Infirmities in karma theory
Dr. Vemuri Ramesam

This is a slightly revised version from the original which appeared on 17 Nov 2004 at Indology.net.

ABSTRACT:

Karma theory is quite popular in many eastern religions and gaining coinage with some of the new age gurus.  But it looks to be based more on the Newtonian concepts of action-reaction models and irreversibility of flow of time.  Both these assumptions appear to be based on shaky premises.  The work by behavior scientists, particularly Cziko (2000) applying Darwinian and Bernardian principles shows that living organism's output is not determined by environmental input as a one way cause – effect model.  Living systems are characterized by circular causality.  This means that perception and behavior reciprocally and simultaneously influence each other. The one way cause – effect view of karma theory negates the intelligence and purposefulness of human behavior either in the ‘here and now’ or in the long term evolutionary perspective.  “What is clear is that the currently accepted one-way cause-effect model, successful in explaining much of the workings of the inanimate world, cannot account for the purposeful, goal-directed behavior by which living organisms control important aspects of their environment.”

The concepts from physics on multiverses, quantum theory and studies on the brain question the irreversible arrow of time as a dimension extending infinitely independent of space.  Unless some new concepts develop to the contrary, reestablishing Newtonian view of the absolute nature of time and space, it is difficult to explain the present as the result of some past.  In view of these findings, the validity of Karma theory needs to be re-examined.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Law of Karma enunciated by the Eastern Religions (particularly Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism) is generally well accepted and believed in by many.  It has become quite popular even with New Age Gurus in the West (e.g. Zukav, 1990).  Expressed in simple terms, Karma Theory says that our present is the effect of our past actions.  We reap the consequences of our current actions later, may be even in the next birth.  We, in many situations around us so often, encounter daily some effects that can be directly linked to some past causes. As an extension of such an experience, we tend to accept the karma theory without a question.  Further, it quite often provides a comforting explanation to many of our imponderable experiences soothing a bruised ego and/or offering solace to our distressed souls.

The inexorable cause-effect relationship of karma is so much ingrained into the lives of the believers that they accept it at all levels, even at simple matters like missing a bus or spilt milk. However, we do not invoke karma for things which are under our control!  May be because of this, in developed countries, where more things of daily life are under control, we do not find people so frequently alluding to their fate with their hand to the forehead (where the effects of karma are supposed to have been indelibly written down). 

The Karma theory is based on two important implicit assumptions.

2.  THE FIRST ASSUMPTION

The first assumption is that we, human beings, are helplessly subjected to the one way action of cause and effect, just like the inanimate things that we see around us are. That means we humans, with all our evolutionary skills and survival tools at our command and the enormous information stored in our genes and brain, are no different from the inanimate things subjected to the Newtonian law of forces.

In order to understand clearly, let us take a couple of examples.  Iron filings get attracted to a magnet.  The cause is the magnet.  The effect is the filings stick to the magnet.  If a sheet of paper is placed in between the filings and the magnet, the filings are still drawn towards the magnet but get stuck to the paper instead of reaching the magnet.  But a Romeo attracted to a Juliet tries to reach Juliet even if a wall exists between them.  He uses his intelligence to cross over the hindrance but does not stupidly end up sealing his lips against the wall like the iron filings sticking to the paper.  Unlike a stone dropped from air, an eagle diving for its prey in the waters does not hit just the water pool but constantly varies its flight path to catch the fish.  That, in essence, is the difference between animate and inanimate systems as expressed by William James over a century ago (1890).  Living beings constantly change their behavior to control their perception of the environment so that the set goal could be reached.  In other words, they have a fixed goal but variable means unlike the inanimate things which follow a fixed path and end up with variable goals.

3.  PERCEPTUAL CONTROL THEORY

In the case of living things, the cause – effect model works as a closed system with a feedback loop. ‘Approaching living organisms as purposeful systems that behave in order to control their perceptions of the external environment provide a new perspective for understanding what, why, and how living things, including humans, do what they do.’  Purposeful behavior has a circular causation.  Further, unlike non-living closed loop control systems (which are controlled by the environment), a living system is controlled from within itself.  This is a direct reversal of the concept that our perceptions of the environment control our behavior. We vary our behavior to control perceived environmental consequences of those behaviors for a purpose. This is called “Perceptual Control Theory” (Cziko, 2000).  The purposes and goals may be nested, that is to say that there may be many lower level goals within the overall higher level purpose. 

