Karma: The Law of Retribution
There is an eye of justice that sees everything. Menander
We have all heard expressions such as: "Everything here is paid for", "But what karma do I pay for anyway", "one has to go to learn" and the like. Whether we believe in karma or not, it is important to understand what it means anyway. Karma is a Sanskrit word meaning "action" and consequently the results and consequences of human action. In this last sense it implies the law of retribution, or the law of cause and effect. What is this law? In simple words it means that whatever a person makes, it brings about a good or bad reaction to himself immediately or in the long run, depending on the nature of his action. This law generally governs the lives of all people and perhaps all beings.
The ancient Indians believed that there was a secular law according to which punishments or rewards are given to each person according to his actions. They saw that then - as now - under the laws of human justice some crimes were not punished either intentionally or because they remained undisclosed, and that the good deeds of certain good people were not rewarded. So, they considered that there is a general and "divine" law which impartially rewarded and punished and named it: Law of Karma. This law is inextricably linked to the theory of reincarnation and the afterlife.
Another difference between the law of karma and human justice is that the law of men rewards or punishes - when it does - within a reasonable time frame and certainly during the life of that person. But the law of karma does not bring about the reciprocity of deeds only during the life of the individual, but sometimes in the next life. And this is because the Indians believe, like many other peoples - ancient Greeks, Egyptians, Persians, etc. - in reincarnation, that is, that man is born, lives and dies and then returns to a new incarnation and that this happens many times. Based on this philosophy, the law of karma can possibly be enforced in the next life, or even after several lives.
From the above it logically follows that due to good or bad deeds in past lives man has already created karma. This is the past karma, the sancita karma, that is, the karma that has been accumulated. A part of this accumulated karma is paid off especially in his current life. This is the parabda karma, that is, the karma which will burden his present life. Finally, there is the agami karma, that is, whatever he creates in his present life with his actions and which he will be forced to face in the future.
People find it difficult to understand the impartiality of such a law, especially when one is called upon in this life to pay off one's karmic debt. Here is a small example to understand the cause of this difficulty. Suppose at a young age you hear that an adult person has committed a crime, e.g. a murder. Being at a tender age and not knowing well the whole functioning of society, you easily decide that this criminal must be punished and even severely. When you grow up and become, say, 70 years old, it may happen that the criminal person died a long time ago and is now reborn as a child. Now by coincidence you hear that in a game played with other children that child - the former killer - fell, hit and became paralyzed. You will probably be sad and wonder why the poor child suffered this evil and you may think that God, if he exists, should not have allowed such events.
Of course, this does not mean that when someone is harmed by a fellow human being, we should say that "he suffered justly, because who knows what karma he had". Such a thing is wrong, the act of the one who harms him is unjust regardless of the karma that caused it, because it itself causes new karma. We will clarify this with an example. Suppose A robs B's neighbor during his lifetime. Does karma work so simply by expecting B to rob in the next incarnation or to do something similar to A? It is not that simple. B may have simply forgiven A and as a result done nothing to harm him. So A to get rid of his guilt that haunts him in the subconscious, he just happens to lose his wallet! Here, although the karma is repaid, B does not harm A and thus no new karma is created.
Karma and the afterlife
Although karma is the bearer of a divine justice, some people, considering that there are some cruel judges and punishers who severely punish every crime, do not agree with such an administration of justice, because according to human laws, some documents are often taken into account or at least the guilty can be punished more lightly, they wonder why shouldn't those real or imaginary judges also show understanding and mercy? In fact, the opposite is true. Of course, according to the theory, there are such judges - karma archivists - but they always intervene by reducing the sentences and even intervene in three ways that we will present below.
We have all heard or seen in pictures the posthumous crisis according to ancient Egyptian tradition. Initially the spirit of the dead is led before the gods of Hades who show him all his deeds, good and bad, which have been recorded in some tablets of life, also known as "Akashic records". So they show them to him to realize the evil he did and to be wise. This is the first way they help him.
He is then led by Anubis to the "crisis room". There the heart of the deceased is placed on a scale and weighed. The ostrich wing is placed on the other tray of the scale. If the heart is heavier, then the deceased should be severely punished. However, Hermes, who is present in the courtroom, intervenes in favor of the guilty and asks for a reduction of the sentence, which is accepted by Osiris, who is the Judge. This is the second way in which the judges intervene.
This image is of course symbolic. Psychologically, the person who has committed a crime, e.g. in a fit of anger, he feels remorse. As long as he lives, the regrets may not be so intense, because he invents various excuses for his action and having, like everyone, many different daily tasks, does not focus much on the fact. But after death all this stops and he discovers that his regrets are now an open wound. He does not feel well at all and wishes there was a way to get rid of them. So he gives an vow, as we would say, when he comes back to life to pay this debt. If this person happens to be sensitive, he will be determined to pay dearly for it. In this case, the judges can intervene and persuade him to accept a milder way of repaying the debt, because his incarnation will be wasted and he will not be given the opportunity to learn some lessons in his life and improve his character. As a result, the person who once had murdered may hit him in the present life with the car and simply injure him. So the judges intervene always reducing the penalty and this is the third way of intervention of the judges.
