 Hello, everyone. Today, we are going to talk about the theory of Karma. Now, we have started talking about Ethics as practiced in the Indian tradition, and today we talk about a very fundamental notion of this theory of Karma in the tradition of Indian Ethics. Now, many of us must have already heard of this theory of Karma or theory of Karma as said in an as variously said. Now, we perhaps may have an elementary idea of it. Now, let us look at it, what could be the motivations and what is this basically this theory of Karma? Well, as most of us would put in that well, theory of Karma is about, simply put, is that as you so, so shall you reap, that there is a moral equilibrium, that every action has a desert. Now, if you look at the screen, we would talk about this, that well, righteous actions are rewarded, wicked actions are punished, that there is no exception. Well, that is essentially the theory of Karma as commonly understood. Now, let us look at these, look at the motivations for this action. Now, many of us may believe that, every act sticks on to us and we need to, we get a result of these acts and many of us would believe that well, there is a predominant chance factor in the entire gamut of moral actions. Now, let us say, what could be the motivations of the evolution of this theory of Karma? Now, theory of Karma is followed in Jainism, Buddhism and in various schools of Indian philosophy. Now, let us say, let us say of all the children born on the day you are watching this video, that is today, will all of them have an equal opportunity or do all of them have equal access or will all of them be having equal access to facilities in their future or all of them born equal? Well, perhaps without too much of effort, we can answer that well, no, definitely not. Some would be advantage, some would be disadvantage, some will have a lot of advantage, some will have a lot of disadvantage and there will be a variation in the opportunities that each of the individual born on this day face. How do we rationalize this difference in the start line? Now, perhaps our intuitive idea of fairness is that well, the start line has to be the same and whoever performs better, deserves better. But, what if the start line is not the same? Now, entire gamut, our entire gamut of public policies, governmental intervention, philanthropy, social activities are towards getting this discrepancy in the start line adjusted. Now, theory of karma in this sense brings about, is a derivative of what in Indian philosophy is known as Ritta. Ritta or the theory of cosmic order that everything is regular, ordered and there is no chance factor or nothing spontaneous. Ritta is a fact, another fundamental claim of the Indian thinking tradition that there is a cosmic order that nothing is random, nothing is by chance. The key word that we would like to perhaps take here is random, nothing is random. So, well when we say that nothing is random, Ritta or cosmic order says that well whatever happens is a part of a grand design that the entire cosmic order is an order, not a accident, not a chaos, not a play of chance. Now, the theory of karma is a subset of this claim of Ritta or cosmic order that well whatever happens, happens at its cost and there is no random or uncaused events in the moral equilibrium. Now, coming to well let us say that well what does theory of karma do, theory of karma now is claiming that well this discrepancy that we have talked about in the starting line is well not a discrepancy at all. In fact, the discrepancy in the starting line is if analogically compared to that of a group of runners running a race. So, each lap the advantage that you get on you transfer it to the next runner and that is the starting line is not when you are born, but the starting line is way before that that where you are born is a consequence of your past actions. Now, what does this do, this might perhaps seem illogical or irrational to it, but then this is just a theoretical model and how does this model seem to be better because it attempts to justify differences that there is there are discrepancies and these discrepancies are not random, but then perhaps many of us would be see thing with the question that well what does this mean that we that these differences are that these discrepancies are that we do nothing about it. Well we will talk about this in detail, but let me give you an answer from what the karmic theory would say is that well the environment or the situation that we face is a result of our past actions, but what we do with it and what others do with it is where our free will is. So, human actions are not completely determined in that way if the theory of karma is giving an idea that things are determined no well things are not determined, but the trajectory incidents are perhaps influenced by what is your karmic desert and thereof you decide and thereof how you tackle them accumulates fresh desert or not, but that will be towards a later questions of karma. Now let us classify human actions now let us say human actions when taken from the perspective of desire. So, as classified there are Sakam and Nishkama karmas which would mean that well actions which are done out of desire or with desire and desire less. Now again classification of human actions from the point of the effect that it yields can again be made human actions the first classification that is made is Prarabdha and the second classification is Anarabdha. Anarabdha is further classified into Sanjita and Sanjyaman. So, what this basically means is well Prarabdha means that the results are already effectuating Anarabdha is not yet effectuating Sanjita is actions are being done effect due and Sanjyaman is well actions are being done. Let us say what is the point of these classifications now if you look at human actions from the point of desire when we talk about desire we talk about actions which are done with a result or with a goal perceived when we talk about Nishkama karma or we talk about desire less action is when an action is performed without the goal of the action in mind. Now if you look at the other classification of human actions they are that is effects. Now Prarabdha is when which we have we might have heard in common talk before strictly means that we these are actions which are which have been done and their effects are already in process that is they are effectuating. Anarabdha in contrast to Prarabdha is when the effects have not yet been have not yet begin to unfold that is it is not yet effectuating that can again be divided into Sanjita that is the actions that have been done but the effects are due