One may suggest that the karma theory is more than just a cause – effect relationship.  It has, for example, a regulatory role with promises of reward-punishment built into it to ensure an orderly society.  But a very large amount of research work by behavioral scientists shows that attempts to modify human behavior by promises of rewards or threats of punishment have failed over time. Quoting from Cziko (2000), “It is not the provision of past rewards and punishment that influences behavior, but rather anticipation of future rewards and punishment. Public hangings can be quite effective in getting the population to think twice about performing acts that are punishable at the end of a rope (it is, of course, completely effective in preventing such actions in the future by the punished individual). Promises of future rewards can also increase the likelihood of certain activities (which is how most religions operate to modify the behavior of their adherents, not to mention the threat of hell as future punishment). The reason why rewards and punishment often appear to be effective in modifying or controlling another person’s behavior is not because their application in the past controls current behavior. Instead, humans vary their present behavior to obtain (or avoid) that which they want to obtain (or avoid). That is, rewards do not control behavior. Rather, behaviors are used to control rewards.”

The punishment-reward system may work for some time, though.  But after certain point of time, it will lead to counter-control by the victims – a common example of such counter-control being strikes and satyagrahas.  As noted by Cziko, “Another aspect of trying to use rewards to control behavior is often overlooked and may actually go a long way toward explaining why it is ineffective in the long term. For me to use reinforcement in an attempt to control your behavior, I must be able to control the resource that will serve as the reinforcement and make sure that you are in a state of deprivation.  That is, I must make sure that you have less of the reinforcement than you want. I cannot use food as reinforcement if you are able to obtain all the food you want from other sources. Whereas such an arrangement may work well for a rat or pigeon that cannot question the fairness of such a situation, you as an intelligent adult human being will almost certainly find such a situation unfair, if not intolerable.”  If the promised rewards are of a deferred type, deferred to some unknown, unknowable and unverifiable future like next birth, like in the Karma theory, the system is sure to fail the moment faith in the system is weakened.

4.  REBIRTH FOR WHOM?

Here a short digression on “Rebirth” is in order because Karma theory has an underpinning of rebirth for the remotely deferred effects of the actions done in the present life.  Let us examine for whom or for what entity is rebirth possible. 

Bhagavad-Gita is one of the basic trios (Prasthanatraya) of ancient Hindu thought.  It is considered to be a summary of all the Upanishads.  Chapter II of Bhagavad-Gita, in turn, is said to be a gist of all Gita.  Going by Slokas 16 – 21 of Chapter II, we find that only two entities are projected in the discussion.  One is ‘sat’ and the other is ‘asat’.  Their respective attributives are also clearly spelt out in those slokas.  ‘Sat’ is existent.  ‘Sat’ is not born, does not die; not having been, it does not come about.  It is unborn, ancient, eternal, changeless, indestructible, illimitable and so on.  On the other hand, ‘asat’ is non-existent, has forms and names, it is destroyed and has an end.  It is impermanent and limited.  No third element is postulated.  So called Jiva (or Atman) is also Brahman (Sat).  By the very nature of the description, there is no question of any birth, leave alone rebirth for “sat”.  ‘Asat’ having no existence and being impermanent cannot be reborn when it ends once.  Then for what or whom is the rebirth possible?  Unless we bring in a third hypothetical entity which can carry forward the deferred punishment-reward system or the balance sheet of karma and also postulate some continuing method of keeping its identity, it is not possible to have rebirth. All such hypothetical entities and associated postulations complicate the system and make it all the more doubtful.

The corresponding elements for sat and asat in the human beings are saririnah (the resident or owner of the bodies) and sarirah (the bodies).  The saririnah, being sat is by definition free from birth or rebirth.  If an entity representing sarirah (bodies) can at all possibly have rebirth, what part of sarirah could it be?  The philogenetic evolutionary memory is preserved in the bodies as its genome.  The physical and mental characteristics of a person that have a large limiting influence on the quality of actions (karma) of an individual (i.e. emotional nature, physical health or even issues like color of  skin or eye) are dependent on his/her genes.  The genes themselves are asat and they die when the person is dead.  If some part of this individual has to carry forward the effects of his/her actions, it becomes necessary to some extent that a set of these genes should continue into his/her next life. How could the genes which end with the death of the person get carried on to the next birth?  Even if we assume that the genetic material has been somehow carried, the person then has to be reborn into the same set of genes with the implication of inbreeding in the family.  The theory of Rebirth hardly talks of any such genetic restrictions.  In fact, some versions of the theory would even not restrict the scope of rebirth into any other form (including inanimate body).

Two other pertinent comments in this connection are:

i). WHO PAYS FOR MY SINS?
Let me say that I have sinned and there is not enough time left in this life of mine to reap the consequences. Therefore, I have to suffer the effects in my next birth. As per the Karma Theory, the balance of my karma is carried by a subtler entity as 'vasanas' to be transferred to my next life. Let us call this subtler entity as “A”. “A” is not ramesam, the physical body who committed the crime. “A” has not died with the death of ramesam and is not destroyed when the dead body of ramesam is burnt. Hence A is not ramesam. “A” is different and independent of ramesam. That much is easy to agree.

