31 The Law of Karma and Mokşa

T. Seshasayee

Introduction

Karma and mokşa are two very important concepts in the classical Indian ethics. In a way the entire classical Indian ethics is centred around these two concepts. Karma is action and every action has a moral agent. In fact, action, rebirth and liberation are interrelated. This is more so with action and rebirth. The accumulation of karma in the account of moral agent necessarily gives rise to rebirth. Karma is the principle which determines the future life of an individual. The quest for liberation (mokşa) is invariably linked up with the law of karma. Karma literally means ‘action’. But as a principle of interconnectedness of actions and events, it goes deep, ensuring that every action, physical, mental, or moral, good or bad, macroscopic or microscopic will have its effect. Nothing other than the effects of previous actions have determined the present state of affairs. Similarly, nothing other than the present actions will determine the future state of affairs. In so far as the law of karma is concerned even the divine will has no role to play in it. Everything is inexorably determined by the law of karma.

2. Law of Karma

It is stated in the Bŗhadāraņyaka Upanişad that by performing good actions one becomes good and by performing bad actions one is branded as bad. As a principle of moral determinism karma makes us realise that ‘what you sow, that you reap’. But karma cannot be reduced to fatalism. It is a principle of freedom, although it is conditioned by previous actions. Every human individual is free to act at present as to determine his or her future life. Perhaps it is in the history of classical Indian tradition we come across only two schools, namely, Ajīvakas and Cārvākas who interpreted karma in terms of fatalism. They envisaged that the entire life of human individuals is predetermined therefore there is nothing one could do or attempt to do in one’s life. But all other schools of thought rejected this conception and held that every moral agent has freedom to act by deliberate choice of action(s) and thoughts (knowledge) to influence one’s own course of life. 

Of course, one may find a paradox here. The paradox is that the law of karma vacillates between freedom and determinism. Freedom has no meaning unless the free actions performed by the individual have power to determine future events. If my regular exercise and diet intake do not have any determinate state of my health then there is no point talking about the freedom of one’s action. In Indian ethics there is no dispute in accepting the conditional existence of individuals in terms of circumstances, situations, and past actions. However, this condition is not complete in itself. The freedom of individuals in the form of choices may bring in new determining factors or conditions into situation. This clearly shows that there is an element of freedom of will to control over the conditions of existence.

Although we admit that our birth was conditioned by the law of karma there is every possibility for individuals to affect the course of action of the present life through freedom of will to transform the conditions of future birth in the next life. Excepting Ajivakas and Cārvākas, all others accepted that good conduct and right knowledge would be effective in transforming one’s condition from bondage to liberated state.

3. Kinds of Karma

In all there are three kinds of karma, according to Hindu ethics. They are: sançita, prārabdha and āgami. The karmas which got accumulated in the past lives and could not get exhausted accrue in the account of the moral agent who is responsible for those karmas. The accumulation of such karmas of the past are technically called sançita-karma. The karmas that are in operation in the present life are called prārabdha-karmas. The karmas that are going to be accumulated are called āgami-karmas or the karmas in store. An individual has to exhaust all these three forms of karmas to be a liberated person. The way to get liberated from these three forms of karma leading to mokşa is something very precious and the ultimate goal of human life.

4.  Mokşa as a Puruşārtha

We have stated that the Hindu social philosophy is developed on the firm foundation of the four-fold goals of humans – dharma, artha, kāma and mokşa. Though all the four are referred to as fundamental human goals, the secular values of artha and kāma are considered to be so for the reason that man is naturally prone to seek them, whereas dharma and mokşa are termed fundamental since anyone who is capable of reasoning out and philosophizing cannot but feel that his uniqueness consists in seeking these. Thus, the reason for referring to both the ‘sets of values’ as fundamental goals of human life is not the same. But, the ancient Hindu philosophers’ considering both the types of values fundamental points to their careful analysis of human nature and to their attempts at synthesizing the different types of values the human mind cherishes and aspires for.

It has already been shown how the aspirations of artha and kāma have been given their due importance in the Hindu scheme. While understanding these two as being born out of the acquisitive and the instinctive aspects of human nature, and while appreciating the fact that for an all-round development of human personality, indulgence in these is not to be prohibited, they do not concede that an unregulated indulgence in them is inevitable. Hence they have made it incumbent on the individual to orient his life towards the goal of mokşa through the regulating rod of dharma. Mokşa is the ultimate goal in life according to the Hindu philosophers. It is not simply the negation of life but a reorientation of man’s pursuit of values.

