Talk:Objections to the Doctrine of Karm and Responses:Karm and Fatalism
By Vishal Agarwal
Objection: Some people argue that the doctrine of Karm leads to fatalism. If our present is shaped by our past deeds, then why even bother fighting and overcoming our adversities and challenges? If I am poor due to my past Karm, then it was meant to be. It is all “Kismet” (Fate) and no one can change one’s fate.
Response: The Law of Karm does not endorse or encourage reliance on fate or fatalism. A modern teacher explains how our destiny is not unchangeable:
“Destiny is not fatalism. Destiny, according to Karm-yog, is not the predetermination that makes one lose faith in human endeavor. The Sanskrit word for destiny is Adṛṣṭa. Adṛṣṭa is that which was not previously seen or known. Events appear to be destined for certain persons because they are unable to remember their past. The inner disposition, or Svabhāva, of a person is therefore made up of the accumulated deposits of past thoughts and actions—the total result of all past evolution. The results of actions, or karmic deposits, are not destroyed with the death of the body. What has been sown must be reaped. But we can always change our destiny if we follow the path of Karm-yog.”[1]
“One question will naturally occur here: If everything is predetermined by the law of karm, then where is the scope for self-improvement through self-effort? In answer, the Bhagavad Gītā points out that the law of karm does not make everything pre-ordained…. Like all other natural laws operating in the physical universe, the law of karm operates on the psychophysical level. This law controls the body and mind of a person but has no hold over our indwelling Self, which is infinite, immortal, ever pure, and ever free. The cause of bondage is the identification of the Self with the psychophysical system. While the Self of a person is free, its expression becomes conditioned due to the limitations of body and mind.
'Karm-yog is the process of unchaining the Self from the thralldom of body and mind…”[2]
As a practical example, consider a person who falls sick. If the patient were to believe that falling sick was his fate and therefore should not undergo any treatment, his illness could deteriorate, and he might even lose his life. However, the texts of Āyurveda—while upholding the Law of Karm—argue that fate does not imply resignation or inaction. One must act in alignment with Dharm and seek remedies, while surrendering the outcome to the Divine.
A person should be treated medically as long as he breathes, because even a person who is about to die may yet live long (as a result of the treatment) if his fate is favorable. — Yogaratnākara 1.13
To conclude, although the philosophy of Karm is often blamed for encouraging fatalism, it is in fact opposed to the latter, as can be seen from the following comparison:[3]
| S.NO. | Fatalism charge on Doctrine of Karm | The Reality of the Doctrine of Karm |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Excuse for inertia and timidity | Incentive to better one’s condition |
| 2 | Weakens will and determination | Presupposes freewill |
| 3 | Message of despair and not of hope | Infuses hope and prompts right effort |
| 4 | Annihilates faith | Promotes faith in oneself and in Bhagavān |
| 5 | Infuses fear in the mind | Source of solace and comfort |
| 6 | Destroys ethics | Upholds ethics and justice |
| 7 | Checks growth and evolution | Gives chance to grow and evolve |
A modern philosopher concludes–
“…..in stark contrast to the alleged fatalism believed necessarily to infect the doctrine of karm, the very opposite proves to be true. Rather than leading to a fatalistic view of human existence, Dharm affirms that human persons in their empirical existence are free to act within certain limiting conditions. Humans are not completely free, of course, for among other things, there is our accumulated (saṃcita) karm to be faced. Merit and demerit (dharm and adharm) adhere to the self or are modes of the intellect mistakenly believed to belong to the puruṣa (in Sāṃkhya-Yog). But in the phenomenal world, in the face of the given environment and tendencies result from past actions, we can choose between various courses of action. We are disposed but not caused to act in any particular way. We can, for example, either follow our dispositions to perform acts similar to those which endowed us with our dispositions, or we can choose to act in a contrary fashion. That is, given the same set of causal conditions, we can choose various courses of action which will condition our future state…..”[4]
Story: Madhavadeva was walking towards a village with some other fellow disciples of Śaṅkaradeva (1449–1568 CE) when a buffalo charged towards them. While other disciples ran away to save their lives, Madhavadeva stayed put, saying, “If it is my fate to die, I will be killed. If it is not my fate to die, the buffalo will spare me.” Luckily, the buffalo walked away and did not kill him. When the Guru Śaṅkaradeva heard about Madhavadeva’s inaction, he chided him, saying, “Even a lamp with a sound wick and oil can be blown out if we do not protect it from the wind. If you are so callous towards your life, people will follow your wrong example and will live recklessly. Therefore, do not take your safety lightly and do not be a fatalist.” Kathā-Gurucarita.[5]
References[edit]
- ↑ Swami Adiswarananda. The Four Yogas. Skylight Paths Publishing, 2006, Woodstock, Vermont (USA). p. 14
- ↑ Ibid., p. 15
- ↑ Krishnaswami, O. R. Rāja Yog – Yog of Meditation. Dev Publishers and Distributors, 2016, New Delhi. p. 298
- ↑ Reichenbach, Bruce R. The Law of Karma – A Philosophical Study. University of Hawaii Press, 1990, Honolulu. p. 57
- ↑ Sarma, Satyendranath. "Sankaradeva and Assam Vaisnavism." In Medieval Bhakti Movements in India, edited by N. N. Bhattacharyya, Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers Pvt Ltd, 1989, New Delhi, pp. 241–270.