According to the theory of the followers of Zoroaster in Hades there are many areas and one of them, the upper one, is the Elysian Fields, or Islands of Blessed. It was not up to the judges to decide whether or not the deceased would go to that place; just to get to this blissful area he had to cross a dangerous bridge. There some dark spirits lingered, personifications of his guilt and remorse and did everything they could to throw him off the bridge. Most of the time they succeeded and as a result it fell to lower areas. At best he remained on the bridge until his next incarnation on Earth.
The ancient Greeks saw the law of retribution somewhat differently. They gave the term "αντιπεπονθός", which means compensation, that is, restoration of balance that had been affected by a very bad act. As a result of the act there was the so-called "άγος" or miasma. The harmony of the universe had been disturbed and something had to be done to restore the balance. This included punishing the guilty. On the other hand, they believed that whatever thw humans did right would be rewarded. Thus Euripides writes "When I act justly, I will be justly rewarded."
The liberation from karma.
In the opinion of most philosophers it is not possible to escape from karma. But some believe that this can be achieved either by appeasing the judges - whoever they are - or by accepting to suffer the "equal", that is, what they call "eye for an eye". Those who are more inclined and have understood this law of karma claim that there is a better solution. What they suggest is a change of attitude, which takes place in three stages.
The first stage is the repentance. Although the man does not remember committing any crimes or offences in his past lives, he logically concludes that in so many previous lives he certainly did. He regrets for this and would like to find a way to repay the persons he has hurt.
The second stage is the decision not to harm anyone from now on. It follows the principle of harmlessness not only towards humans but also towards animals.
The third stage is the selection of his friends and company. He turns to people who are prudent or similar to him or maybe even better and - if he is lucky - can find a real teacher or guru who can help him. Such a teacher has walked the path before him and can be supported in various ways. It is like one who climbs a mountain and can find a good man who will willingly take some of his load and walk with him.
The fourth stage is a profound change within him. He decides to give up evil, injustice, and egocentricity for good and is even more ready to chart a new course in his life. He wants to do good and to serve his fellow human beings and offer whatever he can for the good of humanity in general. He feels like Hercules who once found himself at a crossroads and had to choose between the path of virtue and the path of evil.
A path to complete freedom
There are many who argue that getting rid of karma is just what is called atonement. That is, one must be atoned for the evil he did. They suggest for this purpose the prayer, meditation and performing good deeds of all kinds. Of course these are good and help. But it seems that these people do not have a deep understanding of the meaning of karma and identify it with harmful acts. They find it difficult to understand that good and evil are two sides of the same coin, and that the ordinary is the one who now does good in another case, being carried away by some other impulses doing something bad. Even the bad can in one case do good. Both good and bad deeds are committed in a closed system that we macro-cosmically call the external world and microcosmically subjective world. Doing good deeds inevitably leads us - as well as bad deeds - to a new incarnation and a new life for both us and those we helped to be rewarded and offered by others.
Here it seems that we are reaching a logical impasse. But it is not so. The commission of good or bad deeds becomes a cause for forced reincarnation because they are "recorded" by both the one who does them and the one who may suffer them. When the one who makes them does not record them but following the popular saying "cast your bread upon the water", forgets them, it is as if these acts do not exist and are characterized as neutral. Since they are not recorded and impressed by the ego that usually awaits the reward or fears punishment, these acts are not a cause for future rebirth.
At a more advanced stage he does not notice them at all because he makes them spontaneously. Others may say that he does good deeds, but he simply acts according to his nature and there is no purpose in these. It is as if the acts are not done by the ego, which is driven and carried by emotions and backwardness. He is like that as a human being and that's how he behaves. He does not expect any reward for whatever he does. This action follows a divine, as we would say, moral law which the Indians call Dharma. Since this action is not done by good or bad impulses, he can not find "some ego" to which he can attribute them and thus as a consequence recognizes himself as a selfless entity. There are many names for this entity, such as soul, divine nature, Christian consciousness, enlightened mind, complete emptiness, etc. In such a situation he is often overwhelmed by altruistic love, kindness, harmony, humility, peace, clarity of mind and bliss. In such a state of mind revelations can be made about the mysteries of the world and the true Self.
So this man experiences true freedom, because his bonds were the impulses that pushed the ego and set the mind in constant motion. Is it possible for such a person to be reincarnated, since there is no reason for it? Of course he can come to a new birth because he is free now, and he does not come out of necessity, but because he chooses it. He comes because he is full of love and knowledge to do good to people and usually does a work that is a great offer to all mankind.