Talk:Sharing and Transference of Karmaphala between Individuals/Groups:Individual and Group Karma

By Vishal Agarwal

New Agers and some other modern schools of philosophy teach that there is a group karma and even national karma because human beings often act in harmony with members of the group to which they belong. Therefore, these actions, performed as a group, also bear similar results for all the group members in tandem. For instance, an army battalion that slaughters innocent villagers will all be reborn and take the same air flight which crashes as retribution for the slaughter that they had caused. These ideas are neither mentioned nor presumed and are even rejected by the Dhārmic traditions. A more detailed discussion of this sharing of karma is discussed further below in the interfaith discussion on karma.

The concept of shared group karma is used to explain mass deaths in incidents like earthquakes and airplane crashes. It is proposed that the victims must have participated in crimes collectively in a prior life (e.g. as members of a cruel invading army) and therefore they reaped the fruit collectively. Conversely, if an individual is a member of a group that commits an atrocity against another group, all members of the former are guilty collectively and will reap the fruit of their group crime.

How valid is this notion of shared or group karma? Let us consider the following verse in the Manusmṛti that expresses the opinion (one among many opinions) that meat eating is evil:

He who authorizes the killing of an animal, he who butchers the animal into pieces, who slaughters the animal, who sells and purchases, cooks, serves and he who eats it – they are all murderers of the animal. Manusmṛti 5.51 (= Viṣṇu Dharma Sūtra 51.74)

Although all these people contribute to the slaughter of the animal for meat, it can be seen clearly that not everyone is equally responsible. Karmaphala is shaped by several factors like the exact role of the doer, his intent, knowledge, and faith. To this, we may add the degree of free will or agency. What if the slaughterer was forced to butcher the animal; or is compelled by financial need to take up this as his profession? And how can a server at a restaurant be equally responsible for the slaughter of the animal as the butcher?

In other words, when a group of people come together to accomplish a unified goal or they commit a common crime, their respective responsibility depends on several factors and therefore their fruit will also be different from each other. Just like different members of a gang of criminals are not necessarily awarded the same punishment by a competent judge who looks at the exact role played by each member of the gang, so also it is not appropriate to postulate the existence of group karma leading to equal fruit for everyone in that group.