________________
Vindication of the Doctrine of Karma
After endless argument about God, it can be said, "for those who do not believe in God, no arguments are possible, and for those who believe in God, no arguments are necessary". The same thing may be said about the concept of Karma and no proof is possible or necessary for this theory. Nor can it be proven in a laboratory. However, it is a universally accepted postulate that is not required to be proven. It was the revealed word from the teachings of the enlightened ones with all the authority of their perfect knowledge, insight and experience.
Moreover, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The Karma concept provides a satisfactory explanation for otherwise inexplicable divergence in existence, as stated in the beginning of this chapter. The other explanations for the divergence are the extremely materialist theory of thinkers like Chärväk who considers the creation as a lifeless interplay of five elements. This is generally not acceptable. Alternatively, at the other end is the theory that a supernatural phenomenon, called God is responsible for the creation with all the diversity and aberrations. The institution of the supreme God though solving a number of problems creates many more and leaves a large number of unanswered questions like "who created the creator God" and "why should He put man to sin only to forgive him" and many more.
As stated earlier Karma theory steers clear of such problems and makes the being self-reliant and responsible for its deeds, at the same time enforcing an ethical behavior and highly moral conduct by willing common consent, which ultimately makes the world a better place to live. It provides a satisfactory key to the riddle of the creation and its complications and the key is in the hands of a real living being the soul, who is the central piece in the Karma scheme. Every living being is in control of his/her destiny. Karma theory stands the scrutiny of reasoning. It substantiates the laws of nature.
Note that Karma theory and the materiel nature of Karma has faced its share of criticism. It has been considered fatalistic, individualistic, and rather mechanical and too emphatic on punishment and retribution. Here it may be briefly stated, on the basis of earlier discussions, that the Karma theory is neither fatalistic nor individualistic, nor mechanical nor retributive. A deeper understanding of the subject will reveal that belief in Karma leads to voluntary healthy effort along with acceptance of the inevitable and inescapable results of Karma, which avoids unnecessary discontentment. There is a deep social commitment in auspicious or Shubha Karma as already noticed above. There being scope for alteration or transformation in the results of Karma there is no question of its being called mechanical but involves self-effort. Lastly, belief in Karma emphasizes not so much on punishment or retribution but on the continuous efforts for moral regeneration and uplift of the beings and these result in a better social order a utopia visualized by all philosophers and prophets alike.
194
JAIN PHILOSOPHY AND PRACTICE - 2
