradiction. Thus Svami

Dayananda Sarasvati (1824-1883), for instance, only regarded the

Samhita portion of the Veda as revealed (vedadi rather than vedanta)

and yet also accepted the doctrine of rebirth as revealed therein--a

position difficult to sustain in the light of modem scholarship. [4]

Moreover, it is often maintained that the doctrine of Karma and

rebirth legitimises the caste-system. [5] This is true of Smrti

literature but in the Vedas the doctrine of the four Varnas (RgVeda

X.90) precedes the doctrine of Karma and rebirth Brhadaranyaka

(Upanisad III.2.13, etc.). [6]

>

> II

> The second basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth

is eschatological. The standard view is that salvation in Hinduism

consists of freedom from Karma and rebirth--such emancipation is

called moksa. But Paul Deussen draws attention to an interesting

circumstance in this connection, namely, that "we can distinguish

three stages in the development" [7] of the eschatology of Vedanta:

(1) the oldest which "knows as yet of no transmigration of the soul"

[8]; (2) one which knows of "three paths": [9] (a) devayana or the

Path of the Gods, for those who possess knowledge and who on this path

move "towards Brahman whence there is no return", [10] (b) pitryana or

the Path of the Fathers of those who follow works, along which one

returns ultimately to a new incarnation, [11] © a "third place" for

those who possess neither works nor knowledge, who "are reborn as

lower animals or plants, without having tasted bliss on the moon"

unlike the performers of works [12] and (d) one according to which

"there is neither a migration of the soul nor an entering into Brahman

but 'Brahman is he and into Brahman is he resolved' ". [13]

>

> The point to be noted is that Karma can mean both (1) action

or inaction in general and (2) ritual action, and it is thus possible

to say that one can have rebirth without Karma (in the second sense).

It also becomes possible to say that one can have Karma without

rebirth if we follow that Upanis. adic view which "regards this

liberation attained through the Devayana as being not yet complete. It

becomes only so when those, who through the lower knowledge have

entered into sagunam brahma" and "there obtain perfect knowledge" [14]

when alone can one claim to be liberated from Karma.

>

> In fact the issue in terms of traditional Hinduism is much

more complex. On the one hand, traditional Hinduism upholds the

institution of sraddha, in accordance with which offerings are

regularly made to the departed. In fact it is the sight of his

ancestors who literally hung by a thread and were about to fall into

hell on account of this tradition not being maintained by him by

turning an ascetic, that Jaratkaru finally decides to give up

asceticism and lead the life of a householder, according to a

well-known story of the Mahabharata. [15] On the other hand, it

upholds the doctrine of Karma, according to which our destiny in the

future is the outcome of our own actions and not of our relatives! The

contradiction even finds its echo in the Bhagavadguta, wherein, in the

first chapter Arjuna bemoans the fact that as a result of the social

disruption caused by the battle he is about to engage in, the

traditional offering will be discontinued and the ancestors will fall

in hell, deprived of the offerings of food and drink (1.42). As Eric

J. Sharpe is quick to point out:

>

> The idea of ancestors toppling out of heaven because they have

not been given their proper sacrifices is an intriguing one; but more

seriously, it is one which does not fit in very well with the idea of

perpetual rebirth. The official explanation of this, incidentally, is

that 'heaven' and 'hell' are intermediate rewards and punishments

which intervene between births higher or lower on the scale of

merit--clearly an attempt to provide justification for a dominant

ritual practice, even though no longer metaphysically defensible. [16]

>

> III

> A third basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth, it

is suggested, is terminological. It is argued that the use of Karma in

the sense of doctrine or law is a modern development, which conrates

Karma and rebirth. This argument has been made most forcefully by the

late Agehananda Bharati who emphasises the following points in this

regard:

>

> (1) The word Karma, in its traditional usage, refers not to

any kind of 'action' in general in the abstract but specifically to

ritualistic action;

>

> (2) That such ritual action is in turn connected with specific

'fruits' which ensue as a result of the performance of such ritual

action;

>

> (3) That in modem Hindu discourse this specific model within

Mimamsa has been generalised into a 'law' of Karma in which all action

produces its appropriate result.