5. The Hindu Concept of Mokşa

The Hindu concept of mokşa is put forward as an ideal for it is a worthwhile goal to be realized in the life of every individual. The concept of mokşa by its very nature points to the cultivation of the tendencies of detachment from the worldly objects. If individuals exhibit a sense of detachment which, when properly cultivated, results in the ultimate human goal called liberation (mokşa). Since the concept of mokşa understood in this sense necessarily involves the attitude of withdrawing oneself from the worldly objects, many think that the Hindu ethics is pessimistic for it encourages world-negating tendency.

But one must note that the presence of other-worldly or world-negating tendency is not against any form of social philosophy. The sense of detachment as a negating principle only serves as a background of detachment from the immediate world of the senses which is necessary for any charitable deed or social welfare. As long as man is content with the immediate and is not concerned with what might be beyond his immediate perceptions and requirements, he may not be motivated by any other consideration than his self goal. This may itself be responsible for purely egoistic and self-regarding tendencies and activities. To get out of oneself, to become other regarding, is nothing but a kind of sense of detachment. This sense of detachment is possible only when we have a metaphysical world-view.

We can understand this fact by our analysis of human nature. No human being is completely individualistic or solely social. One finds a mixture of both these tendencies in human beings. The individual and the social elements are so inextricably woven together in the texture of human nature that the individual cannot escape from looking inward, keeping himself aloof from society, and analyzing himself, his own thoughts and feelings. At the same time, he cannot be so continuously or always because of the other elements in his nature which do make him outward-looking or socially inclined. Hindu social philosophy is no exception to this rule. We often find other-worldly tendencies, we do find ideals put forward solely for the individuals. With all this, there is a harmonious social ethics in Hindu thought.

However, the social and the subjective aspects of human nature cannot be separated completely. The subjective goals like mokşa are not without their social implications or some influence on society. On the whole, the concept of mokşa refers to this subjective aspect of human nature. The realization of this ideal by the individual is considered to be a consequence of his controlling the various elements in him. Though, as an ideal, it is pursued by the individual, as a personal value, once self-realisation takes place he cannot but be useful to the others. In this sense, the concept of mokşa connotes the concept of spiritual perfection. When the individual aims at perfecting himself spiritually, he has to shed off all his egoistic and selfish tendencies. When perfection is attained by the individual, he does not cease to work for the welfare of the others.

6. Mokşa as an Ultimate Goal

Hindu philosophy does not merely indulge in speculating over the problems of life, it also introduces us to the right way of living. It is in the concept of mokşa in which correlation between theory and practice finds its completeness. Thus it is set as the goal of all Hindu ethics. The aim of mokşa is not merely acquisition of knowledge or mere self-discipline but a certain amount of immediate experience resulting from both. It is this experience typified in Jīvanmukti or the resulting attitude of mind towards life and the world that should be understood when we speak of mokşa as the ideal or the ultimate goal of the Hindu.

This takes us on to a consideration of the concept from two different perspectives. They are the negative and the positive views concerning mokşa. The aim of both negative and the positive views is the cultivation of absolute and unqualified detachment from worldly objects. The other view aims at detachment from the mere particular and, in effect, to equal attachment to all. Though thus differing essentially, the influence of both the teachings alike is ascetic in nature, so far as their bearing upon the disciple himself is concerned. But, the manner in which that result is brought about is somewhat different as the view is monistic or dualistic.

The monistic conception whose typical representative was Śankara, believes that knowledge or jňāna alone is the means of attaining mokşa or release from the cycle of births and deaths. According to this school, the universal soul (Ātman) or Brahman and the individual soul or ātman are essentially one and the same but, due to ignorance we (“individual souls”) consider ourselves as separate from Brahman. The knowledge of the Brahman/Ātman identity will deliver us from bondage. It is due to the metaphysical error that we see variety where there is also the unity of Brahman. It is because each one of us regards himself as distinct from the others that we strive to guard and delimit ourselves from the others. In other words, all evil is traceable to the affirmation of the finite self (ahamkāra) and the consequent tendency to live not in harmony with the rest of the world but in opposition to it.