Now to suffer the consequences, “A” has to transfer the balance sheet of 'vasanas' to some substratum. Let us say it landed on a beautiful table of a newly married couple who have, with all care and love, been keeping the table. The table reaps the consequences, gets deformed, despised, humiliatingly thrown away as pieces and destroyed. Now, “A’ is not the table. “A” does not get destroyed with the table as it was not destroyed with the physical ending of ramesam. Table is not that physical ramesam who committed the sins. But it paid for it. If the inanimate table looks odd, let us replace it with the embryo formed from the sperm and egg of the loving couple. Let us name it as “B” just to aid in our analysis. Now this “B” is not that ramesam. In fact, it has just as much relation to that ramesam as the table in our example had to ramesam. Once again, let us remember “A” is also different and independent of “B”. “A” is as removed from ramesam as from “B”. Then is it not as illogical for the physical body of “B” to pay for the sins of the physical body of ramesam as it was for the table? Why should the body of “B” go through the suffering of disease and destitution in this world for the wrongs of ramesam after his (ramesam’s) end? (Even if additional bodies of subtler levels like etheric, astral, mental etc. are invoked, the same logic holds good for the finer layers of “A” which may be likened to a “messenger particle” as physicists would have called).

Does this not mean that others pay the consequences of my sins, immoral, unsocial acts? Is this the real moral behind the Karma Theory -- some one or other suffers the consequences of wrong doings in a society, so better everyone behave well.

ii). DOES NATURE WASTE RESOURCES?

For the consequences of good and bad to be enjoyed or suffered in the next life, let us see how the natural resources get expended in order to do justice.

Just for simplifying the arithmetic involved, let us assume an average life of an individual to be 60 years. (We may estimate the numbers for any other assumed age, but what is important is the concept here). A third of human life, on an average, is spent in sleep. That means we have 40 years of active life. Again, out of these forty years, a person spends at least 20 years of life after birth in learning things - right from how to sit, crawl, stand, walk, read, write, develop language and thinking abilities (because language has a great influence in our thinking as established by recent research work), social skills, etc. etc. That means another 20 years of life is gone in learning before an individual becomes independent to act in this world. Until then, he/she is under the care of parents or some guardians who have a vicarious responsibility for his/her actions.

Thus forty years or two thirds of a new life is wasted in learning or relearning the same old skills, before a person gets independent eligibility to pay for the consequences of the good and bad done in a past life. Does Nature waste its resources in this way – providing just a 20 year span for paying the consequences and investing twice that period repeatedly in cycles of birth in order to make the individual ready to reap the consequences?

5.  THE SECOND ASSUMTION

The second infirmity of the one way cause – effect model of the Karma theory arises from the concept of time as a unidirectional arrow.  Special relativity a century ago demolished the classical view of absolute space and time. Time is no more considered independent of space -- as a separate, one-dimensional continuum, extending infinitely in either direction.  The latest developments in Physics throw further light on the fallibility of our concept of time.

6.   ARROW OF TIME AND PHYSICS

Huw Price of the University of Sydney re-examined the issue recently in the context of quantum mechanics. He concludes that the idea that the past is not influenced by the future is an anthropocentric illusion, a "projection of our own temporal asymmetry". The reason why the things we do in the present do not seem to have altered the past, according to his complex argument, is that the past has already taken account of what we are doing!

Direct cosmological observations are leading the astrophysicists to the high probability of the existence of other universes.  The string theory in eleven dimensions and the theory of multiple universes being talked of in physics require us to understand time in a new perspective.  In the words of Prof. Tegmark, (2003), “now you are in universe A, the one in which you are reading this sentence. Now you are in universe B, the one in which you are reading this other sentence….. All possible states exist at every instant, so the passage of time may be in the eye of the beholder”.  So all events have occurred all at once!  As expressed by the Physicist Deutsch decades ago, the many universes are a collection of moments.  “There is no such thing as ‘the flow of time’.  Each ‘moment’ is a universe of the manyverse.  Each moment exists forever; it does not flow from a previous moment to a following one.  Time does not flow because time is simply a collection of universes.  We exist in multiple versions, in universes called ‘moments’.”

Piero Scaruffi (2003) points out our fallacy on time illustratively thus.   “What would happen if the Sun all of a sudden slowed down? People all over the planet would still think that a day is a day. Their unit of measurement would be different. They would be measuring something else, without knowing it. What would happen today if a galactic wave made all clocks slow down? We would still think that ten seconds are ten seconds. But the "new" ten seconds would not be what ten seconds used to be. So clocks do not measure Time, they just measure themselves. We take a motion that is the same all over the planet and use that to define something that we never really found in nature: Time.”