>

> Bharati is inclined to attribute its generalisation in modem

Hindu discourse to the appropriation and propagation of the word Karma

in this sense by the Theosophical movement. [17]

>

> This argument possesses some validity but has its limitations.

Although the idea of the law of Karma is not entirely new, [18] the

vogue is, and the Theosophical Society [19] as well as the Buddhist

keenness to project Buddhism as a 'scientific religion' [20] may have

something to do with this. But as early as the Katha Upanisad (11.2.7)

rebirth is described as taking place yathakarma yathasrutam. However,

the dimension of ritual action associated with the word Karma should

not be overlooked and this has implications for regarding Karma and

rebirth as corollaries. In the early phase of Mimamasa, Karma as

ritual action was associated with svarga or rebirth in heaven and not

so much with involvement in samsara. [21] Even after the standard

concept of moksa had been integrated with the system, Karma meant

ritual action [22] although it was linked with the idea of samsara.

The importance of the doctrine of apurva in this context should be

recognised, given the Mimamsa emphasis on sacrificial ritual. [23]

>

> This problem bears a structural resemblance to the one raised

by the doctrine of Karma: How does an action performed now produce a

result later on? But whereas the structure is similar, the content is

not: in the case of sacrifice the question involves going to heaven,

in the case of ordinary action the question is one of continued

existence in samsara.

>

> IV

> A fourth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth,

it has been suggested, is semantic. It distinguishes between Karma and

reincarnation. This position has been articulated by Raimundo Panikkar

thus:

>

> May I be allowed to be historical for one paragraph? I have

witnessed more than once a simple Indian peasant, believing in the law

of Karman, being driven to say what he does not, in fact, believe

because of the exigencies of the dialogue and the limitations of his

own vocabulary in the presence of his enlightened questioner. He

feels, certainly, that he is the bearer of a treasure greater than he

himself, he is convinced that what he has in his hands, his life, is

something over which he has no property rights. He senses that his

existence did not begin with him nor will it end with him. But he is

not saying, and much less meaning, that it will be he who survives,

that it is his personality that comes from somewhere else and goes to

another. He has not the impression that what a modem would call the

'individual' is what goes on transmigrating. He is much closer to that

already quoted saying of Samkara that the Lord is the only

transmigrator, that Life is what goes on, and that all the qualities

which he has cultivated will not get lost, nor will the vices he has

accumulated. It is only when confronted with the idea that it may be

he himself who will survive that his eyes kindle to the temptation and

he may yield to it, saying that it may be so [24]

>

> This position is an intriguing one for two reasons. Firstly,

it approximates the version of the doctrine of Karma known to

Theravada Buddhism, which believes in rebirth but not reincarnation.

This position is epitomised thus:

>

> A real, and in the ultimate sense true, understanding of the

Buddhist Karma doctrine is accessible only to one with a deep insight

into the Impersonality (s. anatta) and Conditionality (s.

paticcasamuppada, paccaya) of all phenomena of existence. "Everywhere,

in all the forms of existence . . . such as one is beholding merely

mental and physical phenomena kept going by their being bound up

through causes and effects.

>

> No doer does he see behind the deeds, no recipient apart from

the Karma-fruit. And with full insight he clearly understands that the

wise ones are using merely conventional terms when, with regard to the

taking place of any action, they are speaking of a doer, or when they

are speaking of a receiver of the Karma-results at their arising.

Therefore the ancient masters have said.

>

> 'No doer of the deeds is found,

> No one who ever reaps their fruits;

> Empty phenomena roll on:

> This view alone is right and true.

