________________
Law of Karma
seems to be held in the iron grip of an unavoidable destiny. Muslim concept of Kismet may here be introduced. It has been taken as only a logical and philosophical doctrine. But there is a great difference between the Hindu Law of Karma and the Islamic doctrine of Kismet. The Law of Karma proclaims that as our present destiny is the result of our past deeds, so our future destiny can be moulded by our present acts, will and determination. The Islamic doctrine of Kismet does not believe in the possibility of our prior existence. Our present destiny, according to it, is entirely moulded by a Supreme arbitrary authority. This supreme authority has been regarded as just, fair and divine. The incarnated ego has no choice or voice.
Rationale
We find in this life that we can shape and form our future. Today we fix the fate of tomorrow. Quite logically this reasoning can be pushed backward too. If our own deeds shape our own destiny in the future, why not apply the same rule to the past? "If in an infinite chain, a certain number of links are alternately repeated, then, if one of these groups of links be explained, we can explain the whole chain....! If it is true that everything must have a cause, it must also be true that what we are now, is the effect of the whole of our past. Just as miseries are the result of evil actions, so can we say that much of the existing miseries in the world are the effect of the past wickedness of man. Therefore, according to Swami Vivekananda, man alone is responsible for his own destiny. God must not be blamed.
Another thing, the explanation of inequalities of this world is one of the most reasonable points which should be considered. Suppose, a child is born with every circumstances of his becoming good and useful member of the human society. At the same time and in the same city, another child is born but he has circumstances which are against his becoming good. We always see such cases. Why is it so? What is the cause?