7.  TIME IN MIND

From neurophysiologic angle too, time appears to be a mental construct, an evolutionary tactic developed by our neural system to relate events/spaces by invoking continuity.  Through millennia of years, we acquired several shortcuts to relate what is processed by the brain to our survival values in order to conserve our expending of energy (Ramesam, 2004).  Let us take the example of our vision and how we link together through the sense of our vision disconnected 3-D space.  As Ramachandran (2003) puts it, “the goal of vision is to do as little processing or computation as you need to do for the job on hand.”    He adds, “Vision evolved mainly to discover objects and to defeat camouflage. You do not realize this when you look around and you see clearly defined objects.  But imagine your primate ancestors scurrying up in the tree tops trying to detect a lion seen behind fluttering green leaves.  The brain says – ‘what’s the likelihood that all these different yellow fragments are exactly the same yellow simply by chance?  Zero.  They must all belong to one object, so let me link them together, glue them together.  And as soon as you glue them together, a signal gets sent to the limbic system, saying ‘Aha, there’s something object-like, Oh, my god, it’s a lion – let me out of here!’   So there’s an arousal and an attention which then titillates the limbic system, and you pay attention and you dodge the lion.  And such Ahas are created, I maintain, at every stage in the visual hierarchy as partial object-like entities are discovered that draw your interest and attention.” 

One could easily extend that such linkages get formed not merely in the 3-D space but in the 4-D space-time.  As expressed by Ramesam (2004), “we as humans can visualize only three dimensions.  Because of this inherent limitation, our mind provides an imaginary continuity to the events and thus helps us to see an extra dimension called TIME. If the mind does not interpose, there is no 'time' in the sense that we see it (as an arrow). When the mind is snubbed or stunned, as in an altered state of consciousness (say under anesthesia) or when the mind faces sudden life-threatening situations, it loses all sense of time.  Therefore, arrow of time is only a mental imaginary construct and not an independent variable.”

8.  CONCLUSION

Karma theory is quite popular in many eastern religions and gaining coinage with some of the new age gurus.  But it looks to be based more on the Newtonian concepts of action-reaction models and irreversibility of flow of time.  Both these assumptions appear to be based on shaky premises.  The work by behavior scientists, particularly Cziko (2000) applying Darwinian and Bernardian principles shows that living organism's output is not determined by environmental input as a one way cause – effect model.  Living systems are characterized by circular causality.  This means that perception and behavior reciprocally and simultaneously influence each other. The one way cause – effect view of karma theory negates the intelligence and purposefulness of human behavior either in the ‘here and now’ or in the long term evolutionary perspective.  “What is clear is that the currently accepted one-way cause-effect model, successful in explaining much of the workings of the inanimate world, cannot account for the purposeful, goal-directed behavior by which living organisms control important aspects of their environment.” 

The concepts from physics on multiverses, quantum theory and studies on the brain question the irreversible arrow of time as a dimension extending infinitely independent of space.  Unless some new concepts develop to the contrary, reestablishing Newtonian view of the absolute nature of time and space, it is difficult to explain the present as the result of some past.  In view of these findings, the validity of Karma theory needs to be re-examined. 

An interesting question that may be posed here is what is the ultimate purpose or goal of our behavior, if, as animate systems, our actions are governed by a “purpose”.  Biologists can hardly tell us the ultimate purpose or goal for evolution.  It is in this sense blind.  Our ancient Rishis, however, spelt out the purpose as liberation or salvation which is a ‘concept’ denied by thinkers like Mr. U.G. Krishnamurthy (Naronha and Moorty, 1990.)

Acknowledgements:  I am deeply indebted to many authors (and material available on the internet) from whose works I have quoted   extensively in the development of my thoughts   presented above

REFERENCES

• Cziko, G., (2000), The Things We Do, Bradford   Books, pp.302 
• James, William, (1890), The Principles of Psychology,   quoted in Cziko, G.
• Naronha, A.P.F. and Moorty, J.S.R.L.N., Editors, (1990), Thought is your Enemy, Sowmya Publishers, Bangalore, India (available online)
• Ramachandran, V.S., (2003), The Emerging Mind, Lecture:3 The Artful Brain, Reith lectures, BBC.
• Ramesam, V., (2004), Religion Demystified, e-Journal of Indology.net available at: www.indology.net/article33.html
• Scaruffi, P., (2003), Thinking about Thought, Writers Club press, pp.656.
• Tegmark, M., (2003), Parallel Universes, Scientific American Digital, May.
• Zukav, G., (1990), The Seat of the Soul, Free Press, pp.256.