Talk:Interfaith Perspectives.
By Vishal Agarwal
Our understanding of Karm in Hindu Dharm differs from that of New Agers, Christians, Muslims, and Jews. The Abrahamic philosophy of Karm is rudimentary compared to the Dharmic formulations. For this reason, the word Karm has become a commonly used term in the English lexicon.
Within the Dharmic family, the Buddhists and Jains have very sophisticated theories of Karm—but they ignore or deny the role of the Divine in the operation of the Law of Karm.[1]
A discussion of these non-Dharmic theories of Karm is beyond the scope of the present compilation. In short, Dharmic traditions that do not accept a Divine Role in administering the Law of Karm tend to list and classify Karm and their effects very elaborately, so that the connection of any deed with its single fruit is a mechanical or automatic process that does not require any external oversight—such as that of a Bhagavān.
References[edit]
- ↑ Even within the Hindu tradition, the Sāṃkhya Darśana denies the role of a Divine Being in implementing the Law of Karm. The Yog Darśana is silent on it. Later versions of the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Darśana postulate an entity named ‘Apūrva’ generated by Karm. This Apūrva ensures that the performer of Vedic ceremonies or other Karm receives the fruit of his actions in the next life. This concept of Apūrva is absent in the Pūrva Mīmāṃsā Sūtra of Ṛṣi Jaimini but is introduced by the commentator Śabara. The Vedānta, Nyāya, and Vaiśeṣika Darśanas emphasize that the Bhagavān is responsible for ensuring that the Law of Karm operates as intended and that everyone reaps the fruit of his respective deeds.