Karma Phala (Consequences of Actions)

December, 2020 by Subhash Chandra Jain

Most Indians, including Jains, have the misunderstanding that phalas (consequences) of karmas are governed by the karma doctrine. The belief in this statement is demonstrated in the following illustration, presented in talks I have given on karma. Two men stole diamonds, but only one of the two men was caught by the police. The man who was not caught by the police escaped with diamonds. He is enjoying the life of a free rich man. The other man, who was caught, was incarcerated. He is living the life of a poor prisoner. Both men performed the same action of theft, but the consequences of the action of theft were different for them. I asked the audience why there were different phalas for the same karmas. Every time I have asked this question, the audience gave the same answer, “The person who was not caught must have done puṇya (auspicious) karma in the past.” Most readers would agree with this answer, but I contend the answer is wrong.

There are two reasons to believe this answer is wrong. One reason is that the members of the audience do not realize that the word karma has two meanings. We perform karma, but we also attach karma. Though it is true that phalas of the latter type of karma are governed by the karma doctrine, not all phalas of the former type of karma, called action, are governed by the karma doctrine. I will elaborate later. Secondly, we must ask ourselves, “What type of consequences of actions is governed by the karma doctrine?” Had the audience known the answer to this question, they would not have given the wrong answer. The correct answer to this question, which can be found by the analysis below, leads to a new vision of the karma doctrine.

Universality of the Karma Doctrine

For the law of karma to be meaningful, it should be valid everywhere and at all times. The law of karma would become meaningless if it was applicable only at some places and not other places. For example, if it was assumed that the law of karma was applicable only in India and not in other countries, then a person could make the law of karma meaningless by performing desirable actions in India and undesirable actions in other countries. Similarly, the law of karma would become meaningless if it was not applicable at all times. For example, if it was assumed that the law of karma was applicable only on weekends and not on weekdays, then a person could make the law of karma meaningless by doing desirable actions on weekends and undesirable actions on weekdays. The law of karma, like the law of gravity, is a universal law that is always valid everywhere. Not only that, the law of karma should be valid for all living beings irrespective of their states (bhāva). In other words, the law of karma is a universal law that is valid everywhere (kṣetra), at all times (kāla), and for all living beings made of two substances (dravya) and their states.

Similar logic can be used to show that the laws that govern the relationship between actions and their consequences should be universal. The law-of-karma-governed consequences of an action, whether performed in India or in the US or somewhere else in the universe, should be identical. Likewise, the law-of-karma-governed consequences of an action that was performed in the past or is being performed now or will be performed in the future must be identical. Therefore, the consequences of an action that are governed by the law of karma should depend only on the action, not on factors other than the action such as dravya, kṣetra, kāla and bhava, dkkb in short.  This means that the consequences of an action that change with dkkb of the action are not governed by the karma doctrine.

Consequences of Actions

There are two types of consequences of actions: universal and non-universal. The universal consequences of actions depend only on the actions, not on dkkb. The non-universal consequences of actions depend not only on the actions, but also on other factors such as dkkb. The universal consequences of actions are delivered in the form of karma that attaches to the karmic body. These are termed invisible consequences, as we cannot observe them with our physical senses. The universal, invisible consequences of actions are governed by the universal karma doctrine. The non-universal consequences of actions are termed visible consequences, as we can observe most of them with our senses. The non-universal, visible consequences of actions are not governed by the karma doctrine. These are governed by either man-made laws or dkkb. Thus, we can formulate a universal rule for determining the law-of-karma-governed consequences of actions.

Those consequences that do not change with dkkb are the law-of-karma-governed consequences of an action.

The invisible consequences of actions that are in the form of attached karma are the law-of-karma-governed consequences of actions. Attached karma depends only on actions, not on dkkb. Every action has invisible consequences in the form of attached karma.