>

> And whilst the deeds and their results

> Roll on based on conditions all,

> There no beginning can be seen,

> Just as it is with seed and tree'. [25]

>

> The argument is presented in more contemporary terms by

Walpola Rahula thus:

>

> These five Aggregates together, which we popularly call a

'being', are dukkha itself (samkhara-dukkha). There is no other

'being' or 'I', standing behind these five aggregates, who experiences

dukkha. As Buddhaghosa says:

>

> 'Mere suffering exists, but no sufferer is found; The deeds

are, but no doer is found'.

>

> There is no ummoving mover behind the movement. It is only

movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is

movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In

other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is

the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be

found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is

diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: 'I think,

therefore I am. [26]

>

> The problem with this view is that it is a sophisticated

position to maintain even among intellectuals. Be it as it may, the

argument, however, does not sever Karma from rebirth though it does

sever the doer from the deed. Secondly, the argument would have had a

bearing on our effort if we had set out to conceptually detach Karma

from reincarnation rather than rebirth. But inasmuch as, unlike

reincarnation, rebirth may not necessarily involve a transmigrating

agency, the connection between Karma and rebirth remains unimpaired.

>

> V

> A fifth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth may

be called analytical inasmuch as it demonstrates their separability

from one another. It is possible to have belief in Karma without

belief in rebirth and belief in rebirth without belief in Karma. Thus

the pre-Buddhist Bon religion of Tibet may have believed in

reincarnation in another world without believing in Karma. [27]

Several primal societies also instantlate this situation. [28] On the

other hand, the Semitic religions seem to represent faith in

Karma--that is, in moral justice and retribution as expressed in the

belief in a day of Judgement and assignment to heaven and hell,

without a corresponding belief in rebirth. In fact, resurrection may

be said to have replaced rebirth in this model.

>

> Karma connotes moral justice. If we go to heaven for being

virtuous and to hell for being vicious, then this basic

conceptualisation is being recognised, though in a way very different

from the one in Hinduism. One might say that the Western

interpretation of Karma in this sense is spatial and the Hindu concept

temporal. In the Hindu view you go on moving forward in time and the

results of your deeds catch up with you. Or perhaps more appropriately

one might say that the Western concept of Karma is vertical and the

Hindu concept horizontal.

>

> VI

> A sixth basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth is

empirical. Inasmuch as Hinduism represents the belief of the Hindus,

there is a trend in modem Hinduism to view the operation of Karma

within a single lifetime. Kane remarks, for instance, that:

>

> The doctrine of Karma in so far as it asserts that one's

actions in this life have a reaction on one's life here and now has a

moral validity; but it has no validity when it is extended beyond

one's death or to events before one's birth. [29]

>

> One might be tempted to believe that this merely represents

Kane's personal predilection. But a survey carried out by Philip Ashby

among the students at a university in Andhra Pradesh indicated that:

>

> A large number of those who did not believe in Karma as

something carrying over from one life to the next did hold that it is

an active force in the successive stages of this present life. [30]

>

> One may be tempted to dismiss even this as a modern

development but some other studies may give cause for pause. Oscar

Lewis surveyed the villagers of Rampur on Karma and rebirth. [31] His

findings are of some interest. He found that only 14 of the 25

subjects expressed belief in reincarnation; that seven of the eleven

non-believers were Jats, who tended to reject the concept while

Brahmins and Harijans tended to accept it. [32] Among the Jats:

>

> The operation of Karma . . .conceived to take place within

this life--not necessarily through a chain of lives. One's posthumous

reputation on Earth was sometimes equated with Heaven and Hell. [33]

>

> The work of the anthropologist, W.H. Newell, among the

villagers in the Himalayan region has confirmed the finding that many

villagers not only do not believe in rebirth but hadn't heard of it,

but believed in moral retribution. [34] Thus the results of both

modern, urban and rural anthropological studies point in the same

direction. Many reform movements in the history of Hinduism accepted

Karma as a moral principle without subscribing to the idea of rebirth.

