|
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.
|