Visible consequences can be illustrated through the following examples. A man was caught committing a theft and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment. The activity of committing theft is his action, and the imprisonment is a consequence of his action of theft. Another man receives remuneration for performing a job. The activity of performing the job is his action, and the remuneration he received for the activity of doing the job is one of the consequences of his action. Both of these consequences, the imprisonment and the remuneration, vary from one country to another; they were different in the past from the present and will be different in the future; and they may be different for different living beings and their states. In other words, such consequences of actions, including becoming rich, change with dkkb and are, therefore, visible consequences of actions that are not governed by the karma doctrine. Such consequences are governed by man-made laws or dkkb, which are not universal. At the same time, every action has invisible consequences. The action of theft and the activity of performing the job also have invisible consequences in the form of attached karma, which are governed by the karma doctrine.

Now we have the answer to the question raised in the beginning: why did the two thieves have different consequences even though both committed the same action of theft? The thief who was not caught by the police became rich, while the other thief, who was caught by the police, was incarcerated. The consequences of the same action of theft were different because such consequences are not governed by the universal karma doctrine. The capture of one thief and the non-capture of the other thief by the police are controlled by circumstances, and the incarceration that is the consequence of the action of theft is governed by man-made laws. Neither man-made laws nor circumstances are based on the universal principle.

We pay attention to visible consequences of actions that affect our present life, but we do not pay any attention to invisible consequences of actions that affect our future lives.

About Author

udhir V. Shah

Subhash C. Jain
subhash-jain@uiowa.edu

Subhash C. Jain, Ph.D. in Mechanics and Hydraulics from University of Iowa, is currently Professor Emeritus at the same university, also holds a Ph.D. in Karma Doctrine from Dept. of Jainology, University of Madras. He has published two textbooks and written 150+ research papers and reports on Hydraulics & Karma Doctrine.

 

co- edited by Ajit Nisar

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pratap Bhatt
Pratap Bhatt
3 years ago

Very fine and minute observations and scriptural study will lead to such an eloquent explanation of Karma Doctrine! Thank you for that. I just want to share understanding I
have to check it.
The way I understand is that, if I realize myself as Pure Atman, which is not bound by “Dehadhyas” or don’t take mind-body as my identity, then, no Karma can bind or can be attached, right?! Thus, shouldn’t we try to work on Realization as Atman, more?
“My Karma” can be only if I take myself as the Doer of deeds that come out of body-mind which is conditioned by the prevailing Environment(sanskaras) I grew up in Kaal and Kshetra! All actions come out of preceding thoughts arising from these conditioning only leading me to act or not act, which is also acting!
The point is “my Karma” is ignorance of “Dehadhyas”, only which means that I have to identify myself as -body-mind based entity and what body-mind and knowledge of the mind does is my doings! So this is ignorance!
Upon Realization also body-mind will go thru whatever happens to them, but its not happening to me now! I have no birth-death and re-incarnation either, right?
Besides, with body-mind and thoughts I can only do karma but results are not due to my karma only. E G If I ask myself a question, “am I the only responsible person thru my karma that I am where I am today as successful”? So many people played the roles as
much as I have played my part, right? Thus, I see that one can act only but results are not due to one’s karma only!
Lastly, once the phalas of karma happens, I have no option but to accept it! Resistance to non-acceptance is the suffering! And Karma can lead one up to circumstances which can be perceived as adverse but not necessarily cause suffering!
Appreciate if more explanation can be shared here!

Hansa R Shah
Hansa R Shah
3 years ago

what is dkkb? what language word is this?
The article is nice and informative. after knowing the meaning of dkkb I have to read it again.

Pratap Bhatt
Pratap Bhatt
3 years ago

I have commented five days ago and yet I don’t see any response! I can see my comments below and yet it says 0 Comments! I wonder why so? Please help me!

Ash Shah
Ash Shah
3 years ago

I really liked this article. From the examples you provided, let’s say a person works, does a great job, but then is treated badly or never gets promoted or is fired… how does karma explain this – the circumstances or governance by the person were all positive.