[35]

>

> VII

> A seventh basis for distinguishing between Karma and rebirth

may be described as philosophical, as it rests on the distinction

drawn in Hindu philosophy between two aspects associated with the

doctrine of Karma: samskara and phala. [36]. The latter refers to the

process whereby the results of our actions ramify over several lives

but the former identifies the psychological basis of one's involvement

itself, especially under the alternative expression employed for it,

namely vasana or the psychic trace an action leaves behind in the

performer of an action, after the 'mechanical' performance of the act

itself and the consequences thereof are done with. Moksa or liberation

really consist in the elimination of these vasanas or samskaras which

are the roots of the ego. [37] They are thus the cause of our

attachment to life, and, according to Hinduism, therefore to lives,

that liberation is 'secondarily' defined as the cessation of the

process of rebirth. Primarily it consists in the elimination of our

attachment to mundane life itself per se represented by the terms

samskara or vasana. This distinction comes to the fore in Advaita

Vedanta and explains why someone like Ramana Maharshi could be quite

casual about the idea of rebirth at times, [38] but dead serious about

the removal of vasanas to the extent of declaring that samskara

(predisposition) is samsara (cycle of births and deaths): [39] "Your

mind is the cycle of births and deaths (samsara)." [40]

>

> Conclusion

> It is, clear, therefore, that despite the close conceptual

connection which is virtually taken for granted between Karma and

rebirth, it is analytically useful to distinguish between the two in

the context of Hinduism. The great practical significance of this

distinction lies in the fact that it philosophically grounds the

point, established through modem field work, that more and more Hindus

see the principle of Karma operating within the course of one life

itself rather than across several lives, while its great doctrinal

significance lies in the fact that it helps shift the focus of

discussion from rebirth to Karma by renewing the insight that the

"cause of rebirth is Karma, inherent in the subtle body" and not

merely its effect; and that the "cause of liberation from rebirth is

the cutting of the bond that ties atman to the subtle body and with it

to Karma", [41] the bond we referred to as vasana.

>

> NOTES

> [1] HIRIYANNA, M. (1948) The Essentials of Indian Philosophy

(London: George Allen & Unwin) p. 47; MAHADEVAN, T.M.P. (1956)

Outlines of Hinduism (Bombay: Chetana, p. 61; DEUTSCH, ELIOT (1969)

Advaita Vedanta: A Philosophical Reconstruction (Honolulu: East-West

Center Press) p. 68, note 3.

>

> [2] CHAPPLE, CHRISTOPHER (1986) Karma and Creativity (Albany:

State University of New York Press) p. 3. Chapple himself, however,

goes on to emphasise the link between the two.

>

> [3] HIRIYANNA, M., op. cit., p. 13.

>

> [4] HUME, ROBERT ERNEST (1931) The Thirteen Principal

Upanisads, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press) p. 54, note 1.

Also see SHARMA, ARVIND (1981) Swami Dayananda Sarasvati and Vedic

authority, in: ROBERT D. BAIRD (Ed.) Religion in Modern India (Delhi:

Manohar) p. 192, note 45.

>

> [5] Manusmrti, chapter XII.

>

> [6] HUME, op. cit., p. 54.

>

> [7] DEUSSEN, PAUL (1943) The System of the Vedanta, (CHARLES

JOHNSTON (Trans.) (Chicago: Open House) p. 357.

>

> [8] Ibid.

>

> [9] Ibid.

>

> [10] Ibid., p. 358.

>

> [11] Ibid.

>

> [12] Ibid.

>

> [13] Ibid.

>

> [14] Ibid., p. 359.

>

> [15] VAN BUITTENEN, J.A.B. (1973) (Trans.) The Mahabharata

(Chicago: University of Chicago Press) Vol. I., pp. 103-105.

>

> [16] SHARPE, ERIC J. (1978) The Concept of Salvation with

special reference to religions of Indian origin, Religious Traditions

(I, 1; p. 53.