and Sanjyaman where in the actions are being done. So these are basically classifications again to detail the theory of karma that how do we find that well actions yield itself. Now if we take a look at how this scheme of things is fitting into the way we lead our lives is that well every act that we do cannot be without a trace every act or every moral act that is done sticks to the agent. Now this is quite profound understanding because not only a that it perhaps makes one almost fearful of the result of immoral actions and expectant of the good results of moral actions. So theory of karma would in that sense bring about a moral order more out of the fear of punishment and the greed for reward. But is that all that is to theory of karma well definitely no there are these are deep metaphysical assumptions in Indian philosophy which are said to have shaped the way actions in societies take place. Now with these classifications of karmas that we see as we see on the projection plate right now Prarabdha is one action that is accumulated look at it like a bank account. Now Prarabdha is some money that you have already worked for saved and accumulated in your account and you are beginning to spend it whereas Anarabdha karma in that way is that well these are stored money which is not yet been spent but which will be spent. Sanchit is that you have just earned it and it has reached your account and Sanchayaman is that you are in the process of earning it. So well while you have the privilege or the freedom of spending the money as you wish to spend in the case of karma you do not have that privilege. Now there are some questions which do concern this theory of karma that let me briefly put forth the questions right now that well number one is what about free will. Now if everything is depends on your past actions then where is the scope of free will that where do we find that human actions can be free because if every effect that comes forth is from a prior cause where can we have the novelty in this gap between the cause and effect. That is an easy question to answer for a karma theorist but let me list down the questions first that well let us say what about free will and second let me talk about well what happens to the self realized. Now this is a question that we have frequently talked about that we might have heard that well the realized soul destroys once destroys their own karmic accumulate and goes ahead but now the law of karma would perhaps not have it so that well karma cannot be destroyed let us so is there a conflict between the claim in Indian philosophy that well law of karma that karma continues and on the other hand that karma can destroyed with knowledge we will talk about that too. If you look at the third question do all actions have a karmic effect well the fact that I am writing in red instead of blue does this have a karmic effect well again this is a simple question to tackle that is basically tackling the difference between moral actions and immoral actions. Now an interesting question that does the law of karma I abbreviated as L ok for short limit the autonomy of God. Now this is a very interesting question I would like to bring you forth that well many of us have conceived Indian philosophy as very much theistic with an intervention of God. Now is law of karma making this notion of God impersonal that is well what there have been many theistic bakti seers and proponents who have claimed that well what use was this God if this God cannot forgive cannot do favors to us. Now law of karma in that way does not entail us to favors from God well if you have done something you will get the result of that act no matter what no matter how much you how much a benevolent God would like you to like to forgive you or to reward you. So the discretionary powers so to say of any God like entity is taken away by law of karma. So does this limit so is this law of karma an alternative to God does it critique or limit the autonomy of God or does it can the both go together both being very significant portions of Indian foundational metaphysical thinking. Then we have what is the beginning of this karmic chain. Now if everything is caused by something prior where is the beginning and sixth and final question that perhaps many of us would be thinking is that well benevolence and compassion towards the suffering would be intervening in the law of karma what do I mean by this well I mean by this is that well let us say if theory of karma is claiming that well that there can be an intervention in this karmic desert that we get let us say if somebody is suffering and in fact does the law of karma lead to fatalism because that is the crucial question that well if somebody is suffering the karmic theory would say that well that the suffering is a desert or an result of the earlier actions. And now as a third party or as an observer if I intervene to restrict or to alleviate the suffering exhibiting compassion or benevolence am I interfering with the law of karma am I interfering or intervening in the play of the law of karma this gives me an interesting analogy that well wildlife photographers analogically speaking when they enter or when they are permitted to photograph or video record or document wildlife and say natural reserves or forests well one strong standing instruction with them left for them is that they will in at no point ever intervene in the functioning of nature. So, well if they see a hapless bird which has fallen down from its nest and a predator being nearby the photographer or the documenter has been denied to get put the bird back into the nest or prevented from being the food of the predator. Now this is an analogical example of benevolence or karma or anything that interferes with the notion of karma that well benevolent action in fact this is brought forward to a very potent was brought to light by a very potent debate taken place in our pre-independence era when Mahatma Gandhi declared that the earthquake in Bihar which caused a lot of suffering as being the result the karmic result of the practice of untouchability to which Rabindranath Tagore has very aggressively responded that well this is just a factually inaccurate justification that surely the point that Gandhi would want to say is not that we should not help those suffering but that the suffering is perhaps caused by the karmic influence of practicing false policies or practicing unfair policies. Now this is the debate this is the question that we come when we talk about the sixth question that benevolence and compassion as towards the suffering would be intervening in the law of karma.