The instinct to live or strive to be which is what ahamkāra signifies, is a common feature of all animate existence and it need not be wholly suppressed, since it is an indirect manifestation of the individual’s desire for self-realization. It is hence to be properly channelized – channelized in such a way that the individual replaces merely the individual self by the wider self. This is the significance of the Advaitic concept of Aham Brahmasmi (“I am Brahman”) which represents the realization of the universal self in one’s own self as the highest ideal of life.

A man can attain liberation even during life and when he becomes liberated, he is known as jīvanmukta. A jīvanmukta experiences pain and pleasure but neither really matters to him. He does not necessarily give up all activity as is illustrated by the strenuous life which Śankara himself led, but it does not proceed from any selfish impulse or even a sense of obligation to others. The identity-feeling that the liberated man gets is described in the Gītā: “Who sees all beings in himself and himself in all beings – he will dislike none.”

Though there are differences between the monistic and the pluralistic systems, both agree in holding that ultimately the individual is to get rid of egoism is indicated by the insistence, on the part of the ‘devotees’, on voluntary self-surrender (to God), by the pluralistic systems. The scope of ‘activity’ is also greatly extended since surrendering oneself to God implies also the obligation (felt) towards all that is and not merely towards fellowmen. The dualistic and the pluralistic systems insist that this is accomplished by the bhaktimārga or the path of devotion to God.

Starting from the position that man is not non-different from God, these systems hold that by cultivating certain virtues, the individual can realize God. Śrī Rāmānuja, the typical representative of the bhakti cult, specifies certain qualities for one to deserve the name of devotee of God (bhakta): (1) discrimination (viveka) (2) freedom from desires (amuka) (3) practice (abhyāsa) (4) doing good to others (kriyā) (5) purity (kalyāna) consisting of truthfulness (satyam), straightforwardness (ārjaram), kindness (daya), non-violence (ahimsā), charity (dāna), (6)   cheerfulness (anavasadam) and (7) absence of excessive hilariousness (anydŗharşa). From this it is evident that bhakti is not sentimental attachment (merely) to God and that true bhakti transforms the entire outlook of the individual and makes him more ethical and moral.

Bhakthi is of the nature of supreme love of God. Supremacy of love consists of three things. First, it should be free from egoism and must be untainted by any base ulterior motive. Secondly, it should prevent any other worldly love (understood as narrow love of things of the world) in the mind of the devotee. Thirdly, there should be complete self-forgetfulness on the part of the lover. Paradoxically, the meaning of the Supreme love of God can best be understood by analyzing love in the realm of inter-personal situations in our ordinary lives.

The various types of bhaktas differ mainly in varying degrees of spiritual perfection attained by them and that the basic attitude of the devotee towards life and the world is analogous to that of the jīvanmukta. In its most intensive sense the term bhakti points also to human experience which is but a culmination of all spiritual practices. This transforms the attitude of the individual so much that the individual considers all as God’s creatures and hence as fellow-creatures; so he begins doing selfless service, in the spirit of worship of God.

Mokşa cannot be reached by bypassing or ignoring morality for the good life is indispensable and absolutely necessary for attaining spiritual perfection and that there is no jumping from an unregenerate life of impulses and instincts to mokşa.

7. Summary

As stated above karma and mokşa are diametrically opposed to each other. Where there is karma there is no mokşa. This does not mean the Hindu ethics suggests the individuals to shun all their actions as moral agents to attain mokşa. This is a misconception. Every individual as a moral agent has to perform one’s actions in this world of object for each individual has to fulfil his or her obligations towards the other. After performing one’s obligations towards others one can aspire for liberation (mokşa). Even to attain liberation one has to perform certain actions. The ways of liberation are the way of knowledge, the way of action, and the way of devotion. All these three paths are equally important at one level or the other.

Web links

• http://sociodynamics.org/archives/88
• http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-hindu-belief-system-darma-karma-and-moksha.html
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moksha

 Bibliography

• Balbir Singh, Balbir. Principles of Ethics, New Delhi: S.Nagin & Co, 1971.
• Gokhale, B.G. Indian Thought through the Ages, New Delhi: Asia Publishing House, 1961.
• Gopalan, S. Hindu Social Philosophy, New Delhi: Willey Eastern Ltd, 1979
• Sharma, I. C. Ethical Philosophies of India, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1965.