>

> [17] BHARATI, AGEHANANDA (1985) Speaking about 'That which

shows itself': the language of mysticism and the mystics', in:

CHRISTOPHER CHAPPLE. (Comp.) Religious Experience and Scientific

Paradigms (Stony Brook, New York: The Institute for Advanced Study in

World Religions) pp. 234-235.

>

> [18] NEUFELDT, ROBERT W. (1986) (Ed.) Karma and Rebirth: Post

Classical Developments (Albany: State University of New York Press)

pp. 162, 179, 195, etc.

>

> [19] Ibid., chapter 13.

>

> [20] HIRIYANNA, M. (1983) Outlines of Indian Philosophy

(Bombay: Blackie) pp. 136-137.

>

> [21] Ibid., p. 332.

>

> [22] MAHADEVAN, op. cit., pp. 137-138.

>

> [23] HALBFASS, WILHELM, (1980) Karma, Apurva, and Natural

causes: observations on the growth and limits of the Theory of

Samsara, in: WENDY DONIGER O'FLAHERTY, (Ed.) Karma and Rebirth in

Classical Indian Traditions (Berkeley: University of California Press)

pp. 275-276.

>

> [24] PANIKKAR, RAIMUNDO (1972) The Law of Karman and the

historical dimension of man, Philosophy East and West, 22, 1; p. 39,

>

> [25] Viguddhimagga XIX, quoted in NYANATILOKA (1972) Buddhist

Dictionary (Colombo: Freewin) p. 70.

>

> [26] RAHULA, WALPOLA (1974) What the Buddha Taught (New York:

Grove Press) p. 26.

>

> [27] KVAERNE, PER (1987) Bon. In: ELIADE, MIRCEA (Ed.), The

Encyclopedia of Religion (New York: Macmillan) Vol. 2, p. 277.

>

> [28] OBEYESEKERE, GANANATH The rebirth eschatology and its

transformations: a contribution to the sociology of early buddhism,

in: WENDY DONIGER O'FLAHERTY (Ed.) op. cit., pp. 137-164.

>

> [29] Quoted by CREEL, AUSTIN B. (1986) Contemporary

philosophical treatments of Karma and Rebirth, in: RONALD W. NEUFELDT

(Ed.) op. cit., p. 9.

>

> [30] ASHBY, PHILIP M. (1974) Modern Trends in Hinduism (New

York: Columbia University Press) p. 65.

>

> [31] See LEWIS, OSCAR (1965) Village Life in Northern India

(New York.' Vintage).

>

> [32] For a summary statement see SHARMA, ARVIND (1980) The

Hindu Scriptural Value System and the Economic Development of India

(New Delhi: Heritage) p. 94.

>

> [33] LEWIS, op. cit., p. 253.

>

> [34] Personal communication.

>

> [35] See BROCKINGTON, J.L. (1981) The Sacred Thread

(Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press) p. 5.

>

> [36] HIRIYANNA, op cit., note 1. p. 49.

>

> [37] OSBORNE, ARTHUR (Ed.) (1971) The Teachings of Bhagavan

Sri Ramana Maharshi in His Own Words (Tiruvannamalai: Sri

Ramanasramam) p. 229.

>

> [38] GODMAN, DAVID (Ed.) (1985) The Teachings of Sri Ramana

Maharshi (London: Arkana) chapter 18.

>

> [39] ANON (1984) Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi

(Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam) p. 249.

>

> [40] Ibid., pp, 38, 209,

>

> [41] KLOSTERMAIER, KLAUS K. (1989)A Survey of Hinduism

(Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York) p. 205.

>

> ~~~~~~~~

>

> By ARVIND SHARMA

>

>

> Arvind Sharma, Department of Religious Studies, McGill

University, William and Henry Birks Building, 3520 University Street,

Montreal PQ H3A 2A7, Canada.

>

>

>

>

>

> http://modernVedic Astrology.com

>

>

> http://modernVedic Astrology.blogspot.com

>

>

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.714 / Virus Database: 470 - Release 7/2/04